CONDITIONS in Hangberg, a poor community on the mountain slopes above Hout Bay harbour near Cape Town, are no worse — and in some respects better — than those in other townships around the country. But that is no consolation to Hangberg’s residents, many of whom are descended from a once thriving artisanal fishing community.
Unemployment is high, social problems such as drug abuse are rife and living space is at a premium. There is not enough formal housing in Hangberg for people who can’t afford to buy property in Hout Bay’s upmarket residential areas, so informal structures have mushroomed.
The city authorities have initiated projects to upgrade the area and build new higher density housing while simultaneously seeking to contain the spread of shacks up the mountainside. But, as in SA’s other cities, the pace of development hasn’t come close to matching the influx of people, and last week, when members of the community ignored a prohibition on building shacks in the firebreak separating Hangberg from South African National Parks (Sanparks) property, the city moved in to clear them.
The ensuing battle was reminiscent of the worst of apartheid-era political unrest, with protestors occupying the high ground and hurling rocks and petrol bombs — even shooting maritime flares — at police, who responded with equal ferocity. The authorities prevailed eventually, and unoccupied shacks were demolished. The city and Sanparks subsequently applied for a court order to demolish the remaining structures.
Although these events are deeply disturbing given that neither violent protest nor aggressive suppression of dissent should be necessary in a properly functioning participatory democracy, they are all too common. The term “service delivery protests” has become part of the South African lexicon over the past few years as people express their anger at being made to wait for a democratic dividend that is perpetually just over the horizon.
What makes Hangberg different to the service delivery protests that take place in other provinces is the response it has elicited, and particularly the speed with which the government, union federation Cosatu, civil rights organisations and the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) have got involved.
There has been a succession of Cabinet ministers visiting Hangberg over the past few days, Cosatu organised a march to demand a commission of inquiry, and the SAHRC has initiated an investigation into possible human rights violations. In turn, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille released a statement complaining of “dirty tricks” against her administration, on the basis that similar actions by authorities in municipalities controlled by the African National Congress (ANC) have not evoked such outrage.
She has a point, given the ANC’s history of underhand politics and abuse of power in the province. And there are question marks over the way the SAHRC has approached other politically charged disputes in the Western Cape, specifically its ruling on the unenclosed toilet saga, which has national implications that were not considered carefully enough and may have to be reviewed.
However, to accuse the SAHRC of allowing itself to be turned into the ANC’s “political hit squad” is a rash move on Ms Zille’s part, even if the commission is at fault. It is a constitutionally mandated institution. This does not make it immune to abuse for political ends, but it does mean responsible South Africans need to respect its status by showing restraint when disagreeing with it. The SAHRC, in turn, has an obligation to do more to ensure it is above reproach. The credibility of its findings is only as good as perceptions of its impartiality
- BusinessDay - Business Worth Knowing
No comments:
Post a Comment