Mpho Putu, Director of Boundary Crossing
Across South Africa - from Kliptown, Khayalitsha, Sekhukhune, Springbok, Mthatha, De Aar, , to the Kakamas - we’ve wondered why some communities are reasonably effective at making changes while others, perhaps not that different, are not. Why are some communities better able to manage their problems and others not? Most communities in South Africa - of every size and shape - face similar problems, such as high levels of poverty, unemployment, HIV and AIDS, poor service delivery, growing numbers of informal settlements and large numbers of immigrants. The only difference is that some are able to exercise a degree of control over those problems, while others become dysfunctional under the stress of their difficulties.
In the middle of these difficulties, some communities come together, while others simply disintegrate. Although there are no definitive explanations about why this happens, we can make some educated guesses. Those communities that have united and acted together through revitalised active citizenship to gain control over their futures have usually made fundamental changes in their community politics. They haven’t simply solved the problems they face, they have changed themselves by changing the way they go about their collective business. David Matthews, in Politics for the People, defines public as a diverse body of people joined together in ever-changing alliances to make choices about how to advance the common wellbeing. Long-lasting, fundamental change obviously requires a great deal of political will. Generating it, is the first challenge any community must face. Some of the most striking instances of the force of political will come from the stories about how people acted in times of crises. This was evident in the apartheid years. Quiet commitment was needed to change the community. Deeply rooted, it was commitment that had staying power because it was not superficial. The people mattered, they were committed to the ideals of a free democratic South Africa
Of course, there are many obstacles for those who want to make changes in a community. Often there is resistance to even the most modest improvement, perhaps because not many people really like changes. It is also not uncommon for reforms begun with enthusiasm to lose momentum because of the lack of sustained commitment. Just as individuals can’t stop drinking or using drugs until they become genuinely willing to change, communities must become similarly committed to changing before fundamental improvements can begin. Developing a shared sense of responsibility for what happens to the community is critical.
The amount of political will available in a community depends on the extent to which people claim responsibility for what happens to them. They have to “own” their problems rather than blaming them on others. The only way for a community to change for the better is for people in that community to understand and accept their personal responsibility for what happens. Communities where efforts to change concentrate on building ownership and on taking responsibility are more likely to become better places in which to live. A community leader in Kliptown, one of the congested informal settlement in Soweto, a stone throw from Johannesburg, said “ his community had succeeded in reducing the levels of crime in the informal settlement because everyone living there was trying to do something about it”. In this case the people themselves owned the change because they had created it. They had not “bought” from another source.
When changes are needed, it is common for government, councilors including political leaders to develop proposals and “sell” them to citizens. Sometimes people are persuaded and they “buy in” to the change. But do they own it? Not always. Will people take responsibility for what happens or will they blame the “manufacturers” for anything that goes wrong? We are more likely to take responsibility for things if we have participated in creating ways to change what’s needed. That requires real engagement - it takes citizens making up their minds by talking to other citizens.
It is not wrong for Government and political party leaders to try to persuade others. For active citizenship to develop, involvement has to be widespread and to include all kinds of people, not just activists and advocates. Communities that leave large numbers of people on the sidelines can’t really change themselves, nor can they effectively address the challenges they face. To improve schools, for example, parents have to be involved and talk about issues that affect them. These days there is not enough talk between community members. There is little community dialogue. Actually citizens are afraid to be called “names” when they hold a different view point from the ruling party, opting for a silent protest’. At the same time majority of people may have the interest and desire to participate in the dialogues but would be prevented by lack of knowledge, information including expertise about what to say and do. So the dialogues are left to the privileged few, those who know the system, the language and are part of the political formation including the elite.
In the past the struggle against apartheid was based on community and street meetings. People got together to discuss the issues that mattered. Meetings made of smaller groups of people – “Mrambulo” – (a form of popular education) were effectively used to address and educate citizens on issues of concerns. Citizens had powers to influence and took responsibility for the decisions they made. Citizen had some control over their own lives; they took action for the benefit of other citizens. Today, the “experts” talk – on radio and television programmes and in lecture halls. However, citizens, for the most part, feel left out of issues that affect them. They believe their concerns are not adequately reflected in the political debate. They want to attend community dialogues, they want to talk together, to hear and to be heard. Communication is all about learning new things, exchanging ideas and changing perspectives. By really talking citizens begin to see beyond their private interest and find the interests, concerns and issues they have in common. They begin to develop informed judgments on issues. They say talking is cheap. But you can’t put a price on the value of real communication
Across South Africa - from Kliptown, Khayalitsha, Sekhukhune, Springbok, Mthatha, De Aar, , to the Kakamas - we’ve wondered why some communities are reasonably effective at making changes while others, perhaps not that different, are not. Why are some communities better able to manage their problems and others not? Most communities in South Africa - of every size and shape - face similar problems, such as high levels of poverty, unemployment, HIV and AIDS, poor service delivery, growing numbers of informal settlements and large numbers of immigrants. The only difference is that some are able to exercise a degree of control over those problems, while others become dysfunctional under the stress of their difficulties.
In the middle of these difficulties, some communities come together, while others simply disintegrate. Although there are no definitive explanations about why this happens, we can make some educated guesses. Those communities that have united and acted together through revitalised active citizenship to gain control over their futures have usually made fundamental changes in their community politics. They haven’t simply solved the problems they face, they have changed themselves by changing the way they go about their collective business. David Matthews, in Politics for the People, defines public as a diverse body of people joined together in ever-changing alliances to make choices about how to advance the common wellbeing. Long-lasting, fundamental change obviously requires a great deal of political will. Generating it, is the first challenge any community must face. Some of the most striking instances of the force of political will come from the stories about how people acted in times of crises. This was evident in the apartheid years. Quiet commitment was needed to change the community. Deeply rooted, it was commitment that had staying power because it was not superficial. The people mattered, they were committed to the ideals of a free democratic South Africa
Of course, there are many obstacles for those who want to make changes in a community. Often there is resistance to even the most modest improvement, perhaps because not many people really like changes. It is also not uncommon for reforms begun with enthusiasm to lose momentum because of the lack of sustained commitment. Just as individuals can’t stop drinking or using drugs until they become genuinely willing to change, communities must become similarly committed to changing before fundamental improvements can begin. Developing a shared sense of responsibility for what happens to the community is critical.
The amount of political will available in a community depends on the extent to which people claim responsibility for what happens to them. They have to “own” their problems rather than blaming them on others. The only way for a community to change for the better is for people in that community to understand and accept their personal responsibility for what happens. Communities where efforts to change concentrate on building ownership and on taking responsibility are more likely to become better places in which to live. A community leader in Kliptown, one of the congested informal settlement in Soweto, a stone throw from Johannesburg, said “ his community had succeeded in reducing the levels of crime in the informal settlement because everyone living there was trying to do something about it”. In this case the people themselves owned the change because they had created it. They had not “bought” from another source.
When changes are needed, it is common for government, councilors including political leaders to develop proposals and “sell” them to citizens. Sometimes people are persuaded and they “buy in” to the change. But do they own it? Not always. Will people take responsibility for what happens or will they blame the “manufacturers” for anything that goes wrong? We are more likely to take responsibility for things if we have participated in creating ways to change what’s needed. That requires real engagement - it takes citizens making up their minds by talking to other citizens.
It is not wrong for Government and political party leaders to try to persuade others. For active citizenship to develop, involvement has to be widespread and to include all kinds of people, not just activists and advocates. Communities that leave large numbers of people on the sidelines can’t really change themselves, nor can they effectively address the challenges they face. To improve schools, for example, parents have to be involved and talk about issues that affect them. These days there is not enough talk between community members. There is little community dialogue. Actually citizens are afraid to be called “names” when they hold a different view point from the ruling party, opting for a silent protest’. At the same time majority of people may have the interest and desire to participate in the dialogues but would be prevented by lack of knowledge, information including expertise about what to say and do. So the dialogues are left to the privileged few, those who know the system, the language and are part of the political formation including the elite.
In the past the struggle against apartheid was based on community and street meetings. People got together to discuss the issues that mattered. Meetings made of smaller groups of people – “Mrambulo” – (a form of popular education) were effectively used to address and educate citizens on issues of concerns. Citizens had powers to influence and took responsibility for the decisions they made. Citizen had some control over their own lives; they took action for the benefit of other citizens. Today, the “experts” talk – on radio and television programmes and in lecture halls. However, citizens, for the most part, feel left out of issues that affect them. They believe their concerns are not adequately reflected in the political debate. They want to attend community dialogues, they want to talk together, to hear and to be heard. Communication is all about learning new things, exchanging ideas and changing perspectives. By really talking citizens begin to see beyond their private interest and find the interests, concerns and issues they have in common. They begin to develop informed judgments on issues. They say talking is cheap. But you can’t put a price on the value of real communication
Comments
Post a Comment