2.2.4. Weaknesses of liberal
thought
According to advocates of liberalism, the individual is able
by him/herself to define what is good for him/her and finds a better way to
attain it. This means that the direct intervention of neighbours or of the
society is considered to be useless or unnecessary as the State must create
space for individuals through justice and make sure that every citizen is able
to attain his/her goal. It appears that «liberalism advocates the free
choice of life-style, but it forgets that the choice is to a large extent
preempted by the social environment in which people grow up and live»
(Ellen, 1986: 98).
Despite the merits of liberal thought enumerated above,
liberalism is not directly concerned with people's welfare and looks at only
the society as a whole in which all citizens are treated equally. Osborne
(1991: 142) criticizes liberalism in averring that it is utopian to claim that
«we should all be treated the same». Indeed, «the right to equal
treatment before the law will not translate into legal equality, for the laws
incorporates the privileges of property, while those with money can ensure more
favourable terms».
Most attacks against liberalism come from conservatism and
socialism which argue that liberalism, although allowing widespread
industrialism, brought «collapse in popular living standards» (Gray,
1986: 84). For Gerber (1983) the limit of liberalism may be situated in the
disagreement about precise limits of government's role in the nation's economic
life. He points out that although it is a highly developed country, the United
States of America (which may be taken as model of liberalism) still faces
«high degree of inequality and injustice so long as a relatively small
number of American were allowed to claim the rights of private ownerships over
the nation' s key wealth producing» (Gerber, 1983: 346).
The principal critique which may be formulated against liberal
thought is the place of poor people in a liberal society. Indeed, in focusing
only on principles that must govern the society, only powerful and rich people
are likely to perform effectively and poor people will grow poorer. Although
rich in initiative and creativity (see Lankatilleke, 1990 cited above), poor
people are unlikely to attain their ends. This is because every citizen living
in the community is not able by his/herself to adequately determine him/her
goal and attain it. This inability for every citizen to attain his/her goal
explains the growing gap observed in liberal society between poor and rich
people.
To this critique, the advocates of liberalism would certainly
answer in saying that the State should redistribute the wealth in order to give
poor people access to basic needs. Besides, as poverty is seen by liberal view
as the lack of income, the solution could be to increase the income of workers.
These responses look unsatisfactory and do not address the issues of poverty
and inequalities which developing countries face. Indeed, in redistributing the
wealth of country to poor people and as everybody must enjoy his freedom (see
Rawls' first principle of justice); the State cannot control how beneficiaries
use the wealth redistributed. It may happen that poor people use the wealth
redistributed for other ends than what for which it was initially allocated. In
relation to the second response, developing countries in general, and South
Africa in particular, experience a high rate of unemployment and lack of
education. This means that in increasing income of the workers, the government
will only improve living conditions of some individuals and therefore will
deepen and reinforce the gap between poor and rich people. From a Marxist view,
the liberal proposal which aims at reducing poverty cannot work and is likely
to fail as the liberal view does not identify capitalism as the root of poverty
and under-development, and in turn the main cause of inequalities in the
society.
In relation to the housing issue, the debate about weaknesses,
especially the insignificant place accorded to poor people shows that the
housing problem is not specific to housing only. It is rooted in poverty and
inequalities (see Angel, 2000b). It may be argued that poor housing conditions
is a complex issue and may find a definitive solution only if it is associated
with other policies such as poverty alleviation, education, job creation, etc.
This amply explains the dismal failure of RDP. In fact, through this policy,
South African post-apartheid authorities were more concerned with distributing
houses to poor households than providing them with the capacity to maintain
their houses and to face other issues such as HIV, jobs, education, etc. As a
result, a significant number of beneficiaries of RDP either had sold their
houses or had abandoned them (Huchzermeyer, 2003a).
Like liberalism, neo-liberalist policy is another movement of
thought which welcomes SHH. The debate below will analyze its main principles
and will identify its strengths and weaknesses. This debate will also analyze
the role of a neo-liberal State and the place of individuals with particular
reference to the housing process.
| 
