TOWARDS A POOR PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT?1

A SURVEY OF DURBAN ACTIVISTS’ VIEWS ON STRUGGLE, UNITY, AND THE FUTURE

Jessica Harris2

Introduction

In 1994, apartheid came to an end with the election of ANC candidate Nelson Mandela to

the office of President under the campaign slogan, “A better life for all.” Yet, nearly 13 years

after the ANC’s 1994 victory, unemployment in some parts of South Africa is nearly 50 percent,

and many thousands are living without housing, electricity, or water. These conditions, combined

with the cooption of many of the “old avenues of opposition” (ANC, COSATU, SACP, etc) into

the new government, gave rise to a new generation of social movements in South Africa.3

In this paper, I argue that while there is great diversity within post-apartheid Durban’s

CBOs and social movements, the organizations I examined effectively utilize openings in

political opportunity, framing, and resource mobilization in such a way that enhanced unity is

possible. However, I qualify this argument by contending that the movements will not coalesce

until they cultivate agreement on a common political project.

I begin by reviewing a sample of relevant literature in order to establish a theoretical

framework. Then, I turn to the research. Interviews4 with members of two Durban CBOs,

Westcliff Flat Residents Association and Wentworth Development Forum, and one of the few

remaining Durban social movements – Abahlali baseMjondolo – underpin my findings. I

examine the ways in which activists frame their demands (in the language of rights and as

reminders to the government to keep its promises), their organizations (as powerful community

guardians and as democratic voices of the poor), and their enemies (local and/or national

government).

I then explore the matter of unity. I find that while there is near unanimity among

activists that increased unity would be valuable, there is much dissension regarding the forms it

should take. My interviews expose a great deal of infighting within communities and among

organizations, shattering the romanticized portrait of social movements so many authors have put

forth.

I examine the debate over two possible forms of unity, centralization and forums, with

specific emphasis on a forum in which each of the organizations I have investigated once

participated – Social Movements Indaba. Finally, I discuss two logistical obstacles activists face,

lack of resources and political divisions, as well as a structural issue that may well be at the heart

of the difficulties in achieving unity: disagreement over a common political project. However,

my interviews reveal that despite conflicts, activists are optimistic about their future.

The Birth of the Struggle

Westcliff Flat Residents Association

Westcliff Flat Residents Association (WFRA) was formed by community members of

Unit 3 in Chatsworth, a historically Indian township created by the infamous Group Areas Act

during apartheid. Residents live in flats owned by the municipality, built by the apartheid

government 44 years ago. The flats are in “a state of gross disrepair,”5 brandishing peeled paint,

2

cracked walls, and leaky pipes. They were not renovated for 42 years and when they were, the

repairs were superficial.6

The WFRA was established after the attempted eviction of an unemployed woman and

her five children. The whole community rallied together, and with the help of a local ANC

member, they were able to stay the eviction and eventually win an interdict in court. According

to a WFRA leader: “That was the beginning… It was a true chance of mobilizing in the

communities around Chatsworth” in which about 60% of residents were facing eviction.7 Local

activists took advantage of the space created by the community’s outrage over the eviction, and

they formed WFRA. WFRA later joined a movement called the Concerned Citizens Forum

(CCF).8 Though most of the CCF’s composite organizations still exist separately from each

other, the CCF soon collapsed amidst racial acrimony, for reasons no one in the WFRA seems to

grasp.

Activists in WFRA remember their founding moments well. One member recalls forming

a human chain in front of the door and refusing to allow security in.9 Several indignantly recount

the brutality with which the police handled the situation, letting loose dogs and tear gas into the

crowd.10 Many proudly remember one of their leaders getting bitten by a dog but standing her

ground.11 The event is well-entrenched in activists’ memories, a founding legend they all know

well.

Abahlali baseMjondolo

Abahlali baseMjondolo is a movement of shack dwellers. It began in the Kennedy Road shack

settlement that houses nearly 7,000 people in only about 1,200 shacks.12 Richard Pithouse writes:

3

“There are 4 official taps for drinking water and another (illegally connected) tap for washing

hands, 6 poorly maintained portable toilets, and no refuse collection...”13 Abahlali members

complain that when it rains, everything is muddy. They worry about the health of children who

grow up in a place that is always wet.14 Worse, because they lack electricity, they are forced to

rely on paraffin which has led to many deadly fires.15 Members say they were promised houses

long ago and have tired of waiting.16

Abahlali was formed in March 2005 when angry residents of Kennedy Road decided to

take action upon learning that they would not receive land near Elf Place that they had been

promised. Over 700 shack dwellers filled the streets, burning tires and blocking traffic. Fourteen

protestors were arrested, and in the fury that followed, Abahlali was born.

Like the WFRA, Abahlali utilized an opening in political opportunity structures. Before

its formation, few if any organizations directly addressed the needs of shack dwellers.17 Pithouse

argues that “this was because shack dwellers [unlike flat dwellers], lacking access to housing,

water and electricity were not at risk of eviction and disconnection.”18 Thus, Abahlali was

formed to fill a void, to represent the needs of a neglected segment of society. Jacob Bryant

argues that Abahlali also successfully created its own opportunities, taking full advantage of the

press it received at its first march, effectively mobilizing other shack dwelling communities, and

constantly holding the threat of protest over the councilors’ heads.19

All of the Abahlali members I interviewed knew the story of the Elf Place protest. They

recalled their first march with pride. Most members mentioned that the 14 activists who were

arrested have become known as “the 14 Heroes,” a framing that will forever memorialize

Abahlali’s founding martyrs.

4

The Wentworth Development Forum

The Wentworth Development Forum was established in the historically “Coloured”

township of Wentworth in the South Durban basin. Many of the Wentworth residents live in flats

that are in similar conditions to those of Chatsworth. Community members complain of

overcrowding, with up to 15 people living in a one-bedroom flat.20 Drug and alcohol abuse, high

unemployment, and crime (especially rape) have plagued the community for years.

To fight these problems, community activists formed a number of development

organizations during apartheid, but although they were all working on development, activists

recognized that “there was no development happening.”21 So, in 1994, activists created a political

space by collapsing the various inefficient organizations into the Wentworth Development

Forum (WDF). It was to be “one structure to deal with all of the development issues.”22

Unlike WFRA and Abahlali, most Wentworth activists do not recall a single mobilizing

event or even the year that WDF was founded. But, they do remember the creation of WDF as

the birth of unity in the community, a first step in a long struggle. One member described the

beginning of WDF as a moment of “coming together,” of the community saying, “enough is

enough.”23 The fact that most WDF activists do not remember its formation may indicate a weak

internal culture in the organization, but I suspect the explanation lies rather in the fact that WDF

is 13 years old.

This section has explored the circumstances in which WFRA, Abahlali, and WDF

emerged. The next examines the ways in which they frame their demands.

Building Diagnostic Frames

5

Every organization is formed to meet certain goals and to win certain concessions. The

language activists use to describe these objectives is vital to their success in achieving them. I

will not attempt to evaluate the validity of activists’ claims because their framings need not

accurately describe reality. They simply must be believable and resonant.

While each of the activists I interviewed emphasized different demands, their framing of

these demands was remarkably similar. Two broad categories emerged: activists often spoke in

the language of rights, insisting that they had a right (either constitutional or natural) to their

claims; additionally, many activists stressed that the government owes them because it has failed

to deliver on its promises and has therefore betrayed the people. I will begin by exploring the

“language of rights” framing and then address the “broken promises and betrayal” framing.

Creating a Language of Rights

In interview after interview, activists emphasized that they are only trying to defend their

rights. In Westcliff, members insisted that poor people are not granted the same rights as others

but that as citizens contributing to the country’s revenue, they deserve to be treated equally.24

Similar sentiments were echoed by residents of Kennedy Road: “It should be our government but

it’s a government for the rich people, not for the poor”25 and in Wentworth: “In the new

government, we don’t even feature as human beings.”26

Some focused on their rights as citizens. They maintained that the Constitution

guarantees they not be homeless.27 A few went further, contending that they had a right to a

house in the place where they lived.28 One Foreman Road29 resident angrily complained, “The

councilors treat Abahlali like they are children just because we are poor – but they cannot tell me

I do not deserve to own a house. It is my constitutional right.”30

6

Others underscored their rights as human begins. One activist lamented, “Without a

house, you feel dehumanized.”31 Another added, “It’s not healthy to live in these conditions [in

the shacks] – it’s not the way people are supposed to live.”32

Activists’ claims ranged from their right to a house (“We were poor, unarmed civil

society only trying to defend our right to our house”33), to their right to protest (“Protesting is our

democratic right. We must exercise our rights”34), to their right to water and electricity (“Flat

dwellers are also human beings. They don’t deserve to have their water and electricity cut”35) to

their right to a better life and a better life for their children (“The government has not spent a

cent on the local community with regard to giving people their constitutional right of a better life

for all of us”36).

Addressing Broken Promises

While many activists frame their demands in the language of rights, others frame them as

legitimate requests for the government to fulfill its promises. This framing is strategic because it

gives activists the moral high ground and allows them to claim that they are not fighting against

the state but simply reminding it to fulfill its promises.

Among the unfulfilled promises activists cited were: housing, land, development, free

water and electricity, free education, jobs, and of course “a better life for all.”37 Many activists

spoke of feeling deceived by the government, of being tricked into voting for the ANC only to

find out they had been “bluffed.”38 A pensioner from the WFRA quietly lamented: “People [from

the ANC] came and bluffed us. They said they would fix everything. They made us to vote for

them. But no one came back after the vote.”39

7

Activists’ grievances regarding the state’s failure to deliver on its promises often revealed

hurt and anger at the government’s perceived betrayal of the people. At a WFRA meeting, one

Wentworth activist railed: “This government up until today that we have voted for and believed

in has turned on us, the poor people.”40 Feelings of being forgotten by the government were

repeated in interview after interview. Disillusionment was rife: “They promised us a lot of things

but we voted for them and nothing happened. They’re only bluffing us;”41 “We were all betrayed

by the government;”42 “They have forgotten about poor people. They have forgotten what they

promised us.”43

Members of all three organizations reiterated their desire for the government to fulfill its

promises but while WFRA and WDF members were often openly hostile to the ANC, Abahlali

members were quick to emphasize their neutrality towards or even support for the ANC. They

framed their demands not as an attack on the state, but rather as a friendly if uncompromising

reminder. At a workshop I attended, one Abahlali activist forcefully stated: “Abahlali is not

fighting with the government.”44 This sentiment was echoed by many interviewees. A member of

the Foreman Road committee put it simply: “The government promised land and housing.

Abahlali is only asking for what the government promised. We are reminding the government to

do those things. Poor people need them.”45

Framing the Path Forward

In my interviews with members of WFRA, WDF, and Abahlali activists portrayed

themselves as powerful defenders of their respective communities and as democratic voices of

the poor. Both of these framing are prognostic and tactical. I discuss them in turn.

Powerful Community Guardians

8

Activists spoke about the feeling of empowerment their organizations gave them.

Comparing the municipality to a “big monster,” a WFRA member proclaimed at a meeting: “We

must never ever in our lifetime fear this monster because we are a bigger monster. Together,

there’s nobody more powerful than we are.”46 An Abahlali member boasted, “They [the

municipality] fear the power of Abahlali.” He told me about how many times Abahlali succeeded

against “the mighty municipality” and how a movement of mere shack dwellers forced the mayor

to postpone a conference in order to meet with them.47 A WDF member asserted that his

organization stands up against oppression and for the masses. He added, “WDF will always be

around as watchdogs, as voices of the people.”48

Many members of WFRA proudly recalled forming human chains to stop evictions or

chasing away service technicians (who were disconnecting water or electricity) with

broomsticks. A WFRA member boldly concluded one meeting by announcing that as long as

WFRA was around, no one in the community would be evicted.49 Afterwards, another member

confided, “We are safer with the organization because someone is fighting for us. No one will

harm us.”50

Abahlali members remember marches of thousands of people. One activist enthused that

the movement is not only known as the biggest movement in KwaZulu Natal but has achieved

worldwide recognition.51 Another credited Abahlali with opening the people’s eyes and brashly

declared: “The ANC always talks about discipline but we are tired of discipline. We are not

disciplined anymore.”52 But, perhaps the best indication of the activists’ views of their

organizations is their answer to this question: “Can you tell me about a time when your

organization failed?” The unanimous reply was simply: “No.”

9

Democratic Voices of the Poor

Many activists frame themselves as democratic voices of the poor. This type of framing

yields multiple benefits. It enables organizations and movements to mobilize new constituencies

such as the unemployed, young women, and squatters.53 It also encourages mass involvement

because by participating and speaking for themselves, members gain a sense of empowerment

and dignity. These can be powerful incentives to act.

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe argue that democratic discourse is essential to the

creation of a “radical and plural democracy,” without which the Left cannot challenge neo-liberal

forces.54 They assert that the language of democracy contains “profound subversive power” in its

ability to spread “equality and liberty into increasingly wider domains” by framing “different

forms of inequality as illegitimate and anti-natural, and thus make them equivalent as forms of

oppression.”55

While the “democratic voices of the poor” frame is undoubtedly employed most

frequently by Abahlali’s members, it is used to some extent by WFRA and WDF. A joint

resolution by Westcliff and Bayview residents against accepting ownership of the flats began

with the celebrated if clichéd words, “We the people.”56 During WFRA meetings, members are

encouraged to share their grievances. All resolutions are put to a vote and all committee

members are elected. One member avowed, “This organization is the voice of the people.” She

added, “We want government to hear our voices.”57

WDF is also a democratic organization. It, like WFRA, elects its committee members.

Activists stressed the importance of listening to the community. They were emphatic that WDF

is “community and civic-driven” and that it does not take money from industry (a divisive issue

in Wentworth which I will return to later).58 But, while WFRA and Abahlali hold weekly public

10

meetings that are generally very well-attended, WDF holds only monthly meetings, making

many of its decisions in sub-committees.59 Some might argue that this is a weakness but none of

the members I interviewed perceived a problem in the running of the organization.

Abahlali members stressed the democratic nature of their movement. One activist

asserted, “Abahlali is a pure social movement. It is driven by people, not politics.”60 A committee

member added, “Whatever the executive committee comes up with, it asks the community about.

The poor people are leading us.”61 Another affirmed, “If you are on the committee, you have to

listen to what the people want.”62

At Abahlali, members emphasized its role as a democratic organization that speaks for

those who have no voice. Most said their biggest accomplishment as a movement was winning

the right to speak for themselves. They talked about the pride they felt in marching, being

featured in national media, forcing local government to meet with them, and successfully taking

the city to court.

For Abahlali activists, being recognized and having their voices heard is paramount. One

member told me, “Abahlali just wants the government to come and ask the people what they

want.”63 Richard Pithouse explained, “Groups like Abahlali don’t want to be represented by

elites. They want to have their own voice.”64 In a similar vein, an Abahlali member lamented,

“The city managers talk but they don’t know how it feels to be poor. They’re sitting in their

swivel chairs talking about poor people, about poverty, but they don’t even know what that

means. Don’t talk about us, talk to us.”65

Although the two frames discussed in this section serve slightly different purposes they

are both prognostic frames that strategically position the organization as the hero: defending

11

communities and fighting for the people’s rights. These are the types of frames that enable

activists to build sustainable movements. I now turn to the equally vital matter of identity.

Creating a “We” and Defining a “Them”

Towards a Common Identity

This section addresses the ways in which activists see themselves. Constructing a

common identity is crucial to building any social movement. Shared identity is defined around

common experiences, symbols and myths.66 Identity creates a boundary between activists and the

state. It enables activists to think of themselves as part of a collective “we,” facilitating solidarity

and collective action.

WFRA, WDF, and Abahlali have constructed remarkably similar and inclusive identities.

They are non-racialist, non-political, and non-religious, and they reveal a strong class

consciousness, though not of the traditional leftist “working class” variety.

Most activists in WFRA and WDF identify quite simply as “poors.” Activists are not

ashamed to identify as poor, and they stand adamantly in solidarity of other poors. A WDF

activist speaking on the issue of flat ownership67 at a WFRA meeting rebuked residents who

were considering signing title deeds, arguing that even if they could afford to sign, they should

not, as it would be a betrayal of poorer community members.68 WFRA and WDF members made

countless references to themselves as poors, making comments such as: “The government… has

turned on us, the poor people,”69 “It’s our struggle – the poors’ struggle,”70 “We are the poorest

of the poor,”71 and “We are poor people living in this community.”72

12

Unlike WDF and WFRA members, Abahlali members identify primarily as shack

dwellers, commenting: “Abahlali speaks on behalf of all shack dwellers,”73 “Abahlali fights for

everyone living in shacks,”74 and “We are all sitting in the mud together.”75 While this is not as

inclusive an identity as “the poors,” it is a logical identification, as Abahlali is, after all, a shack

dwellers’ movement. Still, Abahlali members also expressed strong solidarity with other poor

people’s struggles, whether or not they were shack dwellers. Though primarily a shack dwellers 1 This phrase was used by an Abahlali activist in our interview, Nov. 21, 2006.2 This project would not have been possible without the assistance, advice, and guidance of my advisor, Richard Ballard. He deserves many thanks for his time and energy. I am also grateful to Richard Pithouse and Patrick Bond for their direction and support. Orlean Naidoo provided invaluable aid to me in my Chatsworth research. I am deeply grateful for her time, resources, insight, and friendship. I also want to acknowledge Louisa at Abahlali for her assistance in my Abahlali research and her warm welcome into her community. Finally, thank you to all of my interviewees who were so generous with their time and so honest in our interviews. This project could not have been completed without their help. 3 Ballard, Richard, Adam Habib, Imraan Valodia and Elke Zuern. “Introduction: From Anti-Apartheid to Post-Apartheid Social Movements.” From Ballard et al. (eds). Voices of Protest: Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu Natal: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, 2006, pg 14.4 See bibliography of interviews.5 Fatima Meer speaking at WFRA meeting Nov. 5, 2006.6 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting Nov. 5, 20067 Interview with WFRA leader, Nov. 7, 2006.8 For further reading on the CCF, see Dwyer, Peter. “The Concerned Citizens Forum: A Fight Within a Fight.” From Ballard et al. (eds). Voices of Protest: Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu Natal: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, 2006. Pg 89 – 110.9 Interview with WFRA member Nov. 15, 2006.10 Interviews with WFRA members Nov. 15, 2006. 11 Interviews with WFRA members Nov. 15 & 16, 200612 Interview with Abahlali member Nov. 21, 2006. 13 Pithouse, Richard. “The Left in the Slum: the Rise of a Shack Dwellers’ Movement in Durban, South Africa.” History & African Studies Seminar. 2005, pg 3.14 Interview with Abahlali member Nov. 21, 2006. 15 Interview with Abahlali member Nov. 20, 2006; Pithouse, Richard. “The Left in the Slum: the Rise of a Shack Dwellers’ Movement in Durban, South Africa.” History & African Studies Seminar, 2005, pg 3.16 Interviews with Abahlali members Nov. 20 & 21, 2006; Abahlali members speaking at Esset workshop Nov. 20, 2006.17 Interview with Abahlali member Nov. 22, 2006. 18 Pithouse, Richard. “The Left in the Slum: the Rise of a Shack Dwellers’ Movement in Durban, South Africa.” History & African Studies Seminar, 2005, pg 2.19 Bryant, Jacob. “Towards Delivery and Dignity: Community Struggle From Kennedy Road.” Center for Civil Society Research Report No. 41, pg 74. 2006.20 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 23, 2006.21 Interview with WDF leader, Nov. 16, 2006. 22 Ibid.23 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.24 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 15, 2006.25 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006. 26 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 6, 2006.27 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.

13

movement, Abahlali also works with flat dwellers. When asked why, members likened the flat

dwellers struggles to their own, replying: “Flat dwellers are poor too,”76 and “They are crying

like us. We have the same struggles.”77 These statements reveal an underlying identification as

“poors,” though it may be secondary to activists’ identification as “shack dwellers.”

Members from all three organizations were adamant that their identities exclude race and

politics. One activist asserted that all that matters is “poor people’s basic, practical problems – 28 The government is currently attempting to relocate many of the shack dwellers to the periphery of the city but they do not want to move. Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.29 One of the Abahlali-affiliated shack settlements in Durban.30 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.31 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 6, 2006. 32 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006. 33 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 7, 2006.34 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.35 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.36 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.37 The ANC’s infamous campaign promise that has been repeated during every national election since 1994.38 Interviews with WFRA members Nov, 15 & 16, 2006.39 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.40 WDF member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.41 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.42 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.43 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.44 Abahlali member speaking at Esset workshop, Nov. 20, 2006.45 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.46 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.47 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.48 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.49 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 15, 2006.50 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.51 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.52 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006. 53 Bond, Patrick. “South Africa’s Resurgent Urban Social Movements: The Case of Johannesburg, 1984, 1994, 2004.” Paper for CCS. June 2004, pg 9.54 Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic

Politics. London and New York: Verso, 1985, pg 174 – 176.55 Ibid, pg 155.56 WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.57 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.58 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.59 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 6, 2006.60 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.61 Interivew with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.62 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.63 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.64 Richard Pithouse speaking at Esset workship, Nov. 20, 2006.65 “Don’t talk about us, talk to us” is an Abahlali slogan. Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.

14

the politics of the poor.”78 Another affirmed, “We don’t talk about politics. We talk about

people’s needs.”79 Activists were similarly insistent that people of all races are welcome to join

their organization and their struggle. Though due to the legacies of apartheid WFRA is

predominantly Indian, Abahlali predominantly black African, and WDF predominantly

Coloured, there is limited diversity in every organization, and no member expressed any feelings

of exclusion or castigation in our interviews.

Articulating Targets

Along with establishing a common perception of “we,” it is essential to movement-

building that activists define “them.” A movement must be clear about who it is fighting. It is in

response to this question that I found the most diversity and the least clarity both within and

between organizations. The most common way that activists alluded to “the enemy” was as a

nebulous “they” entity, making no effort to clarify who exactly “they” was. For instance, “They

came to kick me out of my house,”80 or “They talk to poor people like we are children.”81 The

66 Della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. Social Movements: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing,

1999, pg 92.67 In both Chatsworth and Wentworth, the municipality is currently asking flat residents to sign title deeds for their flats. However, in order to receive ownership, residents must sign an acknowledgement of debt. WFRA and WDF are encouraging residents not to sign the ownership papers until the government scraps residents’ arrears and repairs the aging flats.68 WDF member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.69 Ibid.70 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.71 Ibid.72 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.73 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.74 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.75 Ibid.76 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.77 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.78 Interview with Church Land Program (an NGO affiliated with Abahlali) member, Nov. 22, 2006.79 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.80 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.81 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.

15

implication is, of course, that “they” is the government and in fact, many activists used

“government” and “they” interchangeably.

But, “government” is an imprecise target to struggle against. In order to construct

achievable goals and appropriate actions with which to fight for those goals, a movement must

choose a more specific target than “government.” Abahlali is by far the most successful of the

three in this pursuit (which may well be a part of the explanation for why it has become a mass

movement while the others remain small CBOs).

In WFRA and WDF, activists are often openly hostile to the ANC, both at the local and

national level, expressing disillusionment and frustration with the liberation party. Most

members that I spoke with voted for the ANC in past elections (both local and national, but more

commonly national) but are adamant that they will not do so again. One WFRA committee

member revealed that she had voted for the ANC in 1994, 1999, and 2004, but that she

“definitely” will not vote for the ANC in the next national election. She explained, “Living here

[in Westcliff] and seeing what my own government did to me changed my perspective.”82

Another WFRA activist who had fought with the ANC during the anti-apartheid struggle

confessed that though she had voted for the ANC both locally and nationally in the past, she has

decided not to vote anymore: “My vote doesn’t mean anything because I’m getting nothing from

the person who’s getting my vote.”83 Only one WFRA or WDF member that I interviewed

divulged that he will vote for the ANC again, explaining that though he felt he had been

“bluffed,” there simply was no alternative to the ANC to vote for.84

Different members of WFRA and WDF laid the blame at the foot of different bodies.

Activists bestowed shares upon the municipality (“The municipality is the big monster”85), the

82 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.83 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.84 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.

16

local councilor (“The councilor promised us a lot of things but he did nothing”86), President

Thabo Mbeki, and the ANC as a whole (“We are where we are today because of Mbeki and the

ANC’s policies”87).

Abahlali members displayed considerably more hesitation to blame the ANC. They were

on the whole, extremely loyal to the party that brought them democracy, freedom of speech, and

the right to protest. Some Abahlali activists intend to continue to vote for the ANC in national

elections. Some are even card-carrying ANC members, and they see no contradiction in

supporting Abahlali and the ANC. One activist, brandishing her ANC card, declared: “I am ANC

but I am also Umhlali.”88 Another clarified, “We want the ANC but we want our demands.”89

Most of the Abahlali members drew a distinction between the ANC’s policies and those

of their local municipality. They insisted that it was not the ANC that they had a problem with,

but rather individuals within the ANC. One member put it this way: “We are satisfied with the

ANC’s aims and objectives and with the Freedom Charter but we are against people who want to

privatize the ANC.”90 Activists by and large believe that if their local councilor were doing a

better job, life would be better, asserting: “The councilors don’t care about the people. They only

care about votes,”91 and “We voted for the councilor for five years but he won’t have

conversations with the poor people who put him in office so we decided we didn’t want the

councilor anymore.”92 Mixing humor with anger, another Abahlali member averred, “We don’t

care what race the councilor is. We don’t even care if he is a small child. We just want him to do

what the community wants.”93

85 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.86 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.87 WDF member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.88 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.89 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.

17

Activists insisted they were not fighting against the ANC, despite the attempts by the

ANC to paint Abahlali members as enemies. They remonstrated: “Abahlali was not formed to

fight the municipality. It was formed to make government listen,”94 “We are not fighting with

anyone.”95 and “We are not fighting with the government.”96 This non-confrontational framing is

unique to Abahlali and possibly key to its ability to build a mass movement. It is an inclusive

framing that casts a wide net. By painting themselves as loyal ANC members who just want

local government to fulfill its promises, Abahlali opens its membership to people of all political

orientations.

There are multiple advantages to such an inclusive framing. First, by encouraging many

different types of people to join, Abahlali secures a critical mass; it gains the ability to put

thousands of bodies into the streets. Equally important, this framing bestows a certain legitimacy

upon Abahlali. The more representative its membership, the more credible is Abahlali’s claim to

be the voice of shack dwelling communities. And indeed Abahlali has around 30 000 supporters

while the smaller CBOs that are openly anti-ANC often have less than even one or two hundred

supporters. It is also significant that at times they organize in areas that are not historically ANC

and that some of their supporters previously have supported pro-apartheid parties enabling an

easy transition to open opposition to the ANC.

Having discussed the way activists talk about action, I now explore their feelings on

united action.

Towards United Action

90 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.91 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.92 Abahlali member speaking at Esset workshop, Nov. 20, 2006.93 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.94 Abahlali member speaking at Esset workshop, Nov. 20, 2006.95 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.96 Abahlali member speaking at Esset workshop, Nov. 20, 2006.

18

There is a strong sense among activists of all three organizations that their actions would

be more effective if they could only unite with other communities. This is not to say that they

have not begun to reach out but merely that activists believe they could be stronger if their

movement was bigger. A WDF activist put it bluntly, “The stronger we are, the harder we’ll fall.

It’s about unity,”97 and “We want unity developed amongst all of us... That’s how the struggle

will be built.”98 A WFRA member added, “The government will hear us if we speak with one

voice.”99

Activists from WFRA, WDF, and Abahlali seem to agree that “the only way forward is

for us to unite and fight the man that is oppressing us.”100 They argued almost unanimously that

unity is essential to the future of their organizations: “We need to take each of our struggles and

make it one big struggle,”101 “One person can never stand alone and fight,”102 and “Abahlali is so

strong now [because it has united 34 shack settlements].”103 When asked why they feel so

strongly about working with more communities, activists revealed a deep sense of solidarity with

other poor people’s struggles, replying, “Because I’m poor, I like to stand for another poor. I

know I’m in the same shoes as the other poors”104 and “We need to fight together because we are

all crying for the same things.”105

Although I found broad agreement among activists of all three organizations that uniting

communities is a worthy goal, my interviews revealed a general aversion to centralization and

97 WDF member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.98 WDF member speaking at SMI planning meeting, Nov. 4, 2006.99 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.100 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006. 101 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.102 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.103 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.104 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.105 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.

19

vast disagreement on the value of forums. I discuss the matter of centralization first and then turn

to the debate over forums, with particular emphasis on Social Movements Indaba.

The Debate Over Centralization

There has been much debate among academics and some activists around the idea of

uniting communities and movements under one centralized structure. Trevor Ngwane argues that

if organizations remain autonomous and do not establish a centralized body, they will lack

accountability.106

Franco Barchiesi disagrees. He advocates a “politics of the multitude” in which “rather

than converging in the form of unity, or of adherence to a coherent system of meaning and forms

of consciousness, these singularities seek commonality as shared understandings of common

elements and root causes of material conditions, and strike at commonly identified targets while

retaining their autonomy.”107 Ran Greenstein argues that new movements’ autonomy and their

departure from traditional left hierarchical structures are to be celebrated. He asserts that

community-based “grassroots subjectivities… question the validity of unifying identities… as

the form of expression of common desires” because the centralization tactics of the old left

simply are not effective in the new struggles.108

My interviews revealed a similar hostility to the idea of centralization among activists.

One activist questioned the ethics of centralizing under one vanguardist organization, averring,

“We must be cautious about saying that movements should be led from the front and not from

106 Bond, Patrick. “South Africa’s Resurgent Urban Social Movements: The Case of Johannesburg, 1984, 1994, 2004.” Paper for CCS. June 2004, pg 25.107 Barchiesi, Franco. “Classes, Multitudes and the Politics of Community Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Center for Civil Society Research Report No. 20. Durban: CCS, 2004, pg 7.108 Greenstein, Ran. “Civil Society, Social Movements and Power in South Africa.”  RAU Sociology Seminar Series (Fourth term) Sept. 2003, pg 14.

20

the ground.”109 Another activist approached the debate from a different angle, alleging that large

centralized organizations always run into problems over funding and spaces. He argued for

creating a space to share knowledge and support one another, allowing each organization its own

space to deal with its specific problems in the way it feels most comfortable.110 Some have

proposed that forums like Social Movements Indaba (SMI) could serve such a purpose, but there

has been much debate over the value of SMI, pitting WDF and WFRA leaders who support it

against Abahlali activists who do not.

The Social Movements Indaba: a Vehicle for Unity?

The Social Movements Indaba was started in 2002 in Johannesburg to offer a critical

perspective on the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The SMI claim

that they helped to organize a massive march of 20,000 activists from Alexandra township to

Sandton although their role in this march is hotly contested by, for example, the Landless

Peoples’ Movement. SMI Secretary Mondli Hlatshwayo describes the event as “a landmark in

the history of social movement cooperation” and the beginning of “a new mass movement.”111

The following year, the SMI held its first annual meeting in Johannesburg. Since 2003, there

have been two more SMI meetings, both in Johannesburg. Due to the recent growth of activism

in KwaZulu Natal and concerns about how representative SMI is if it is always held in

Johannesburg, the 2006 SMI is being held in Durban.112

SMI organizers claim that SMI is a space for social movements to come together and

strengthen “grassroots solidarity and common campaigns on the ground.”113 They hope to build

109 Interview with Church Land Program member, Nov. 22, 2006.110 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.111 Hlatshwayo, Mondli. “The SMI Secretary’s Report to the Fourth SMI Annual National Meeting.” Dec. 2006, pg 4. 112 The SMI is actually taking place at the time of the writing of this paper. It is being held at UKZN from Dec. 2 – Dec. 6. Interview with SMI organizer, Nov. 10, 2006.

21

“unity against neoliberalism… bringing out common demands,” and to simply “work

together.”114 Organizers add, “The space was meant to evolve and include planning of common

action and struggle” but stress that “each organization taking part in SMI” maintains its

autonomy.115 Additionally, organizers hope to develop “a shared and inclusive platform that

movements can carry to Nairobi” for the World Social Forum.116

However, the purpose and value of SMI is a source of heated debate among the Durban

activists whom I interviewed. While most ordinary activists in all three organizations know very

little of SMI (if they have even heard of it), the leadership of all three organizations are well

acquainted with it, and they expressed strong opinions about its value. At the outset of my

research, all three organizations under investigation were participants in SMI. However, while

WFRA and WDF leaders remain committed to SMI, Abahlali leaders opted to remove their

organization from the SMI planning process five weeks before the meeting will be held and will

not attend the event. Nonetheless, I will discuss the SMI because it highlights many of the

problems and debates that have plagued Durban’s activists in their efforts to unite communities

and build sustainable movements in post-apartheid South Africa.

There is a stark contrast between the picture that WDF and WFRA leaders paint of SMI

and the picture Abahlali activists paint. One WDF member described the SMI as an opportunity

to spread the word about poor people’s struggles and to “bring up the rights of people to the

world.”117 Another member called the SMI a chance for “the people of South Africa to speak

with one voice.”118 Another depicted it as a space for organizations to gain strength and discuss

ways to work collectively and “raise their voices collectively.”119 Similarly, a WFRA member

113 “Social Movements Indaba 2006” delegate information packet, pg 2.114 Interview with SMI organizer, Nov. 10, 2006.115 Hlatshwayo, Mondli. “The SMI Secretary’s Report to the Fourth SMI Annual National Meeting.” Dec. 2006, pg 5.116 “Social Movements Indaba 2006” delegate information packet, pg 2.

22

described the SMI as a way for movements from all over the country to come together, organize

joint actions, and “define the struggle.” 120Activists believe such a forum is a valuable occasion

for debate and for the development of a common understanding of the problems they all face.

Summing up his feelings about the SMI with a simple declaration, one activist stated: “SMI will

be for the benefit of mankind… If we are serious about our individual issues, we should be

serious about SMI because SMI deals with all of the issues.”121

Abahlali members portray SMI differently, betraying strong feelings of disillusionment

with the SMI process. One activist declared, “There is no value in SMI. It will not get our people

houses.”122 Another related: “I thought it would give the movement more power but it didn’t.”123

Another conveyed his feelings even more bluntly, saying simply, “SMI is hopeless.”124 But, not

all Abahlali activists agree. One, while condemning the way SMI is being run, qualified his

critique by noting that “if SMI starts with what movements need and is run by them, then it could

definitely be a valuable space. It is always important for movements to share their experiences

and reflect on strategies to challenge hegemony, but it must come from them.”125

Critiquing SMI

Abahlali’s criticisms of SMI can be grouped into three categories: organizational

structure, the role of academics, and maintenance of grassroots character. I discuss each in turn.

117 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 6, 2006.118 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.119 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.120 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.121 Ibid. 122 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.123 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.124 Interview with Abahlali activist, Nov. 18, 2006.125 Interview with Church Land Program member, Nov. 22, 2006.

23

The structure of an organization is a crucial determinant of its ability to effectively

mobilize people and build a sustainable movement. Abahlali members assert that the structure of

the SMI is flawed in several fundamental ways. They claim that it is not transparent or

democratic, that its agenda is decided behind closed doors and is not subject to criticism or

alteration, and that it is unable to efficiently manage its funding. Activists bitterly recall being

promised financial assistance and resources that never arrived.126

Of the SMI secretariat, Abahlali activists had this to say: “Who is SMI? Who is setting

the agenda? Who are the officeholders? There are no clear answers,”127 “They don’t listen to

us,”128 and “The people who are in the secretariat were not elected. They were chosen because

they have access to NGO funding.”129 SMI planners defend the funding process arguing that

although accepting NGO money opens the movement up to accountability issues (What is the

NGO’s agenda? How much say does the funder get how the money is used? etc.), many CBOs

are under-resourced and rely on NGO funding. There exists, in one SMI organizer’s words, “an

unhappy marriage between social movements and NGOs” that is necessary but problematic.130

The role of academics in social movements has long been a matter of concern among

activists worldwide. It is no less troublesome in Durban and within the SMI. Academics can play

a crucial role in movements, “imbuing a generalised impulse to mobilise and take action with a

‘sense of strategic and political purpose.’”131 Intellectuals are able to link local struggles over

basic needs like housing and water to broader ideological concepts like globalization and

126 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.127 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.128 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 20, 2006.129 Interview with Abahlali activist, Nov. 18, 2006.130 Interview with SMI organizer, Nov. 10, 2006.

24

privatization. This linkage132 allows activists to find commonality between local struggles in

different geographical areas over different issues, facilitating movement-building.

However, the role of the academic is precarious. Richard Pithouse contends that “the idea

that intellectuals can and should lead movements is ingrained in leftist thinking.” It reveals itself

in Marxist concepts like “false consciousness”133 which implicitly argue that poor people don’t

know what they need and require intellectuals to tell them.134 But, grassroots movements cannot

be led by elites (and like it or not, academics are elites). They must be led by the communities

themselves. Therefore, academics must perform a balancing act of sorts, offering their assistance

without taking over movements.

The Abahlali members I interviewed do not believe that the academics135 involved in the

SMI planning process have done this well. They complain that the SMI intellectuals are not part

of any of the movements and are not committed to their struggles. They add that the SMI

academics have only shown interest in the movements’ work in order to further their own

research and political projects. In short, Abahlali activists conclude of the academics: “their

hearts are not right.”136

Perhaps the biggest question to emerge from SMI is the extent to which it is actually a

grassroots organisation. As I argued earlier, grassroots movements must be led by communities

themselves. For Abahlali, this is paramount. Abahlali members do not believe that SMI is led by

social movements. They allege that they arrived at the 2005 SMI to find the agenda already set, 131 Ballard, Richard. “Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa: An Introduction” from Ed. Jones, Peris and Kristian Stokke. Democratising Development: The Politics of Socioeconomic Rights in South Africa. Leden: Martinus Nuhoff Publishers, 2005, pg 90.132 I will discuss this matter in greater depth shortly.133 False consciousness is a Marxist concept which theorizes that workers should revolt and if they do not, it is because they have been made ignorant by their class enemies: Tarrow, Sydney. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pg 11.134 Interview with Richard Pithouse, Nov. 18, 2006.135 I use this term loosely here, as Abahlali’s criticisms are presumably aimed at both university-affiliated and non-university-affiliated middle-class activists.136 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.

25

and when they attempted to challenge it, they were told that they were “out of order.”137

Similarly, Abahlali members contend that their ideas for agenda items at the 2006 SMI were

disregarded entirely138 and that one again the agenda was set by professional NGO and academic

activists with no accountability to movements or organizations.

An Abahlali-affiliated NGO member maintained: “Abahlali’s members can tell you who

Abahlali is and what it is but they cannot tell you what SMI is. If those living in the shacks can’t

tell you who SMI is, is it really about the poor? And if the poor don’t see themselves as part of

that formation, what is SMI?” He concluded, “It must be social movements themselves running

SMI. It cannot be otherwise if we want to say that social movements are key to solving our

problems.”139Abahlali activists charge that rather than being run by real movements, SMI is

managed by middle class leftists who set the agenda without consulting communities. As a

result, the SMI agenda does not reflect the people’s concerns but rather the concerns of NGOs

playing to Northern funders’ agendas.140

This section has related the debate over the forms that united action should take. I now

turn to a discussion of the other difficulties that organizations face in their efforts to unite.

Obstacles to Unity

Each of the organizations has struggled to overcome logistical issues like lack of

resources, and political divisions, but perhaps most fundamentally, they have struggled to select

a common political project. This segment of the paper discusses these issues, beginning with

logistics.

137 Interview with Abahlali activist, Nov. 18, 2006.138 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.139 Interview with Church Land Program member, Nov. 22, 2006.140 Interview with Abahlali activist, Nov. 18, 2006.

26

Lack of Resources

The most common difficulty that activists cited was lack of resources. This greatly

inhibits their ability to build movements. A Resource Mobilization theorist might even argue it

makes it impossible. Without resources, communities cannot take full advantage of openings in

political opportunity structure, frame their demands in public ways, or reach out to other

communities. In short, they cannot mobilize. However, it is important to remember that there are

many different kinds of resources and just because a movement lacks sufficient material

resources does not mean it is deficient in other types.

Abahlali uses the media to its advantage, publicizing its marches and spreading its

message. WFRA utilizes its connections with famous and respected figures like Fatima Meer to

give its struggle legitimacy. WDF boasts a hard-working and charismatic leadership that is able

to effectively motivate and organize members. Thus, while WFRA, WDF, and Abahlali are no

doubt hurt by their inability to mobilize vast material resources, successful action has been

possible because they have utilized other types of resources.

But it has not been easy. Activists from all three organizations lamented the difficulties of

organizing without much money. A WFRA leader related Chatsworth’s battle against evictions:

“We were poor communities that were so under-resourced that resisting was a big, big struggle.”

She added that because many CBOs lack funds, it is difficult to get whole communities together,

let alone link up with other organizations.141 WFRA, WDF, and Abahlali, unlike middle-class

community-based organizations and movements, are predominantly composed of poor people

who often lack even basic organizing tools like cell phones or airtime for the phones. In

Abahlali’s planning for an upcoming workshop, it has had to budget R1500 airtime to be divided

among event organizers.142 Some Abahlali members expressed a desire to move out of KwaZulu

27

Natal and organize nationally, but they lamented that such a task was extremely difficult without

resources.143 Transportation and communications (email, fax, cell phones) costs make such an

effort daunting if not impossible.

Abahlali activists spoke about the difficulty in fighting legal battles without sufficient

resources.144 Although Abahlali considers court battles an essential part of its strategy, it must

choose them wisely because it is so short on funding.145 Activists from all three organizations

expressed frustration over the cost of organizing joint protests as most of the members cannot

afford to pay for their own transportation. Additionally, all of the organizations struggle with

finding appropriate places in which to meet and work. A WDF member complained that “it is

hard to organize when you have no space to meet in.”146

While all three organizations receive limited funding from NGOs or outside sources, they

have struggled to gather sufficient monetary resources to mobilize on a larger scale.

Political Fissures

Another obstacle to unity that activists reported was politics, with one commenting:

“Politics divides people. It creates conflicts.”147 WFRA members divulged that many community

members, especially the pensioners, are loyal to the ANC and want to pay their rent. This causes

tension between them and other more radical elements of the organization that want the

organization to take an anti-ANC stance.148 Likewise, WDF activists note that the seemingly

irreparable divide among Wentworth’s various organizations is due to tensions over certain

141 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.142 Abahlali meeting, Nov. 25, 2006.143 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.144 Interview with Abahlali activist, Nov. 18, 2006.145 Abahlali meeting, Nov. 25, 2006.146 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 23, 2006.147 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006. 148 WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.

28

organizations’ loyalty to the ANC. Activists are adamant that any form of unifying structure in

Wentworth would have to be non-political.149

In Abahlali, similar sentiments abound. Although “Abahlali is not a political party” and

members insist that they are not “fighting the ANC,” it is difficult to convince people of this.150

Many shack dwellers are ANC members or live in ANC dominated settelements and they do not

want to be affiliated with enemies of the ANC.151 In many instances it is simply not safe for

people to be openly ANC. Abahlali activists say overcoming this problem has been their biggest

challenge.

The WDF, while struggling with ANC conflicts, has also had to confront serious issues

over funding. These disputes have left Wentworth bitterly divided. While many of Wentworth’s

organizations accept money from corporations such as Engen and Sapref, WDF adamantly

refuses funds from industry.152 WDF activists argue that community organizations should not

take money from industries that contribute to the decay of the community (through pollution and

unsafe labor practices) and that industry’s motives for offering the funding are questionable.153

The organizations that do accept Engen and Sapref’s funds cite the under-resourced nature of

CBOs and claim they have no choice but to accept money whenever it is offered. They add that

they are justified in taking the money because it will be used for the betterment of Wentworth.154

The fissures created by political tensions run deep, and overcoming them will be an

uphill battle. Yet, even more detrimental to movement-building than the logistical issues related

above, is activists’ inability to construct a common vision.

149 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 23, 2006.150 Interviews with Abahlali members, Nov. 21 & 22, 2006.151 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.152 Interviews with WDF members, Nov. 6, 16, & 23, 2006.153 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.154 Conversations with Wentworth activists, Oct. 22 – 29, 2006.

29

Seeking a Common Vision

In order for activists to build sustainable movements, they must have a shared perception

of their goal. They must agree on one political project. Otherwise, there is no unifying vision for

the movement, no collective ideology. Movements cannot be cultivated unless there is a common

“ideological current running through them.”155 If this is true, the organizations’ and movements’

inability to find unifying principles may best explain their failure to unite.

This dilemma is not unique to WDF, WFRA, and Abahlali. It has, in fact, plagued

activists the world over. The debate generally centers on whether or not there is inherent value in

local struggles. Some activists and academics contend that in community-based organizations

and movements, fighting bread and butter issues is enough. Communities do not care about

concepts like globalization and neoliberalism that do not directly and immediately affect them in

ways they can see.

Ashwin Desai contends that even though new movements are not ideologically “pure”

and may not know anything about the WTO or the World Bank, “they know their enemies. It is

the mayor, local councillor (whatever his or her party) and their armed henchmen, most

immediately. And in the distance, they probably can see Pretoria’s hand.” He adds that it is the

movements’ “closeness to their foe that makes them strong.”156

Abahlali members agree. In a critique of the SMI agenda’s emphasis on financial

institutions and globalization, an Abahlali member declared, “At Abahlali, we are not fighting

capitalism. We are not fighting Bush. The IMF is far away from us. Our struggles are on the

ground. They are local struggles.”157

155 Interview with Ashwin Desai, Nov. 14, 2006.156 Desai, Ashwin. “Shadow Boxing? Cosatu, Social Movements and the ANC Government: On the Occasion of Cosatu’s 20th Anniversary.” Paper for the Cosatu Conference, 2005, pg 7.157 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006, pg 7.

30

However, many activists and academics believe such an attitude is short-sighted. Local

problems are different everywhere, so fighting exclusively local battles makes building a large

movement difficult. It also complicates activists’ efforts to construct sustainable movements

because once officials concede the community’s immediate demands, the fight is over. But, the

community is bound to face future problems because they have failed to address the source of

their problems – privatization, commodification and the like.

David Harvey maintains that emphasizing the role of financial institutions like the IMF

and the WTO in promoting and perpetuating “neo-liberal imperialism” is the only way to link

local struggles. He writes: “Some way must be found, both theoretically and politically, to move

beyond the amorphous concept of ‘the multitude’ without falling into the trap of ‘my

community, locality, or social group right or wrong.’”158 Similarly, Michael Hardt and Antonio

Negri argue that ‘the multitude’ must struggle “to contest and subvert Empire” (which essentially

represents capitalism and globalization) by resisting processes of globalization.159

The leaders of WDF and WFRA concur. A WFRA leader explained that although most of

her members “don’t understand ideas like globalization and capitalism,” they do “understand the

importance of unity,” and so it is up to the leadership to “institute educational programs” to help

them see the big picture.160

Looking to the Future

Despite the many obstacles activists face, confidence emanates from every organization

and movement with activists defiantly stating: “The struggle will continue until there are no

158 Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, pg 179.159 Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000, pg XV.160 Interview with WFRA leader, Nov. 15, 2006.

31

more shacks in South Africa,”161 “It [the struggle] will not stop until we get what we want. We

want freedom,”162 and “We will win. We never lose hope.”163

Though Wentworth remains divided and Chatsworth’s once-united front (the Concerned

Citizens Forum) collapsed amidst racial acrimony, activists from both organizations remain

hopeful. A WDF activist related, “If we could come together as organizations in the Wentworth

community and work together and put our differences aside and say this is actually for the

people… we would be so much better off.”164 Another predicted that WDF and social movements

in general will grow, boldly proclaiming: “Revolution will grow here. The peasants will rise

up.”165 Similar ideas thrive within WFRA. When during a WFRA meeting, a member declared:

“We want to unite as a community… We need to rise now,”166 she was met with enthusiastic

applause.

Abahlali activists believe their movement will grow and flourish, and they hope to one

day become a national force. Their predictions for the future reveal a profound confidence and

optimism: “After we win the housing battle, we will not be shack dwellers anymore and we will

be able to take up new issues like evictions, water, and electricity. Maybe we will join up with

Anti-Evictions Campaign… One day, Abahlali will be a poor people’s movement;”167 “Abahlali

will grow into a big movement. It will grow bigger because it includes people from all different

political parties… Everyone is tired of being deceived and more people will soon realize that

they’re being played by the government. People will see the truth… Abahlali will be all over the

country;”168 “If there are actions in lots of municipalities all over the country then maybe

161 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 22, 2006.162 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 16, 2006.163 Interview with WFRA member, Nov. 15, 2006.164 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 6, 2006.165 Interview with WDF member, Nov. 16, 2006.166 WFRA member speaking at WFRA meeting, Nov. 5, 2006.167 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.168 Interview with Abahlali member, Nov. 21, 2006.

32

Abahlali can force at least the provincial governments to rethink how they function. Then there

might be a possibility that the national government too will have to change.”169

Conclusion170

Will the WDF and WFRA find ways to overcome their lack of resources and crippling

political arguments to successfully build movements, or are they doomed to remain small-scale

CBOs until they expire? Will Abahlali succeed in building the “poor people’s movement” of

which it dreams, or will it fall victim to the fate of so many other movements, collapsing the very

moment it is at its most successful? If theory has any extrapolative value, there may be hope yet,

as I have shown that all three of the organizations under investigation utilize openings in political

opportunity, framing, and resource mobilization (though with difficulty) effectively. But, as I

have also shown, they must find a way to cultivate concurrence on a common political project

before they can move forward in a united front.

However, this paper does not claim to predict the future and perhaps this matter is

subsidiary anyway. Both small CBOs and mass movements ebb and flow. That is the nature of

the protest cycle. The movements best able to utilize and create political opportunities, develop

meaningful and resonant frames, and mobilize their resources effectively will likely last the

longest, but if a movement dies because it has ceased to do these things and has ceased to serve a

purpose, there may well be no reason to mourn. Perhaps more important than how long an

organization or movement lasts is what it does while it is around.

This paper has attempted to explore this topic by revealing the diversity of ways in which

activists in Westcliff Flat Residents Association, Wentworth Development Forum, and Abahlali

169 Interview with Church Land Program member, Nov. 22, 2006.170 Thank you to Richard Ballard and Richard Pithouse for their input on this section.

33

baseMjondolo frame their demands, themselves, and their enemies. It has furthermore explored

their efforts to grow stronger and bigger by uniting, the multiple perspectives that exist within

the movements as to the direction and form unity should take, and the many obstacles they face

as the push forward into the future.

34

Bibliography of Interviews and Meetings

In chronological order…

1. Wentworth activists – October 22 – 29, 20062. SMI organizer – November, 2, 20063. SMI planning meeting – November 4, 20064. WFRA meeting – November 5, 20065. WDF member – November 6, 20066. WFRA member – November 7, 20067. SMI organizer – November 10, 20068. Patrick Bond – November 14, 20069. Ashwin Desai – November 14, 200610. WFRA meeting – November 15, 200611. WFRA member – November 15, 200612. WFRA member – November 15, 200613. WFRA member – November 15, 200614. WFRA member – November 15, 200615. WFRA member – November 16, 200616. WFRA member – November 16, 200617. WFRA member – November 16, 200618. WFRA member – November 16, 200619. WDF member – November 16, 200620. Richard Pithouse – November 18, 200621. Esset Workshop with Abahlali – November 20, 200622. Abahlali member – November 20, 200623. Abahlali member – November 20, 200624. Abahlali member – November 21, 200625. Abahlali member – November 21, 200626. Church Land Program member – November 22, 200627. Abahlali member – November 22, 200628. Abahlali member – November 22, 200629. WDF member – November 23, 200630. WDF member – November 23, 200631. Abahlali meeting – November 25, 200632. Abahlali member – December 7, 200633. SMI organizer – December 7, 2006

35

Works Cited

Ballard, Richard. “Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa: An Introduction” fromEd. Jones, Peris and Kristian Stokke. Democratising Development: The Politics of Socioeconomic Rights in South Africa. Leden: Martinus Nuhoff Publishers, 2005. Pg 77 – 100.

Ballard, Richard, Adam Habib, Imraan Valodia and Elke Zuern. “Introduction: From Anti-Apartheid to Post-Apartheid Social Movements.” From Ballard et al. (eds). Voices of Protest: Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu Natal: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, 2006. Pg 1 – 22.

Barchiesi, Franco. “Classes, Multitudes and the Politics of Community Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Center for Civil Society Research Report No. 20. Durban: CCS, 2004.

Lecture by Heinrich Bomke. “Social Movements and the Law.” Center for Civil Society, UKZN, November, 1, 2006.

Bond, Patrick. “South Africa’s Resurgent Urban Social Movements: The Case of Johannesburg, 1984, 1994, 2004.” Paper for CCS. June 2004.

Bryant, Jacob. “Towards Delivery and Dignity: Community Struggle From Kennedy Road.” Center for Civil Society Research Report No. 41. 2006.

Della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. Social Movements: An Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1999.

Desai, Ashwin. “Shadow Boxing? Cosatu, Social Movements and the ANC Government: On the Occasion of Cosatu’s 20th Anniversary.” Paper for the Cosatu Conference, 2005.

Desai, Ashwin. We Are the Poors: Community Struggles in Post-Apartheid South Africa. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2002.

Gamson, William A. and David S. Meyer. “ Framing Political Opportunity.” From McAdam et al (eds). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pg 275 – 290.

Greenberg, Stephen. “The Landless People’s Movement and the Failure of Post-Apartheid Land Reform.” From Ballard et al. (eds). Voices of Protest: Social Movements in Post-Apartheid South Africa. University of KwaZulu Natal: University of KwaZulu Natal Press, 2006. Pg 133 – 154.

Greenstein, Ran. “Civil Society, Social Movements and Power in South Africa.”  RAU Sociology Seminar Series (Fourth term) Sept. 2003.

Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Hlatshwayo, Mondli. “The SMI Secretary’s Report to the Fourth SMI Annual National

Meeting.” Dec. 2006Tarrow, Sydney. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London and New York: Verso, 1985.

36

McAdam, Doug. “Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions.” From McAdam et al (eds). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pg 23 – 40.

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 6. May 1977, pg 1212 – 1241.

McCarthy, John D., Jackie Smith, and Mayer N. Zald. “Accessing Public, Media, Electoral and Governmental Agendas.” From McAdam et al (eds). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Pithouse, Richard. “The Left in the Slum: the Rise of a Shack Dwellers’ Movement in Durban,South Africa.” History & African Studies Seminar, 2005.

“Social Movements Indaba 2006” delegate information packet.Tarrow, Sydney. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. 2nd ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Notes

37