Justin du Toit, a research intern at DEVELOPMENT WORKS, attended a Development Dialogue recently. This opportunity for dialogue was presented by the Isandla Institute and Open Society Foundation for South Africa, on 19 July 2007, at the Centre for the Book in Cape Town…
Justin shares his experiences and views of this Dialogue session… and begs the question….How can we, as Capetonians in specific and South Africans in general, engage in meaningful discussion(s) about issues, without being politically infused and, hence, clouded by our political motivations?
Since the introduction and advent of the N2 Gateway Pilot housing project by the three spheres of government as the panacea to the huge and ever increasing housing backlog plaguing the Western Cape, and specifically, Cape Town, the project has been inundated with criticisms, debates, and media attention. As a national pilot housing project, the N2 Gateway Pilot Project was launched to measure the government’s new housing policy: Breaking New Ground (BNG), which aimed to create integrated human settlements. According to the Isandla Institute:
An ambitious (some would say, unrealistic) time table was put forward to build 22,000 units to bring about a mixed income neighbourhood. But the project has been plagued by delays, slow delivery, poor workmanship and contestation. Recently, the Minister of Housing unveiled expanded plans for the N2 Gateway Project, suggesting that her department is reflecting on lessons learned from the pilot project thus far and drawing on these lessons to ensure the project realises its potential of becoming an integrated and connected settlement. But will the new proposals address the concerns and criticism levelled against the project? Even if the N2 Gateway project meets current targets, given the complexity and time and cost implications, is the model replicable in other cities and other parts of Cape Town?
It is the latter and former mentioned questions that the dialogue was aimed at providing responses to. Among those representatives to share their perspectives on the above mentioned questions included: Xhanti Sigcawu (Thubelisha Homes); Luthando Ndabambi (N2 Gateway Residents Association); and Prof. Mark Swilling (University of Stellenbosch).
The platform provided to these representatives, however, was not used for the purpose(s) of the Developmental Dialogue, as outlined at the beginning. Apart from the agenda of the Developmental Dialogue, some of the speakers had agenda’s of their own. The first speaker, Mr. Xhanti Sigcawu of Thubelisha Homes (Section 21 Company), did briefly touch on policy and challenges facing the N2 Gateway Pilot Housing Project. The integrated nature of the project was highlighted by Mr. Sigcawu, when he stated, that it was a: pilot, integrated development; merging the differences of the past, in addition he stipulated that, the challenges facing the project is politics and not the policy the fact that there was insufficient land available. It was Mr. Sigcawu’s opening speech which set the tone for the discussion around the extant defects of the N2 Gateway units, and the matter of who is to be blamed for these existing defects. Hence, the foci of the subsequent speakers (excluding that of Prof. Swilling) at the Development Dialogue was around who is to be held accountable for the defects in an attempt of one absolving itself, in shifting the blame and/or passing the buck to previously involved participants. It was increasingly frustrating to sit in a discussion, with a preconceived notion that it would centre on policy and policy gaps and how the project could be improved in order for the N2 Gateway Project to become a prototype for replication in other cities in South Africa.
I am of the belief that the dialogue could however, have gone in the abovementioned direction, if facilitation of it was better in directing discussion to relevant points of discussion and restricting speakers to the time allocated for them to make their points, hence, only allowing for central points of discussion to be made at the Developmental Dialogue. Sitting in the dialogue several questions came to mind, among them were: Why does everything that happens in Cape Town, and the Western Cape have to be injected with the unstable contagion of politics? Why has the spirit and principles of Ubuntu been so easily lost and forgotten? What happened to the notion of Working Together for a better South Africa/ for a Better life’? These were only some of the questions that came to mind whilst sitting and observing how a dialogue, (I believed would have been a favourable context in which to constructively discuss and engage in policy and policy gaps, in an attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether the N2 Gateway Model could be replicated to other cities in South Africa), became increasingly political and inapt.
The only meaningful contribution to the discussion on policy and possible solutions to policy gaps and ways in which the N2 Gateway Project could be improved, in my opinion, was provided by Prof. Mark Swilling of the University of Stellenbosch. Prof. Swilling’s provided a refreshing perspective, which moved away from the previous addresses which was characteristic of pointing the finger and passing the buck. According to Prof. Swilling the land for the poor in the Western Cape is continuously periphalised, because the cost of housing takes into consideration the cost of the land. Prof. Swilling subsequently posed the question, What are the solutions?
He stated in response, that South Africa should get away from the one size fits all solution and into a multiplicity of interventions. Furthermore, he said that housing should be a social process’: with the purpose of building the capacity of households to respond and take advantage of the development strategies the process should be viewed as organisation and mobilisation with the aim of empowering the society’. Prof. Swilling was of the opinion that the N2 Gateway Pilot Housing Project was an example of two worlds of housing that does not meet: firstly, the world of the Technocrat’ concerned about land, space, etc and, secondly; the small, everyday life of inhabiting new settlement provide a context in which to engage about problems. Consequently, a lack of the latter mentioned engagements will therefore lead to an accumulation of inefficiencies. Prof. Swilling highlighted the importance of trust within these engagements. According to Prof. Swilling, without trust there is no way to maximise what the developmental state is doing societal mobilisation.
The functioning of these two worlds, according to Prof. Swilling, makes it extremely difficult in the Cape Town context. However, his solution to the latter mentioned statement, is to create a table for negotiation, and for all participants’ to remain seated at this table of negotiation, until a solution is sought.
Prof. Swilling’s perspective not only provided a fresh opinion on housing with regard to the N2 Gateway Pilot housing project, but a meaningful divergent from the politically motivating and finger pointing addresses of the previous speakers. Prof. Swilling’s viewpoint not only spoke to the N2 Gateway situation but to the South African housing situation in general. In light of Prof. Swilling’s contribution, one begs the question, How can we, as Capetonians in specific and South Africans in general, engage in meaningful discussion(s) about issues, without being politically infused and, hence, clouded by our political motivations?
