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

4.4.3.d Attitude of dependency

The attitude of dependency is witnessed among poor households interviewed, more specifically those living in informal settlements. This attitude does not suit the framework for a successful implementation of SHH which requires the active participation of beneficiaries. Potential beneficiaries of low-cost Housing consider themselves simply as recipients of government action, instead of participants. Thus, they marginalize themselves. People living in informal settlements do not think to improve their housing situations themselves or with government. They are waiting for houses from the government and they forget that the government does not have enough resources to solve housing need of all South Africans alone. As Mthembi-Mahanyele (1996), the former Minister of Housing put it, the government will only help those who help themselves. Dependency attitude is revealed when one of the councillors interviewed affirmed that people are lazy to undertake hard work and initiatives. He said that you can sometimes be confronted by people who inform you that there have rats in their houses. The councillor was asking himself if in such case people are not able to pay for product to destroy rats. He added that people are only waiting for keys for occupying an RDP house. The councillor's viewpoints about the failure to implement People Housing Process in Tembisa seem to be confirmed by answers given by households interviewed. In fact, all people interviewed, especially those living in squatter settlements, respond to the question of: «what have you done so far in order to improve your housing situation?» that they have applied for RDP houses. To the question of if they were given an opportunity to choose between PHP and RDP house, which kind of housing delivery they will choose and why, most respondents said that they will choose RDP houses because RDP house is already finished. In addition another element which confirms the attitude of «dependency» observed at the level of beneficiaries is the responses provided to the question of what the government must do urgently in order to solve the issue of poor housing conditions. Most respondents, especially the residents of RDP houses said that the government must build more RDP houses.

Like dependency attitude, Paternalistic attitude which may be the cause of the attitude of dependency also does not support an effective implementation of SHH programmes.

4.4.3.e Paternalistic attitude

From the government side, I observed paternalistic attitudes which consist in taking decisions for poor people without considering their viewpoints or associating them in the process of elaborating policies. Paternalism, likened to the relation between a father and a child, seeks to consider poor people as children, incapable of undertaking or initiating development projects themselves. Lankatilleke (1990) criticizes this process when he advocates that poor people are rich in initiatives and need to be encouraged and supported. Helping poor people who are in need of housing to own a decent house has moral considerations and seeks the good or interests of poor households given the value that post-apartheid government confers to housing. However, this becomes reprehensible to the extent that poor people did not consent to policy development and its implantation.

Paternalistic attitude appears when, to the question of how can PHP be effective and produce great results, one respondent said that there is a need to ask people what they want instead of deciding in their place. This is the position held by Omenya (2002) when he argues that poor people must decide on what they want. The idea of consulting poor people is that durable solutions, and the way to attain them, are in the hands of beneficiaries. Besides, one respondent of an RDP house, 19 years old and the youngest of the people interviewed, criticises the government action of supplying RDP houses to poor people without working with them. According to her, government is responsible for the multiplicity of shacks. Indeed, she argued that poor people are waiting for RDP houses and even those who are able to solve their housing need alone, for example through renting in formal settlement or by building a decent house, prefer to stay in the shack and wait for RDP houses. This is to say that having a shack effectively becomes a housing waiting list. As a result, the number of shacks is getting higher and poor households are denied the possibility of innovating and also creating. In addition, they become unable to raise their problems alone. In this sense, the paternalistic attitude, observed also in socialist States is the main cause of dependency attitude among poor people.

The question which should be asked is whether this paternalistic attitude, adopted by the post apartheid government, consisting of supplying low-cost housing to poor households without consulting them, is bad at all. Paternalism can produce great results if the real needs of beneficiaries coincide with government actions realized for them. In the case of beneficiaries of RDP houses interviewed, no respondent is completely happy or did not complain about at least one of the weaknesses of RDP houses. Indeed, those who work complain about building materials used in RDP houses. Others complain about the size of the house which is too small for a big family. And some others pointed out the security aspect as there is no fence and gives easy access to strangers. They attribute the responsibility of the failure of RDP houses to the government. However, if beneficiaries of RDP houses were involved in its implementation, they would probably accept the weaknesses presented by these houses. Indeed, one of the strengths of participation is, according to Martin (1983), that people can easily accept the failure of a given project^48(*). This is to say that true dialogue between authorities and beneficiaries should be required before implementing any projects. This aspect appears in the question of: «what would you do if you were given opportunities to act as authority in charge of housing?». One respondent of an RDP house said that she would try to listen to the communities' members in trying to understand their problems, what they want to do, and also in trying to be honest as people are suffering. In addition, dialogue seems to be necessary for helping low-income households to understand the financial situation of the country which does not allow government to supply adequate shelter for every poor household. This element appeared when to the question of: do you not think that the government is limited in resources for building RDP houses for everyone who is in housing need, one respondent living in RDP house answered in saying that South African government has a lot of money that it perceives from different taxes we pay. This is true but the reality shows that in Tembisa, there are approximately up to15 thousand^49(*) people who are on the housing waiting list. «If you multiply this number by the amount of subsidy for building one house, which amount will you have?» said one of the councillors of Tembisa. This is to say that true dialogue between the government and poor households can sometimes solve the issue of misunderstanding.

This issue of true dialogue also implies the issue of participation, the element without which development can only profit the minority as happens in neo-liberal countries. The question in this step is how participation can be fruitful and produce results expected. Does it mean that authorities should listen to everyone before implementing a given project? If this is the case, we can experience logistic and timing issues. The ideal would be to consult as significant a number as possible. Besides, dialogue may take different forms. People can participate directly in being themselves actors or they can participate indirectly in choosing their representatives. In all cases, beneficiaries should not feel external to the project related to them.

Paternalistic and dependency attitudes observed respectively from government and poor households do not contribute to the creation of an organized and strong community. Therefore, poor households marginalize themselves and do not seek to empower themselves in addressing alone their housing need. These attitudes: dependency and paternalism, weaken the existing community of poor people.

* ⁴⁸This raises the problematic of participation and failure. A broader view of participation is the positive reaction to the failure which is considered as inherent to human nature and in its giving opportunities to learn from one's mistakes and limits and to become more aware for future projects. Failure is seen by some authors as more meaningful than success. Indeed, as Smiles argues, «it is a mistake to suppose that men succeed through success; they much oftener succeed through failures. Precept, study, advice, and example could never have taught them so well as failure has done» (http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_failure.html). According to this author, community that participates in the project learns more in failing than in succeeding.

* ⁴⁹ If the population of Tembisa is estimated to be half a million of people, this means that a significant number of poor households in Tembisa is on the housing waiting list.