It has been two weeks since we left Boston to land in Johannesburg, South Africa, and it has been two weeks of nonstop education. With the city, in many ways, as our interactive textbook, we look at past and current social issues in the city in relation to social exclusion and inclusion. Issues of exclusion and inclusion such as the legacy of Apartheid and the steps the African National Congress (ANC) has taken to try and remedy them; the ease with which racism continues compared to the difficulties in eradicating bigotry; current political factors; the impact of globalization and neoliberalism; where South Africa stands in relation to the United States today. Each topic is covered in readings we conduct every night before our forays into the city and is highlighted by speakers who are often the premiers of their respective fields or whose personal experiences shed light on the issues of a particular community. Each outing covers a different topic of life in South Africa, but always relates back to the impact of land and space.
The issue that has captured my attention and which has repeatedly appeared as a roadblock to progression is the matter of land redistribution. During the fall of Apartheid and simultaneous rise of the ANC, Mandela and other major leaders of the ANC negotiated with the Nationalist Party to allow all white landowners to retain their land. A huge concession considering that 80% of the population was not provided or allowed to hold houses and land during apartheid. A fact even more startling considering that white people made up only 8% of the population. Since this concession, the issue of land rights has become increasingly contested, for land is an often overlooked source of extreme wealth and is inherently linked to the concept of the city. As Professor Mabin explained on our first day, “you cannot understand the city without understanding the rural.”
Land distribution appears most relevant in the context of housing. The ANC government took it upon itself to guarantee housing to every citizen. This has, understandably, resulted in some unforeseen complications despite the nobility of the idea. Early housing projects followed a model of simply getting as many houses built as possible. They, therefore, chose to build houses on the cheapest land available for cost effectiveness because the best land was owned by “white monopoly capital” — the cheapest land available happened to be on the outskirts of cities in economically unviable areas. Therefore citizens were given houses, but the land they own lacks the value that can make property an asset conducive of upward mobility. The government’s second plan was to build economically integrated housing where multiple classes live simultaneously in the same neighborhood. The hopes of this project were to induce upward mobility and generate a higher tax revenue from the community to improve municipal services and infrastructure. However, the neighborhoods themselves remained separated on class lines and did little to help, as evidenced by Cosmo City. Cosmo City is far from the central business district of Johannesburg and the developers used natural land barriers to separate classes. Meanwhile, informal settlements continue to be a main form of shelter and spring up around established townships during Apartheid. Unfortunately, as we learned on our day spent with activist David van Wyk, the settlements and townships are built on former mine dumps, which are highly radioactive, causing health problems for the primarily black citizens who live there. Although this is a legacy of the Nationalist Party’s lack of care — or purposeful malintent — the fact that better land was not acquiesced from wealthy whites during the transition period means that the government does not have the land or resources to move the people of these townships to a better environment. Primarily black South Africans are still, therefore, being killed from their own houses.
In regards to the city and land distribution, part of the reason for the fall of Apartheid in cities has to do with the loss of land. As land was continually stolen from black South Africans and the land they were forced onto proved economically impossible to live on, a large number of the black, colored, and Asian populations began pouring into the city. Driven by the economic incentive, white landlords began to illegally rent out empty flats. In response, the Apartheid government deemed these areas “grey zones” and refused to provide services and amenities. The effect of this policy, as experienced by the neighborhood of Hillbrow, was a spike in crime and the creation of vertical slums. Furthermore, the land in the city continues to be owned by white people who have all but abandoned the properties. This has resulted in the “hijacking” of buildings by gangs who then rent out the space to tenants without maintaining any upkeep. This makes this already vulnerable population extremely vulnerable to evictions when white owners decide to sell or renovate the properties. This occurred in Hillbrow in anticipation of the 2010 Fifa World Cup, and is most likely what happened to people illegally squatting in Maboneng before its renovation. Maboneng is the heaviest site of gentrification in Johannesburg and it is all owned by a single white owned business. This means the fate of those in the surrounding community or who live in Maboneng proper are more or less at the mercy of this company, Propertuity, and its owner, Jonathan Liebmann. If, however, those spaces would have been freed for ownership, either by the government or directly to the majority, it would have been harder for a situation like Maboneng to occur.
Solutions to land distribution have been few — as we learned on our trip to Siyakhana Garden — but the government has recently initiated a plan that, to me, has promise. According to Bonolo Bosaletse, an activist with expertise in business, the plan revolves around the use of Co-Operatives. Co-Operatives are a business venture consisting of five people who all have a stake in the business. Two Co-Operatives can join together to form a binary Co-Operative, two binaries can form a tertiary, two tertiaries can form an apex, and two apex Co-Operatives can form a private company. Lastly, 200 Co-Operatives can form a bank akin to a Credit Union. South Africa’s government has begun to pursue a plan to promote Co-Operatives in every sector of the market. Their hope is to transform the economy through black owned Co-Operatives and companies acknowledging that, in a capitalist society and global market, private enterprise often has the fluidity and ability to find the most economically viable markets in a way that large bureaucracies simply cannot. Thereby the people of South Africa, in particular the black population, would be able to use the tools of neoliberalism that had formerly kept them in poverty to liberate themselves. Such is what Bonolo is hoping to accomplish in transforming Siyakhana — an urban garden currently run by Professor Rudolph of Wits University on land donated by the city of Johannesburg — into a black owned cooperative.
We kicked off our trip with a presentation from Professor Alan Mabin on the history of South Africa with a particular focus on colonialism, Apartheid, and current politics. He focused in particular about what it means to be in an African city and how to think about or analyze the city in a South African context. This crash course was extremely illuminating and, in many ways, provided a framework for how the Dialogue was to continue — a focus on the present, a remembrance of the past, and an eye to the future.
-- Kyle Giamportone
Maboneng
Maboneng
Kliptown (Informal Settlement)
Siyakhana
Ponte Tower (Hillbrow)
Johannesburg from Ponte Tower
Comments
Post a Comment