Interpreting the politics of Urbicide in South Africa's democratic era

Abstract

For more than twenty years South Africa has seen profound changes since its independence and adoption of a democratic system. Such changes include the incorporation of equality, liberty, economic freedom, and constitutional supremacy as the core principles of ordering society and public governance. The study considers these reforms as the “democratic opening” This democratic opening did not find complete expression or meet public expectations in a manner that is substantive enough to convince the masses that democracy is a meaningful system to uplift formerly oppressed people to equality with their counterparts. This disappointment with democracy arises from maladministration and moral failings in the public sector. It is possible that democracy has not fulfilled the envisaged hopes of the people due to unforeseen circumstances. When contextualising the rarely used term “democratic opening” the researcher goes on to define democratic opening as a way in which emerging human behaviour and social practices have exploited democratic opportunities in a manner that disrupts or threatens to undermine the gains that present political reforms have brought. The conceptual argument in this study is concerned with democratic opening leading to the intended and unintended destruction of urban spaces, also known as urbicide. The intended and unintended killing of cities and / or urban spaces is a phenomenon considered relevant to international relations where violence and conflict leads to the destruction of cities and valuable monuments. It is a concept common among scholars in the US and Europe; however, there is little academic interest among political scientists in investigating urbicide in the South African context. Moorcock (1963), Huxtable (1972) and Berman (1996) have contended that urbicide constitutes the intentional destruction of the city usually during wars, social protests, and political contestation. This research study suggests that new forms of unintended consequences have also led to the destruction of urban spaces. Lack of infrastructure maintenance and poor service delivery contribute to urbicide in South Africa. Because of the lack of such studies in the South African context, the researcher followed an interpretivist research design, which is of an exploratory nature, using a qualitative case study approach focusing on the characteristics, meanings, causes, and definitions of democracy and urbicide in South Africa. This research study relied on secondary data collection, a method used by reputable

institutions such as the South African Cities Network, Department of Human Settlements, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, and many others. Academic journals, books and reports have also been used to bring clarity and arguments. Other documents have been accessed through the NWU library, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and other internet platforms. The researcher applied thematic coding to analyse the politicisation and destruction of buildings and infrastructure, foreign nationals, and overpopulation. The findings of the research concern basic services and law enforcement as primary indicators of the democratic opening of South Africa, which entailed the adoption of the Bill of Rights and the South African Constitution automatically affording rights and privileges to citizens and foreign nationals. The right to basic health services and the right to housing are two of the many rights the government of South Africa is mandated to honour. The need to recognise these rights has placed a great burden on the South African public service because of a shortage of resources. The democratic opening and the civil rights it enabled has led to an increase in the number of foreign migrants coming to South Africa for the purpose of receiving health and social benefits from the South African government. The democratic opening also meant the rights to freedom of expression and association. However, freedom of expression does not imply incitement of violence or war, or the promotion of hatred based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion (RSA, 1996). Freedom of expression has therefore assured people living in South Africa that they can embark on protests without arbitrary violence being used against them by the police. However, violent political protests have become part of the political culture of South Africa. South Africans use protests to express any dissatisfaction about laws, policies, or public services. This form of expression is the only practical option that people believe the government pays attention to. In other words, petitions and litigation against government are seen to be inadequate in addressing people’s grievances. Some argue that the high illiteracy rate of adults in South Africa prevent people from being able to fully understand their constitutional rights. On the other hand, others argue that it is government’s non-responsiveness that makes people prefer protests as a viable tool. The critical point of consideration is that of “fragile cities” in South Africa, a phenomenon of “rapid urbanisation and declining governance arrangements exhibiting little willingness

or ability to deliver on the social contract” (Muggah, 2014). This is a worrying phenomenon because fragile cities are sites of violence and instability. The evidence lies in emerging civil conflicts among residents over the illegal use of water and electricity infrastructure. These emerging civil conflicts exist in tandem with thoughts about the freedom of movement and the right to housing that the democratic opening allowed. Freedom of movement is a constitutional right in South Africa and is afforded to everyone living in the country. During the apartheid era this right was limited by travel passes and racial discrimination laws. The democratic opening saw government relax law enforcement related to both internal and external human movement; such decision-making led to significant population increases in urban areas – population increases that that have coincided with maladministration at local government level and poor service delivery. This has led to the destruction of cities, manifested in decaying city centres, high incidents of crime, and collapsing critical infrastructure. Because of the discomforts of overpopulation and decay in the city, residents (South Africans and foreigners alike) have begun to clash over resources and accepting culpability for the unfolding destruction. Urbicide thus manifests in the politicisation and destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Because of South Africa’s political history many buildings and statues have been politicised as memories of a dark past. Because it is not possible for one to rename a statue, there is growing frustration about apartheid monuments. Hence the recent wave of destroying statues in the name of decolonisation. There is also the possibility that local municipalities neglect the maintenance of buildings associated with the apartheid legacy. But the attack on buildings is not an anti-colonial programme: some people attacked buildings symbolic of the democratic order following the court ruling in 2021about the imprisonment of former South African president Jacob Zuma. The attacks took the form of the violent looting of businesses and burning of assets, which became an extravaganza for thieves and for those who killed people at Phoenix. The research study also highlights the intentional neglect of cities by the ruling party as a political strategy to “punish” those that favour opposition parties, thereby deliberately creating city decay. The researcher ends by recommending that, in the shaping of public spaces, (a) civic education about xenophobia should be mainstreamed; and (b) an awareness of urbicide

should be embedded in the public policy imagination, especially in South African municipalities.