Monthly Archives: October 2009

The Underside of South African Democracy

The Underside of South African Democracy

Date posted: 13 October 2009
View this article online here: http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/368.1

Richard Pithouse

Abahlali baseMjondolo is a shackdwellers’ movement. It was formed by and for shack dwellers in Durban in 2005. Since then the movement has extended to cities like Pietermartizburg and Cape Town. It now has members in 54 settlements.

The movement has campaigned, with considerable success, against unlawful evictions by the state and private landowners. It has also campaigned, with significant although limited success, for access to basic services and for the upgrade of settlements where people live rather than forced removal to houses or ‘transit camps’ in peripheral ghettoes far from work, schools and health care.

The movement has also organised to ensure that poor children can access good schools and that poor people get fair access to policing services. As well as making demands on the state, it has built and run a number of crèches, developed vegetable gardens and set up various education projects and a well-stocked library.

All of this is easily understood in civil society through the languages of ‘service delivery’, ‘popular participation in development’ and ‘self-help’ or, even, ‘social entrepreneurship’. But these achievements are grounded in the sometimes dangerous political work of the movement and this fact has been much more difficult for civil society to grasp.

The movement’s political work is not to compete for electoral office. It specifically refuses electoral politics and aims, instead, to build the power of the poor against that of local elites in and out of the state. This is often dangerous work because in many places in our country democracy remains an aspiration rather than a reality. It is not unusual for poor people to live under the control of local elites who do not allow basic political freedoms.

These authoritarian local elites can be white famers, traditional leaders, gangsters (sometimes masquerading as ‘businessmen’) or party political elites. These various forms of local despotism are often able to exercise a significant degree of control over the local state and its development initiatives and in some cases they can brazenly direct the police as if they were a private militia rather than a public service.

Abahlali baseMjondolo has struggled against all of these modes of local despotism. In many cases the first struggle that the movement has taken up in an area has had to be for the simple right to exist. Although the movement has had important success in these struggles there are a number of areas in which the attempt to create a politics of the poor independent from control by local elites has been effectively contained from the outset or quickly defeated. When the right to an independent politics has been achieved it has often been a fragile opening.

When civil society does recognise that there are spaces of exception where basic democratic rights are not available to all it is often assumed that these spaces will be steadily drawn into the democratic mainstream as ‘democracy is consolidated’. But local forms of despotism are not always a fading hangover from the past. They are often essential and constitutive features of the present.

For instance there are shack settlements in Durban in which there is a long-standing and complete ban on non-ANC activity backed up with armed force. In these settlements any independent political activity is met with credible threats of violence and sometimes also expulsion via the demolition of one’s home. The ANC does not oppose this. On the contrary it relies on it to deliver votes, to contain dissent and to engineer the appearance of consent for highly unpopular ‘development’ strategies such as forced removals to the urban periphery. This reality compels us to recognise that the endemic political despotism at the bottom of society is not a temporary lag from the rest of society but part of its foundation.

Since 2005, the local Development Committee in Kennedy Road, an elected structure, has affiliated itself to Abahlali baseMjondolo and the movement built its office and library there. In recent days the movement has been under sustained attack in the Kennedy Road settlement. It started with an armed assault and the refusal of the police to come to the aid of people under attack. It was followed up by the patently political arrest of some of the local leadership on criminal charges and the hounding of the rest of the local leadership out of the settlement via death threats and the systematic demolition of their homes. After this, local ANC leaders from other settlements seized control of the settlement. The police have made no intervention, despite repeated requests, to defend the elected leadership in the settlement from a violent coup or to stop the ongoing purge of Abahlali baseMjondolo activists from the settlement.

In some respects what has happened in Kennedy Road is a restoration of the status quo rather than a new exception to it. For instance, Lindela Figlan, who was the elected chair of the Kennedy Road Development Committee and is now a political refugee, had to leave the Burnwood settlement in 2007 under threat of having his home demolished. His ‘crime’ was the same then as now – supporting an independent poor people’s movement in a settlement where a ban had been imposed on any political activity outside of the ANC.

Some of the local ANC leaders from nearby settlements that seized control of Kennedy Road in the first days after the attack have a long history of using threats of violence in the settlements that they control to prevent political activity independent of the ANC. One of these leaders has, in her own settlement, openly denied access to temporary housing provided after a fire to people who cannot produce ANC cards.

But there are two ways in which the coup and then the purge that followed it have been exceptional. The first is that, after many years of self-organisation, local activists have developed excellent networks outside of the settlement and so recent events have received considerable national and international attention. The silence that usually accompanies this sort of attack on independent grassroots politics has been decisively broken.

The second is that in the past the ANC has not acknowledged the local level despotisms on which it relies. When pushed, as in the case of an unrelated series of assassinations that followed an attempt to run an independent candidate against the ANC in Umlazi in the 2006 local government elections, it has dismissed that violence as criminal rather than political. But in this case there has been enthusiastic support for both the coup and the consequent and ongoing political purge in the settlement from senior ANC leaders in the eThekwini Municipality and the province. This is a clear attempt to normalise a long-standing reality of our democracy that has previously been repressed from open public discussion.

The open support for the attack on Abahlali baseMjondolo has often taken the form of declaring the movement, directly or by implication, to be ‘criminal’. The word ‘criminal’ risks becoming as dangerous in our society as the word ‘communist’ was in the hands of apartheid or the word ‘terrorist’ is in the hands of the American state. When the enthusiasm with which some people in the ANC have sought to criminalise popular politics outside of its control is linked, as it should be, to recent calls by ANC leaders for a ‘people’s war against crime’, a right for the police to ‘shoot to kill’ and the centralisation of intelligence and policing, not to mention the outright militarisation of the latter, it is clear that we have just cause for grave concern about the future of democracy in South Africa.

M&G: Landmark judgment in favour of poor

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-18-landmark-judgment-in-favour-of-poor

Landmark judgment in favour of poor
NIREN TOLSI | DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA – Oct 18 2009 06:00

In a major legal victory for poor people’s rights to housing and shelter, the Constitutional Court this week struck down the KwaZulu-Natal Slums Act. The court upheld shackdweller movement Abahlali base Mjondolo’s (ABM) application that the Act was unconstitutional.

The KwaZulu-Natal Slums Act empowered municipalities to evict illegal occupants from state land and derelict buildings, and to force private landowners to do likewise or face fines or imprisonment — all at the behest of the provincial housing minister.

The Act also empowered the minister to determine the time frames for all these actions and, via section 16, gave provincial housing ministers untrammelled powers to instigate eviction procedures against communities.

If ABM’s Constitutional Court bid had been unsuccessful, the Act was to be used as a blueprint around the country. ABM fought this legislation on two fronts. It argued in the Constitutional Court that the Act actually dealt with land and land tenure, and so was not within the ambit of the provincial legislature to implement.

And it contended that section 16 of the Act was in contravention of section 26 (2) of the Constitution, which requires the state to take “reasonable legislative and other measures … to achieve the progressive realisation of [the Constitutional] right” of every South African to access to adequate housing.

The social movement further contended that section 16 was inconsistent with national legislation and instruments such as the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, the National Housing Act and the National Housing Code.

The full Bench of the Constitutional Court unanimously found that, despite ABM’s argument, the Act did, in fact, deal with housing matters.

Nevertheless, the court struck down the legislation because of section 16. Only Justice Zak Yacoob dissented with Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke’s majority judgment that “recognised the coercive import” of section 16 in the powers it gave to the housing minister.

Moseneke found that section 16 would lead “those in slums and informal settlements who wouldn’t face eviction to now do so”. He also found that the section “erodes and considerably undermines the protections against the arbitrary institution of eviction proceedings” safeguarded by national legislation such as the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act.

Moseneke further found that section 16 “was silent” on the National Housing Code and the National Housing Act’s stipulations that unlawful occupiers must be ejected from their homes only as a last resort. The judgment also questioned whether the section permitted reasonable engagement between government and communities.

The deputy chief justice noted that while conflict between provincial and national legislation did not necessitate invalidation, the Act did not pass constitutional muster as set out by section 26 (2).

But it was parts of Yacoob’s dissenting judgment — when allied with the majority judgment’s emphasis on engagement and that evictions were “a last resort” — that broke new ground for the rights of illegal occupants of land when negotiating with government.

Yacoob noted that “all applications for eviction must comply with the requirements expressly stipulated in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act and the Constitution as well as with all other requirements that have been judicially stipulated”.

The Constitutional Court had previously found that government can only evict after meaningful engagement (the Olivia Road judgment) and if it provides adequate housing alternatives to those affected (the Grootboom judgment).

In the ABM case, Yacoob went further: “If it appears as a result of the process of engagement, for example, that the property concerned can be upgraded without the eviction of the unlawful occupiers, the municipality cannot institute eviction proceedings. This is because it would not be acting reasonably in the engagement process.”

The majority did not find cause to differ on this.

Declaring the Act unconstitutional, the court ordered all costs for both this and ABM’s high court application be carried by the KwaZulu-Natal government. Neither the province’s department of housing nor Premier Zweli Mkhize had responded to the Mail & Guardian’s requests for comment at the time of going to press.

ABM president Sbu Zikode said the judgment “had far-reaching consequences for all the poor people in the country and validated ABM’s role as protector of the Constitution, and a champion of the rights of the ordinary people of South Africa”.

He said: “Shackdwellers have been recognised as human by the Constitutional Court and its findings that there needs to be more engagement between government and the poor. Hopefully, this judgment will also see the end of forced removals to transit camps and temporary relocation areas.”

Still in hiding after attacks on his Kennedy Road home, Zikode, responded to recent claims by eThekwini municipality officials that ABM’s application to the Constitutional Court had stopped development in the settlement: “The judgment has proved that we are for development. We will now return to Kennedy Road with this message”.

He added that the movement expected “more attacks, though”.

Sudafrica. Vittoria dei baraccati contro lo «Slum act»

http://www.carta.org/campagne/dal+mondo/18566

Sudafrica. Vittoria dei baraccati contro lo «Slum act»
Filippo Mondini
[15 Ottobre 2009]

Il documento ufficiale con cui Abahlali baseMjondolo annuncia la vittoria alla corte costituzionale è intitolato: «Abbiamo vinto alla corte costituzionale pagando un prezzo altissimo». Dopo la violenta repressione messa in atto dall’Anc, dopo i morti e i rifugiati costretti a fuggire da Kennedy Road, è arrivata la vittoria contro lo «Slum act».
La corte ha dichiarato questa legge incostituzionale e, forse molto di più, ha vendicato la voce della gente della baraccopoli. La battaglia contro questa legge è iniziata già nel 2007, quando nelle baraccopoli in rivolta si è iniziato a discutere e a pensare forme di resistenza. «Il nostro ruolo è di collegare l’operazione ‘slum free cities’ con il mondiale del 2010. Dobbiamo dichiarare il 2010 un anno senza sfratti» affermava Sbu Zikode in uno dei primi incontri a Kennedy Road.

L’idea quindi di avere un mondiale in città «pulite» senza poveri o baracche sembra più lontana. Il movimento farà sentire la sua voce e la shock economy troverà qualche difficoltà in più. Ancora una volta l’opposizione alla legge non è basata su una semplice richiesta di servizi. Nelle discussioni si è arrivato alla consapevolezza che le baraccopoli sono «comunità» e non «Slums». Mazwi dice che «E’ più facile fare arrivare i bulldozer a distruggere slums, ma se iniziamo a dire che siamo delle comunità l’ottica con cui verremo guardati cambierà radicalmente» . Ancora una volta viene ribadita la dignità della gente e della lotta. Non basterà qualche fontanella in più per fare tacere queste donne e uomini degni. Non basterà nemmeno l’Anc. Se ieri piangevamo, oggi lasciateci festeggiare.

Isolezwe: Inkantolo ivune abantu abahlala emijondolo

http://www.isolezwe.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5203046

Inkantolo ivune abantu abahlala emijondolo

October 15, 2009 Edition 1

INKANTOLO yoMthethosisekelo iwuchithile umthetho ovumela ukususwa kwabahlali basemijondolo KwaZulu-Natal.

Izolo le nkantolo ikhiphe isinqumo esithathwa njengesibe yinqophamlando ngesikhathi ichitha umthetho iKwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-Emergence of Slums Act 6 ka-2007.

IPhini likaMengameli wamaJaji kuleli, uDikgang Moseneke, liwuchithile lo mthetho lathi uphambene noMthethosisekelo wezwe onikeza abantu igunya lobunikazi bomhlaba nokuhlinzekwa ngendawo yokuhlala ngaphambi kokuthi basuswe.

“Ngifike esiphethweni sokuthi isigaba 16 somthetho i-Slum Act siyashayisana noMthethosisekelo futhi ngiyawuchitha,” kusho uMoseneke.

Leli cala lafakwa yinhlangano elwela abahlali basemijondolo ebizwa ngokuthi Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement.

Le nhlangano ibikhala ngokuthi lo mthetho awubhekene ngqo nodaba lwezindlu kodwa ulwa nobunikazi bomhlaba nalabo abawusebenzisayo.

Ibikhala nangokuthi lo mthetho uvumela nomasipala ukususa abantu abahleli ngokungemthetho lokho abakuchaze njengokushayisanayo noMthethosisekelo.

Okhulumela uNgqongqoshe wezeziNdlu esifundazweni , uMnuz Nkululeko Ngcamu, uthe uNgqongqoshe uNkk Maggie Govender usazofundisisa kahle isinqumo senkantolo ngaphambi kokuba aphefumule ngaso.

ABahlali baseMjondolo babuye bakhala ngokuthi lo mthetho uyashayisana neNational Housing Act.

UMnuz Mbhekiseni Mavuso, onguNobhala-Jikelele weRural Network, engaphansi kwaBahlali baseMjondolo, uthe bayasamukela isinqumo seNkantolo yoMthethosisekelo.

Inhlangano aBahlali baseMjondolob imele amalungu angu-20 000 kanti bese kunesikhathi eside uqhubeka lo mdonsiswano phakathi kwayo nohulumeni.

The Kennedy Eight are now the Kennedy Thirteen

Thursday, 15 October 2009
Abahlali baseMjondolo Press Statement

The Kennedy Eight are now the Kennedy Thirteen

There have been five more arrests. The Kennedy Eight are now the Kennedy Thirteen.

None of the people that launched the attack on us in the Kennedy Road settlement have been arrested.

None of the people that have systematically destroyed the houses of the entire Kennedy Road Development Committee and all of the Kennedy Road Abahlali baseMjondolo members who hold office in our movement have been arrested.

None of the people who have banned our movement from the Kennedy Road settlement on the pain of violent expulsion from the settlement or death have been arrested.

None of the people who have continued to burn and demolish the houses of our members when they refuse to denounce the movement and show support for the ANC have been arrested.

Democracy has not been restored to Kennedy Road.

The ANC leaders who supported the attack on our movement have not been brought to account by the party.

The ANC continues to create new structures in Kennedy Road which they say are now ‘legitimate structures’. How can the structures that were elected by the people and removed by violence and intimidation now be ‘illegitimate’? How can new structures, imposed by violence and intimidation, be ‘legitimate’?

There was a bail hearing today for the 5 new political prisoners who have now been joined with the Kennedy 8 to form the Kennedy 13. Once again the ANC mobilised its members to attend the court. They sponsored two buses for them to be there to demand the denial of bail.

The ANC denies that the violence in Kennedy Road was political. They say that it is ‘just a criminal matter’. If it is ‘just a criminal matter’ why do they mobilise politically against the Kennedy 13? If it is ‘just a criminal matter’ why do they mobilise politically against our movement? If it is ‘just a criminal matter’ why was Nigel Gumede at the previous court hearing? He is the head of housing in the Municipality, not the head of police.

At the court today we were insulted and we were threatened. An ANC member who lives in a flat in Sydenham Heights said that we are “the filthy shack people”. She said that “by 2014 you will all be gone. ANC members will get houses and Abahlali members will get jail.” She also said that if the Kennedy 13 were given bail then “they will all be killed.”

It was very tense. It was clear that the people that the ANC has bussed in were ready to use violence. They tried to physically prevent us from getting into the court.

All our comrades kept cool and calm. We behaved with dignity

We are looking for ways to support the families of those who are locked up.

Our movement remains under attack. We must clear about the reasons why we are under attack.

We are under attack because with have built a politics of the poor and for the poor outside of party politics.

We are under attack because we have refused to be silent in the face of our own oppression.

We are under attack because we have insisted that we are also people who count.

We are under attack because we have insisted that everyone must count.

We are under attack because we have rejected the idea that forcibly removing us to human dumping grounds outside the cities is ‘delivery’.

We are under attack because we defeated the notorious Slums Act in the battle of ideas and in the highest court in the country.

We are under attack because the deal that we negotiated with the City to provide some services for 14 settlements and to work on upgrades for 3 settlements has shown that the politics of building people’s power does more for the people than the politics of building politician’s power. That politics just gets you evicted. Everyone can see that now.

We are under attack because we have shown that we are serious about our lives and therefore about our movement. We have not given up. In fact our movement is growing.

We know that there are many members of the ANC who are honest and who are democrats. We are calling on the honest and democratic members of the ANC to oppose those who corrupt their movement with lies, intimidation and oppression. We are asking them to support our right to organise independently. We are asking them to defend democracy.

Today it is us who have had to face armed mobs and the police. Today it is us who have had to face violence, the destruction of our homes, expulsion from our community, the end of many of things that we have worked for and all kinds of lies. Tomorrow it could be you.

This danger needs to be thought about very seriously. It needs to be widely discussed.

For comment please contact:

Shamita Naidoo 074 315 7962
Mazwi Nzimande 074 222 8601