Monthly Archives: October 2009

Il Manifesto: Township in ebollizione, l’Anc assediato a sinistra

Leave a reply

http://www.ilmanifesto.it/il-manifesto/argomenti/numero/20091022/pagina/09/pezzo/262864/

di Stefano Liberti

Township in ebollizione, l’Anc assediato a sinistra

Rivolte nelle baraccopoli, il partito di Mandela in difficoltà
La tensione sale nelle township sudafricane. Sale sempre di più, man mano che si avvicina la data fatidica, quel 2010 in cui i riflettori del mondo saranno puntati sul paese arcobaleno che ospiterà i primi mondiali di calcio in terra africana. All’ombra dei grandi lavori di restyling delle città, si susseguono ormai con cadenza quotidiana manifestazioni in cui gli abitanti delle bidonville chiedono migliori condizioni di vita, o semplicemente l’accesso ai servizi di base, come acqua ed elettricità.

L’ultimo scoppio di violenza è avvenuto a Sakhile, una township di Standerton, a est di Johannesburg, dove uomini e donne infuriati hanno dato fuoco a pneumatici e distrutto alcuni edifici governativi, intonando sempre gli stessi slogan: «Zuma, agisci. Elimina la corruzione».

Eletto anche grazie alla promessa di essere più vicino alla gente, il presidente Jacob Zuma si trova ora stretto tra l’incudine dei movimenti sociali che lo hanno appoggiato e vogliono finalmente veder soddisfatte le proprie rivendicazioni e il martello della crisi economica, che ha visto il Sudafrica piombare in recessione per la prima volta dalla fine dell’apartheid. I suoi primi cinque mesi di governo sono quindi stati un continuo di scioperi e manifestazioni, non solo degli abitanti delle township ma anche di vari settori professionali. In quest’ultimo frangente, comunque, Zuma ha deciso di rispondere con un gesto eclatante: dopo aver convocato 280 sindaci nella gigantesca e famigerata township di Khayelitsha, a Cape Town, li ha esortati a combattere la corruzione, perché il loro governo «è inefficiente».

Al di là degli annunci a effetto, la tensione rimane comunque alta tra i movimenti sociali che si battono per il diritto alla casa e il governo sudafricano. Molte di queste associazioni – come l’Anti-Eviction Campaign, l’Abahlali baseMjondolo o l’Anti-privatization Forum – sono sotto attacco, come hanno dimostrato i recenti fatti di Kennedy Road, una township di Durban. Nella notte tra il 26 e il 27 settembre, un gruppo di circa 40 uomini armati ha preso d’assalto l’insediamento, quartier generale dell’Abahlali baseMjondolo, un movimento nato nel 2005 per i diritto alla casa, il cui nome in lingua zulu vuol dire letteralmente «quelli che vivono nelle baracche». Nell’attacco, che ha portato alla distruzione di diversi shacks – le baracche di legno con tetti di lamiera in cui vivono milioni di sudafricani – sono morte almeno tre persone. La polizia, che non è intervenuta sul momento, ha nei giorni successivi arrestato 13 militanti del movimento. Un paio di giorni dopo, il consigliere locale dell’Anc Yacoob Baig si è recato sul posto e non ha condannato le violenze. Anzi, riferendosi al movimento Abahlali, ha detto che «un elemento criminale è stato rimosso». Pian piano si è capito che l’operazione è di fatto stata condotta da uomini vicini o pilotati dall’Anc, irritato dall’eccessivo attivismo dell’associazione Abahlali baseMjondolo. Da diversi giorni, il presidente e il vice-presidente di Abahlali vivono nascosti.

«Quello che sta succedendo ai rappresentanti di Abahlali è qualcosa di gravissimo. È un avvertimento ai poveri a non organizzarsi a non essere critici o rivendicativi», scrive sul newsletter on-line Pambazuka.org Stuart Wilson, un avvocato che ha rappresentato in tribunale alcuni membri di Abalhali. Il punto è proprio questo: questi movimenti, molto presenti nelle township, danno fastidio perché rivendicano diritti e si rivolgono spesso alla giustizia. Solo venerdì scorso, la Corte Costituzionale ha invalidato lo Slum Act del KwaZuluNatal, lo stato di Durban, che consentiva un rapido sgombero degli insediamenti illegali. Una sentenza storica, che farà giurisprudenza in tutto il paese e che rappresenterà un’altra spina del fianco ai modernizzatori dell’Anc. Indovinate chi aveva fatto ricorso alla Corte costituzionale? I membri dell’Abhalali baseMjondolo.

Cape Argus: ‘Delivery protests are our right

Leave a reply

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3102&art_id=vn20091021131758824C650686

‘Delivery protests are our right’

October 21 2009 at 02:58PM

By Ella Smook
Metro Writer

Groups representing impoverished Cape Town communities have lashed out at President Jacob Zuma’s warning that the government will not tolerate violent service delivery protests, and the accompanying destruction of property.

Representatives of the Joe Slovo task team, the Landless People’s Movement and Abahlali baseMjondolo defended these protests, saying they were the only way to get the government to pay attention.

“So-called democratic grievance routes,” failed to get answers, they said.

Zuma’s comments came yesterday during his address to most of South Africa’s 283 mayors and all its premiers. He told them there was “no cause in a democratic and free society, however legitimate, that justifies the wanton destruction of property and violence” that had been witnessed in the country.

“South Africa has a proud history of protest against wrong-doing and injustice,” Zuma said.

“There is no institution or individual that our people cannot stand up to and challenge if they think an injustice has been committed.”

But the three organisations, which form part of the national Poor People’s Alliance, said Zuma’s words were nothing new.

“We are not surprised by what he is saying. We have heard these statements in the past that government will not tolerate these protests,” said Mzwanele Zulu of the Joe Slovo task team.

He accused the ANC government of forever “duplicating and assimilating” practices of the apartheid government.

“What is happening is our leaders are turning against us when they are in power. We are becoming foreigners in our land of birth,” he said.

Zulu argued that burning tyres as a sign of dissatisfaction was not a violent means of expression, and said the only reason it was done was in an attempt to engage government authorities, something which did not happen when they tried the legitimate channels.

Maureen Mnisi of the Landless People’s Movement, said government departments had done “a lot of ignoring”.

“People submit memoranda over a lack of service delivery, but there is no reply. People don’t deliver,” she said.

“To demonstrate on the street is part of the process. The government has to recognise that. If they can’t tolerate (such) actions, they have to provide services,” Mnisi said.

Mzonke Poni of Abahlali said that if South Africa were a democracy, “then democracy was supposed to have been able to improve these appalling conditions people are living under”.

He said the inability to access essential services was also a form of violence.

“It is reactionary of him (Zuma) to say this. The ANC government has failed to deliver services to the poorest of the poor, and they have tried in the past to shift the blame for service delivery failures.”

Poni said people viewed taking to the streets as legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression.

Meanwhile, Minister in the Presidency Collins Chabane said yesterday that the face of local government was set to change, in an effort to improve service delivery at municipal level.

He said there was a need for reform in the local government regulatory framework, and that the relationships between the spheres of government needed to be optimised to speed up delivery and ensure efficiency.

Chabane, speaking after Zuma’s indaba yesterday, said several processes aimed at local government reform would start from today.

Abahlali. Scrivete una e-mail di protesta all’ambasciata sudafricana

Leave a reply

http://www.carta.org/campagne/dal+mondo/africa/18620

Abahlali. Scrivete una e-mail di protesta all’ambasciata sudafricana
Filippo Mondini
[22 Ottobre 2009]

Pubblichiamo la lettera con la quale Filippo Mondini, missionario comboniano a Castel Volturno ma che ha vissuto molti anni in Sudafrica, chiede di sostenere il movimento delle persone che vivono nelle baraccopoli Abahlali scrivendo una email di protesta all’ambasciata sudafricana.

«Cari amici e care amiche, come sapete stiamo seguendo le vicende del movimento Abahlali baseMjondolo di Durban, che ha subito qualche settimana fa una violenta repressione, nella quale tre persone sono morte e migliaia di persone hanno dovuto abbandonare le loro case e vivono ora da rifugiati nella loro stessa città. I leader del movimento sono stati minacciati di morte, e sembra evidente che alcuni membri locali dell’African National Congress [Anc] abbiano un ruolo in quanto è accaduto. Potete trovare altre informazioni su www.abahlali.org e nel sito di Carta [i link sono nella colonna di destra].
Il movimento sta raccogliendo la solidarietà di moltissime associazioni, gruppi, movimenti, chiese, accademici e comuni cittadini in tutto il mondo.
Visto che le autorità sudafricane sono molto interessate all’immagine internazionale del Paese in vista del mondiali di calcio 2010, pensiamo che sia importante scrivere anche dall’Italia per far sentire la nostra contrarietà per ciò che accaduto e per chiedere che le autorita’ e l’Anc si impegnino per garantire democrazia e pluralismo nelle baraccopoli.
Vi alleghiamo una lettera da inviare via email all’ambasciata sudafricana a Roma. Speriamo che di fronte a molte mail di cittadini italiani, le autorità sudafricane sentano un po’ di «fiato sul collo» e vedano che «il mondo sta guardandando».
E’ questione di un minuto: copiate il testo, firmaltelo inviatelo a sae@sudafrica.it e rome.political@foreign.gov.za
Scriveteci, per cortesia, anche a abmsolidarity@gmail.com così possiamo tenere conto di quante mail vengono inviate.
Non e’ un’iniziativa inutile: facciamo capire al Sudafrica che il mondo sta guardando.
Noi, e anche Abahlali, vi ringraziamo.

Francesco Gastaldon
Filippo Mondini

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Sua Eccellenza Ambasciatrice Mtintso,
Sto seguendo con preoccupazione le notizie che sono riportate sui giornali sudafricani e che mi giungono da amici che si trovano in Sudafrica.
Mi riferisco alle violenze che sono avvenute a più riprese nell’insediamento informale di Kennedy Road a Durban a partire dalla notte del 26 settembre 2009.
Dai resoconti dei giornali è evidente che le violenze sono state dirette verso membri e simpatizzanti del movimento Abahlali baseMjondolo attivo nell’insediamento (nel quale sorgeva anche l’ufficio del movimento). Oltre a tre morti accertati, il presidente e il vicepresidente di Abahlali baseMjondolo vivono nascosti dopo aver ricevuto minacce di morte, le abitazioni di molti membri del movimento sono state distrutte e circa un migliaio di persone sono state costrette a lasciare l’insediamento e ora vivono come rifugiati nella loro stessa città.
L’attacco è stato perpetrato da una folla di circa quaranta persone armate, ma nessuno nei componenti di questa “milizia” è stato arrestato. Invece, le uniche persone che sono detenute sono proprio membri del movimento Abahlali baseMjondolo, è cioè il gruppo vittima dell’attacco.
Più di tutto, mi preoccupa il ruolo ambiguo della polizia locale e dei dirigenti locali dell’African National Congress (Anc). Questi hanno dichiarato alla stampa che l’insediamento di Kennedy Road è stato “liberato” da Abahlali baseMjondolo e sono apparse cronache che raccontano di riunioni dell’ANC a Kennedy Road nei giorni dopo l’attacco. Non è un mistero che l’ANC non veda di buon occhio Abahlali baseMjondolo: il partito e le autorità locali (come il consigliere locale Yakoob Baig) hanno forse un ruolo in quanto è accaduto?
Come amico del popolo sudafricano, non posso accettare che a Durban avvengano episodi di violenza politicamente motivata. Questo non è degno della storia del Sudafrica e non getta buona luce sul Paese che dovrà ospitare i mondiali di calcio 2010.
Mi unisco alle richieste di Abahlali baseMjondolo, dei leader religiosi sudafricani, di associazioni, ONG, accademici e semplici cittadini di tutto il mondo, e per Suo tramite chiedo alle autorità sudafricane che:
– venga aperta un’indagine seria e imparziale sulle violenze e sull’operato della polizia locale;
– l’ANC si impegni a garantire il pluralismo politico negli insediamenti e condanni le violenze a danno di Abahlali baseMjondolo;
– le persone che hanno perso la casa e i loro averi vengano sostenute dallo Stato, e che sia fornita loro al più presto una sistemazione alternativa;
– che venga restaurata la democrazia e il diritto di organizzarsi a Kennedy Road e in tutto gli insediamenti informali di Durban.
Certo che vorrà dare alla mia comunicazione il peso che merita, porgo distinti saluti.

Pambazuka: Bring SA’s security apparatus under civilian control

Leave a reply

Bring SA’s security apparatus under civilian control
William Gumede
2009-10-22, Issue 454

http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/59686

As is now becoming increasingly clear from the many court trials, towards the end of the presidential term of Thabo Mbeki, elements of the security apparatus increasingly started to behave like their apartheid predecessors in their muzzling of rivals and legitimate criticisms of the state, and in the abuse of power for personal and factional interests.

The leadership succession battle of the ANC, ahead of the party’s December 2007 Polokwane national conference, saw rival factions inside the ANC often using state security agencies, the police and intelligence services, to try to eliminate each other. At the height of the tussle, a state of paranoia reigned, where smear campaigns, deliberately planting stories and entrapment – such as the attempt by rogue intelligence agents to plant drugs on a Mail & Guardian journalist – were used as a devastating weapon to discredit opponents.

High on President Jacob Zuma’s priority list must be to put a stop to senior ANC or government leaders abusing the security apparatus of the state for personal and factional interests. The president must make sure that allies, now in control of the ANC and government, do not use the state security apparatus for revenge attacks, or abuse it to trip up opponents, so frequently done by some allies of Mbeki. For starters, the idea of setting up a department of state security is not only a waste of scarce resources, but is simply out of place, in the kind of caring democracy we want to create in South Africa.

For another, the new muscular shoot-to-kill policy and ask questions later of the police is undemocratic. Furthermore, the proposals to militarise the police service, complete with military ranks such as general, are also completely wrong. Increasing suggestions of sending intelligence officials to probe social delivery protests is dangerous. The security of the state is not threatened by poor people protesting, critical civil society groups or activists or journalists. Continuing poverty, combined with lack of service delivery, mismanagement, public corruption and the unfairness of leaders and their family and friends living in the lap of luxury, subsidised by taxpayers’ money and then having the arrogance to tell the poor to be patient, and that there is no money for redistribution, is an explosive mix.

The fallout from the ANC’s succession battles has left dangerous divisions in the entire state security apparatus, which is in itself a threat to the stability of the country. There are likely to be intelligence and police operatives from both the apartheid era, and the democratic dispensation, who are walking around selling incriminating information to the highest bidders, potentially to be used again to knee-cap opponents, secure a government tender or seal a business deal.

We must very quickly bring the security apparatus – police, intelligence and army – under civilian control. The first step must be to depoliticise the state security apparatus. It is also simply unacceptable that senior figures in the state security apparatus have such extensive business interests. To simply declare it, and stay in office, is just not on. The watchdogs, ombuds offices and regulatory institutions set up to guard over the state security apparatus, must not only be on high alert for abuses; they must act resolutely to stamp it out. Civil society, the media and ordinary South Africans must be vigilant. Our democratic state is supposed to be a caring one; not one that terrorises ordinary citizens, or uses the state for personal and factional gain.

* This article first appeared in The Sowetan.

SACSIS: Constitutional Water Rights Judgment Gets It Wrong

Leave a reply

Constitutional Water Rights Judgment Gets It Wrong

Date posted: 21 October 2009
View this article online here: http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/373.1

On 08 October 2009, the Constitutional Court handed down its first water rights judgment. The case – Mazibuko & Others v City of Johannesburg & Others – was brought by five impoverished residents in Phiri, Soweto, on behalf of themselves, all similarly-situated residents and everyone in the public interest. The applicants challenged the City’s free basic water policy for being insufficient to meet the basic needs of large, poor, multi-dwelling households. They also challenged the lawfulness of prepayment water meters, which had been installed against their will and result in automatic cut-off of the water supply following the exhaustion of the free basic water supply unless additional water credit is purchased.

Unfortunately, instead of taking the opportunity to develop the jurisprudence on the nature of the state’s obligations in relation to the right of access to sufficient water, the judgment dismissed the applicants’ argument that the free basic water supply of 6 kilolitres per household per month was insufficient to meet their basic needs including waterborne sanitation. It also rejected their claim that the installation of prepayment water meters in Phiri occurred without legal authorization and requisite consultation, was coercive (the installation was premised on the threat of water disconnection or the provision of a yard tap) and discriminatory (although the worst debtors are government institutions and businesses, prepayment water meters are only installed in poor, black, suburbs), and deprives them of procedural protections found in conventional credit supply systems (reasonable notice of impending disconnection and opportunity to make representation prior to disconnection).

The High Court judgment of Moroa Tsoka was grounded in a sensitive consideration of the circumstances of the residents of Phiri, and the impact of the free basic water policy and prepayment water meters on their right of access to water. Such a contextual analysis is conspicuously absent from the Constitutional Court decision, which appears to uncritically accept the City’s case and its legal interpretations. Specifically, there are six broad problems with the judgment.

First – despite noting that the City’s obligation to progressively realize the right of access to sufficient water within available resources is always context dependent – having failed to consider the specific circumstances of the applicants, the Court also failed to grapple with the question of what would constitute water sufficiency in such circumstances. In this regard it ignored the extensive expert and international law evidence that supported a finding (accepted by both the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal) that between 40 and 50 litres per person per day is the minimum amount of water required to lead a healthy and dignified existence.

Furthermore, the Court declined to interrogate the City’s obligations in the context of its ample resources. Rather, the Court deferred uncritically to the City’s free basic water policy, praising it for having ‘been under constant review’, but not subjecting such revision to any test to determine whether such revisions met the required standard of reasonableness in the prevailing circumstances. Similarly, in relation to the national regulations requiring municipalities to provide at least 6 kilolitres per household per month, the Court found that it will be reasonable for municipalities to ‘strive first to achieve the prescribed minimum standards’, before being required to go beyond that minimum standard.

Worryingly, the emphasis on the obligation only to ‘strive’ to achieve even this directly legislated amount, suggests that the Court would not necessarily adjudicate in favour of a household without any water services, especially if the household was located in a cash-strapped municipality. This approach also misunderstands the obligation to progressively realize the right of access to water. The progressive realization standard recognizes that people in urban areas will usually have more advanced water connections than those in rural and peri-urban areas, and that there are good healthcare and dignity-related reasons to ensure that they have sufficient access, as determined by reference to their circumstances. Such access should, however, not be at the expense of water services to rural areas and informal settlements. Rather it should be seen holistically as a means of ensuring optimal health and development to all residents, determined by their needs and the state’s means. Limiting the water supply to impoverished township households with waterborne sanitation is a regressive measure, which is not only unreasonable but impermissible where there are available resources to remedy the situation.

Second, the Court wholly accepted the City’s assertions that there was extensive consultation prior to the decision to install prepayment water meters in Phiri. Yet, on the record and at the hearing, the applicants stressed that there was not a shred of evidence that there was any consultation prior to the decision being taken. Rather, the decision to install prepayment meters was taken unilaterally by the City and Johannesburg Water in 2001. Thereafter the City embarked on a public relations exercise to ‘sell’ a fait accompli to the residents of Phiri. This was accompanied by the threat to disconnect their water supply or to install yard taps should they not accept prepayment water meters.

Third, in stark contrast to both lower courts, the Constitutional Court found prepayment water meters to be lawful. In a highly deferential analysis, the Court found the City’s interpretation to be ‘textually permissible’, ruling that prepayment meters are provided for in the by-laws and do not discontinue the water supply (which would trigger procedural protections unavailable in prepayment meters) but rather constitute a temporary suspension. Had the Court pursued a purposive or even a formal legal analysis, it is likely that, like the previous courts, it would have come to the conclusion that there is no basis in law for prepayment meters (apart from as a punitive measure for contravening the conditions of service of a yard tap) and that they effect an unlawful discontinuation of the water supply.

Fourth, in relation to the City’s indigency policy, the Court did not engage with the problem of the chronic under-representation of the most vulnerable and needy on the City’s indigent register, which the City proposes will be the basis for future free basic water allocation. Here the Court disregarded its own reasoning in Grootboom: ‘it may not be sufficient to meet the test of reasonableness to show that the measures are capable of achieving a statistical advance in the realization of the right’.

Fifth, by failing to consider the dire circumstances and the practical impact of prepayment water meters on living conditions, and instead accepting the City’s pronouncements on how preferable prepayment meters are, the Court missed a vital opportunity to develop its equality jurisprudence. As appreciated by the High Court, the rollout of prepayment meters exclusively in poor black residential areas, despite the evidence that the worst debtors are government institutions and businesses, amounts to unconstitutional and unfair discrimination on the basis of both race and class.

Finally, the Court ignored the solid logic of the High Court, when it found that if – as the City suggests – the residents of Phiri are satisfied with prepayment water meters, there can be no problem with an order in which they are offered the choice of a conventional meter. If everyone is happy with a prepayment meter, no-one will choose a conventional meter. If the Court truly believed the City’s assertions of satisfaction, what better way to promote equality and participatory democracy than to offer the residents of Phiri the choice of a conventional meter, such as is offered in all the richer suburbs.