View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Wits Institutional Repository on DSPACE THE ALEXANDRA RENEWAL PROJECT (ARP): A CASE STUDY OF DEVELOPMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN ALEXANDRA. Luke Sinwell A thesis submitted to the faculty of humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Development Studies). Johannesburg, 2005 1 Abstract This paper analyses what has arguably become a salient feature of development on an international level, namely community participation. Specifically, it focuses on a case study of the removals of people from the Jukskei River as part of the Alexandra Renewal Project in order to obtain an understanding of the processes of participation on the ARP as a whole. The research makes use of interview and observation methods in order to uncover the perspectives of various stakeholders including the leadership of the ARP, community members of Alexandra and people actually displaced from the Jukskei River as part of the ARP. The central research question that the research addresses is: To what extent do participatory processes of the ARP either contribute to the further disempowerment of the already poor or hold the possibility of empowering them? I have concluded that a weak form of participation, in this case consultation, has led to the legitimization of the interests of those in power, of the state. I have suggested that since the kind of participation on the ARP is simply a technical one meant to ensure project success, it therefore does not and will not lead to achieving greater social justice (particularly for those who are poor). I recommend that structures be put in place that would enable people, particularly the poor, to become critically aware of their political and social situation. It is in this way that participation and indeed social justice may occur in South Africa in a substantial way. 2 I declare that this dissertation/ thesis is my own unaided work. It is submitted for the degree of Master of Arts (Development Studies) in the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted for any other degree or examination in any other university. (name of candidate) 15th day of February, 2005. 3 Acknowledgements I would like to than my previous professors at Hartwick College including Connie Anderson, and Craig Bielert, who brought me to South Africa for the first time in January 2002 and instilled further meaning in terms of happiness and my career goals. Also, I would like to express my appreciation to Mike Woost for sparking my interest in participatory development. Finally, I would like to thank my current advisor, Noor Nieftagodien, who has been helpful with my research report every step along the way. 4 Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction 7-23 1.1 Aims 7-10 1,2 Rational 10-14 1.3 Methodology 14-20 1.4 Limitations 20-22 1.5 Appendix 22-23 Chapter 2 – Understanding Participation 24-41 2.1 Introduction 24 2.2 Background/ history of participation 24-26 2.3 Participation: An Ambiguous Concept 27-31 2.4 Participation: The shift from end in itself to means to an end 31-35 2.5 Power relations at the project level 35-38 2.6 Empowerment 38-40 2.7 Conclusion 40-41 Chapter 3 – South African Policy Framework 42-50 3.1 Participation in the context of South Africa 42-47 3.2 Theoretical Framework 47-50 Chapter 4 – The Leadership Perspective of Participation on the ARP 51-68 4.1 The ambiguity of participation on the ARP 51-62 4.2 Participation in the context of the Jukskei removals 62-67 4.3 Conclusion 67=68 Chapter 5 – The People’s Perspective 69-80 5.1 Introduction 69 5.2 On the ground: people’s (lack of) participation 69-74 5.3 Broken promises 74-80 5.4 Conclusion 80 5 Chapter 6 – Conclusion 81-103 6.1 What kind of democracy on the ARP? 81-83 6.2 A rationalization of force and resistance by an ARP official 84-85 6.3 Citizenship and the Juskei removals 85-86 6.4 The way forward for participation on the ARP 86-95 6.5 For future study 95-96 6.6 References 96-103 6 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Aims This study deals with the Alexandra Renewal Project (ARP), which was funded R1.3 billion by the South African government and is to be undertaken over a seven year period between 2001 and 2008 in order to uplift the Alexandra community socially, economically, and physically. A central goal of the ARP is for the people to participate in their own development. This paper analyses what has arguably become a salient feature of development on an international level, namely community participation. Specifically, I will focus on a case study of the removals of people from the Jukskei River as part of the ARP in order to obtain an understanding of the processes of participation on the ARP as a whole.1 I have also included interviews of people who have been displaced from Alexandra in general to Diepsloot or Bramfischerville as an addition to the perspective of people displaced from the Jukskei specifically. With the above given, my research seeks to answer the following central questions: 1.) To what extent do participatory processes of the ARP either contribute to the further disempowerment of the already poor or hold the possibility of empowering them? 2.) To what extent were those displaced consulted about these removals? In other words, to what extent did the ARP take their views into account when the decision to remove them was being made? Or, did the ARP make decisions about the process of the removals without taking into account the views of actual people who were being affected? 3.) To what extent does the Alexandra Development Forum (ADF), which is meant to facilitate participation of the people in Alexandra (including the decision to move people off the Jukskei), represent the views of the community as a whole? 1 As a result of the pollution of the river and the environmentally deteriorating conditions on the river, some 7000 people were relocated to other places within and outside of Alexandra. 7 Because people perceive participation to be something that is inherently good, they are often confused about the idea that participation might lead to disempowerment. Indeed, when development projects or government programmes such as the ARP make people’s participation a central goal in the achievement of objectives on projects, there is little reason why anyone would object at face value. Except, when siding with participation, rarely does one actually look at the effect of participatory structures on people who are most vulnerable to the negative aspects of development intervention; the poor. The following question must then be raised: Why has participation not resulted in the empowerment of the poor, even though this is a key objective of participatory intervention? The above issues have led analysts such as Buhler to write that participatory approaches to community building “are being questioned and challenged, even by people who are committed to the principle that people should not be excluded from debates and decision making processes that have significant effects on their lives” (2002: 1). While the ARP proposes to empower the poor, I hypothesize that participatory processes on the project in fact actually do the opposite; further marginalizing them. Often, participatory forums such as the ADF serve the interests of the elites in a community because they are the ones who can exert power and influence and dominate discussions, thus making decisions about project plans. Therefore, what is proposed to benefit the poor/ marginalized may actually make them worse off than they were before the participatory development intervention. This type of occurrence, where the supposed beneficiary becomes worse off because of this intervention, is familiar in development projects throughout the world. When the poor are not considered in the project framework itself, the class and power relations within a community actually occur just as they would with no intervention at all; the more powerful dominating the less powerful. This occurs because the agenda of community participation on the projects such as the ARP may fail to recognize that community and the sense of belonging can be, and usually are, very hierarchical in their construction. Indeed, participatory discourse often has little space for existing hierarchies. 8 If my hypothesis proves correct, answers to the above research questions are meant to address the question: exactly how did the good intentions of empowering the poorest (a goal of the ARP as I will explain later) become lost in the development process? It is rather an easy task to conclude that those removed from the Jukskei did not participate in any decision- making affecting their lives. But is this reason to then simply say that participation is bad or that it does not work? Woost discusses this issue as it relates to participatory development in the following: I outline some of the ways in which the notion of participation is brought into line with mainstream development interests. The questions I ask of participatory development in Sri Lanka are similar to those James Ferguson (1994) asked of development generally in his book, The Anti-politics Machine. Ferguson noted that development critics such as Lappe and Collins (1977), often take for granted the process through which development actually fails to do what it intends and instead ends up serving the interests of those in power. Instead of merely pointing out development’s failure, Ferguson argues that we need to see how this occurs despite the good intentions of those involved. To simply say that development is the devil’s handmaiden implies a megalomaniacal scheme to forward the interests of the capitalist global economy. As Ferguson points out, it is unfair to say that all people who work in development share such interests. Nor are they simply dupes of a monolithic dominant ideology. We need instead, to peer into the black box of development and find out what happened to all the good intentions that disappeared inside it (2002: 108). By peering inside this ‘black box’ developers and practitioners may eventually understand why there were negative effects as a result of a given development intervention. Developers will thus be less likely to allow this same situation to happen again if they are aware that what they are doing actually (in perhaps some insidious way) goes completely against their own objectives. The research is therefore intended to address the following concern: If no special attempt is made to include the marginalized or poor, those in power within a given community will naturally dominate the development process. Therefore, to avoid further marginalization of the poor on development projects, developers must not only be aware of the above issue, but must also put structures and plans in place on the project that are meant to address the issue. The question thus becomes: How does one set up a structure that provides a substantial degree of participation from the poor? 9 It may be argued that the nature of the participatory process on the ARP makes it impossible for poor groups to be heard. Clearly, if technocrats, bureaucrats and other powerful people make decisions about what the character of the participatory mechanisms on the ARP will be, it is unlikely that these same mechanisms will hold the possibility of empowering and/or hearing the voices of the most disadvantaged in Alexandra. At least, the case must be that the power structures within the ARP, which established the ADF, hold certain limitations for those who are poor. These limitations are particularly evident through the protest action of shack dwellers during the ARP’s decision to remove people from the Jukskei River. Therefore, I will be focusing on the developmental model that was used to make the decision to remove people off the Jukskei River. Was this model the best model of participation, or could another model have been used that would have more effectively ensured the participation of the poor in Alexandra? 1.2 Rationale Internationally, participatory development has been in the forefront of development discourse over the last five decades. Through the late 1980’s and 1990’s, development practitioners and academics have stressed that people must be at the center of their own development. Until recently, participation was largely seen as a practice and ideal that could virtually do no wrong. Even today, development practitioners and academics fail to address structural constraints within a community that might make it impossible for participation to take place in the way that it is intended to. In South Africa, the post-apartheid development policy framework has emphasized community participation. (This issue will be discussed further in Chapter 3.) However, the lack of literature on participatory development in South Africa shows that it has not been sufficiently investigated. Moreover, the government may assume that people are participating in their own development simply because they voted ANC, when in fact agendas on a policy and project level within the country are meant to facilitate much more citizen participation than simply taking part in elections and voting for a representative. Finally, whether or not development is occurring from the bottom-up is of particular significance in South Africa ten 10