Pounding at the Tip of the Iceberg: The Dominant Politics of Informal Settlement Eradication in South Africa

Abstract

This article traces the evolution of the South African target to eradicate informal settlements by 2014 within the political position of the Ministry of Housing. It shows an interaction as well as a disjuncture with the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and with South African policy and legislation. In so doing, the article differentiates between an indirect engagement in policy with the causes of land invasion, and a direct (iceberg-pounding) approach in politics and practice to doing away with informal settlements. It associates the non-implementation of the national Programme on Upgrading of Informal Settlements with the widely practised direct approach to slum elimination, which includes eviction and relocation to transit areas. The article points to the centralized political approach in South Africa but does not analyse the reasons for the narrow political agenda on informal settlements. It seeks to expose a trend that is in need of political scientific debate and analysis.

Acknowledgements

An earlier, more normative version of this paper was prepared for the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation's (IJR's) 2008 Transformation Audit: Risk and Opportunity (pp. 94–101: Housing and Informal Settlements: A Disjuncture between Policy and Implementation). The author is grateful for comments and suggestions made by Jan Hofmeyr of the IJR and Claire Benit-Gbaffou of University of the Witwatersrand, insights and literature shared by Richard Pithouse, reflections from master's students in the Policy Analysis and Social Processes course in the School of Architecture and Planning at the University of the Witwatersrand, and insightful comments from two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

These terms are used interchangeably in the South African policy discourse.

‘Grootboom’ (Government of the RSA and Others v Grootboom and Others [2001] CC, SA 46) is hailed internationally as a landmark ruling on socio-economic rights. For South Africa, it helped define the constitutional right to adequate housing and the state's obligations in progressively realizing this right.

This Act also repealed the Slums Act 76 of 1979.

A separate MDG target on halving the population without access to water and sanitation by 2015 (Target 10) complements or supports the slum improvement MDG (7 Target 11).

The SAIRR (2008) press release mentions ‘the evictions that are characteristic of most informal settlements’.

The judgment in the Joe Slovo case (Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes and Others CCT 22/08) handed down on 10 June 2009 was in favour of relocation, provided its terms were meaningfully negotiated (COHRE, 2009).

Telephone conversation with Helen MacGregor, Development Action Group, Cape Town, 29 July 2008.

For property investors and human rights lawyers (at opposite sides of the spectrum), the most contentious of the proposed amendments related to whether the definition of ‘unlawful occupiers’ applies to defaulting tenants.

Telephone conversation with Richard Thatcher, Department of Housing, Pretoria, 21 August 2008.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marie Huchzermeyer

School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.