Revisiting the Self-Help Housing debate: Perception of Self-Help Housing by the beneficiaries of South African low-cost housing

4.4.3.b Right to accessing adequate Shelter

Among people interviewed, especially those living in shacks, no respondent is enjoying his housing conditions. They acknowledged their bad housing conditions, especially lack of services such as water, electricity, sanitation, etc. They do not see how they will solve their housing need if the government does not intervene positively for them. All of them have already applied for RDP houses a long time ago and are on the housing waiting list. The only advantage indicated by the inhabitants of informal settlement is the location as they are close to Johannesburg^43(*). It may be observed among these residents the intention of being permanent in Tembisa. There is only one respondent, a single man, 28 years; who has Matric as level of education, he came from Pretoria and has been staying in Tembisa for 4 years who noted that his living in Tembisa is temporary for the purpose of searching for a Job. As Crankshaw (1996) observes, policy-makers should not ignore this issue while elaborating policies. Whereas it is urgent to find a durable solution for those who wish to remain in the areas in opting for ownership, some poor people prefer a temporary solution, in for example renting a unit. As Alder (2002) points out, ownership is not always a priority among the urban poor. In addition, it can also be argued that the ideal is to propose to poor people many housing delivery options so that they can themselves opt for the solution which suits them. Presenting or proposing only one option without consulting with low-income households seems to be a paternalistic attitude which I will widely focus on in the part below.

Do the weaknesses of SHH enumerated in Chapter III constitute the reasons for the limited use of SHH in South Africa? Although SHH is challenged by some academics such as Burgess, Kerr and Tait (see the preceding chapter), South African policy-makers seem to be favourable to SHH process (Mthembi-Mahanyele, 1996; and Sisulu, 2005). In addition, SHH is incorporated into National Housing policy through the 1994 Housing WP and other policy documents such as the Development Urban Framework of 1997, and the Housing Act of 1997. Given the promotion of SHH in policy documents, the lack of controlled SHH in some urban areas for tackling the housing crisis resulting from urban population growth seems to be paradoxical. The questionnaire of this research was elaborated for the purpose of finding the main reasons which explain this phenomenon in South Africa.

The support of government and poor households' participation in the search for solving housing need are taken as the framework for analyzing the reason for the failure to implement successful PHP

4.4.3.c. The ignorance of the right to have access to adequate shelter

The first observation which comes from interviews is that people do not know that housing is one of the human rights made clear in the covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966, in Human Habitat II (1996), in 1994 Housing WP and in chapter II section 26 of the Democratic Constitution of South Africa. RDP houses are considered by their beneficiaries, and also by those who are on the waiting list, as a government gift, instead of a government duty to provide adequate shelter for its citizens. This appears in the responses provided to the question of: «how respondents find government efforts to provide adequate shelter to all South Africans»? All residents of RDP houses interviewed have acknowledged that government is doing a great job but the problem is the population growth which continues to rise. For the residents of informal settlements, government does not work very well because they applied for an RDP house and have been waiting for a long time without getting it. The appreciation of government depends on who gets and who does not get a house. It seems logical that those who have been allocated a house appreciate government actions and those who have not, criticize government efforts. But the common element of both residents of RDP houses and inhabitants of informal settlements is the ignorance of their right to adequate shelter.

Regarding SHH and more specifically PHP, both residents of RDP houses and inhabitants of informal settlements are unaware of the existence of this housing mode of delivery in South Africa. This observation is based on the response given to the question of which kinds of housing delivery they know. All respondents said «RDP houses». This response looks logical from respondents insofar as they are not aware of their housing rights. Indeed, PHP is one of the ways for low-income households to enjoy their housing right. So, the ignorance of this right goes hand in hand with the ignorance of the existence of PHP.

The question which should be asked is whether or not the ignorance of the existing housing rights of people is related to the lack of education. The findings of this research reveal that even those who are educated, at least with Matric, do not know their housing rights. Do people with tertiary education know about their housing rights in South Africa? The question cannot be answered in this case study as it did not focus on this issue^44(*). Maybe research should be done in order to determine if people with tertiary education recognize their right to adequate shelter. Besides, in this case, which actor should take responsibility between low-income households and government? It could be argued that for the government, poor households are responsible for their lack of education and they wait for everything from the government and are lazy to undertake a development project. This position is held by one of councillors^45(*). According to low-income households living in RDP houses, councillors do not meet their expectation and do not properly listen to them. It appears that for low-income households interviewed, local authorities in charge of housing delivery are incompetent, corrupt and do not properly address their different needs, more specifically, housing need. This is not a new reality in South Africa; some authors who have criticized South African Housing Policy did not miss to point this aspect out. Khan (2003) notes the lack of capacity and skill of public authorities to design and implement integrated development plans. Besides, Omenya (2002) observes that «there is a lack of attention to the peculiar needs of single people, migrant workers, the elderly, those in need of temporary housing and people unable to access land legally». To this critique, Central government would argue that this lack of institutional capacity is a legacy of apartheid and not a failure of policy. This answer looks unsatisfactory. In fact, Baumann (2003) who has tried to understand the current South African economy, observes that the South African poverty is deeply structured. According to him, the ANC government view about poverty which advocates that the South African poverty is «basically a momentary phenomenon, a relic of apartheid» (Baumann, 2003: 1) is questionable. For Baumann, the ANC government strategies adapted for eradicating poverty are not adapted to the South African context. Indeed these strategies are inspired from Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and are based on «post-fordism».

The ignorance of the existence of PHP also explains the preference for RDP houses. However, some of the residents of RDP houses stated that they would choose SHH if it costs less than RDP houses and also if they were given the opportunity to learn how to build a house. This confirms Shulist's (2002) assumption which states that with finance and technical assistance almost everyone may build his own house.

In relation to the limited use of PHP observed in South Africa despite the housing shortage, respondents ascertain the responsibility at the level of both the government and poor households. It is observed at the level of poor households the attitude of «dependency»^46(*) which is manifested in waiting for everything from the government and also paternalistic^47(*) attitude which consists of government acting for the good of beneficiaries without their consent.

* ⁴³ Saying that they are close to Johannesburg is also questionable. In fact, people from Tembisa have to use a large part of their income for transport, 25% for those who are earning 2500 and 50% for those who earn 1500. They have also to spend almost one hour before reaching the centre of Johannesburg.

* ⁴⁴ It would be interesting if there were some people among respondents who have tertiary education. Unfortunately, I did not find one in the ward that I have selected as sample. They are in other wards.

* ⁴⁵ Surely, this is not the publicly stated opinion of higher levels of government. Indeed, in promoting PHP as the dominant policy, authorities in charge of housing expect willingness and capacity from poor households to engage with the process.

* ⁴⁶ Attitude of dependency derives from the theory of dependency which is presented in Chapter II. Like the proponents of dependency theory who advocate that the causes of under development are external, the poor households in Tembisa believe that solutions to their problems, especially those related to housing issues, should come from the government.

* ⁴⁷ This concept comes from Latin `Pater' which means father. It is an analogy comparing the relation between a father and his son; in political sphere this analogy is taken when a given government is convinced that its policies or laws seek the good of its citizens even though its citizens did not consent to the elaboration of those laws. On ethical grounds, paternalism is criticized because it considers citizens or beneficiaries of policies or laws as children, thus, unable to choose what is good for themselves.