Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Socio-economic and cultural study of the
Griqua people in South Africa
By:
Anita Venter (Centre for Development Support)
Kobus Marais (Department of Language Management and Language Practice)
Johan van Zyl (Business Management)
Deidre van Rooyen (Centre for Development Support)
Jan Cloete (Centre for Development Support)
For:
Centre for Development Support (IB 100) and Department of Community Service Learning
University of the Free State
PO Box 339
Bloemfontein
9300
South Africa
www.ufs.ac.za/cds
Contact: Anita Venter – [email protected]
Please reference as: Centre for Development Support (CDS). 2010. Socio-economic and cultural study of the
Griqua people in South Africa. CDS Research Report, Social Development and Poverty Issues, 2011(*).
Bloemfontein: University of the Free State (UFS).
2
TABLE OF CONTENT
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
SECTION 2: METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW......................................................... 2
2.1 Geography ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 The respondents ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 The questionnaire ...................................................................................................................... 4
SECTION 3: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ................................................................ 6
3.1 Age profile .................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Gender profile ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Household size and household composition ............................................................................ 8
3.4 Educational level ..................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 Migration ................................................................................................................................. 11 3.5.1. Historical migration process .................................................................................................. 11 3.5.2. Place of birth and place of residence in 1994 ........................................................................ 11 3.5.3. Place of retirement and burial ................................................................................................ 14 3.5.4. Current migration processes .................................................................................................. 14
SECTION 4: ECONOMIC PROFILE ............................................................................. 18
4.1 Employment status .................................................................................................................. 18
4.2 Economic sectors of employment ........................................................................................... 20
4.3 Type of work in the employment sector ................................................................................ 22
4.4 Income ...................................................................................................................................... 24
4.5 Grants and other income not related to employment .......................................................... 26
4.6 Life Standard Measurements ............................................................................................... 28
4.7 Expenditure ............................................................................................................................. 34
SECTION 5: HOUSING AND PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE .............................. 36
5.1 Housing .................................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.1 Government-assisted housing ................................................................................................ 36
5.2 Access to sanitation, water and electricity ............................................................................ 37
3
5.2.1 Access to sanitation ............................................................................................................... 37 5.2.2 Access to water ...................................................................................................................... 39 5.2.3 Access to electricity ............................................................................................................... 42
5.6 Levels of satisfaction with community services .................................................................... 45
5.7 Social interaction with clubs and organistions ..................................................................... 46
5.8 Social problems in the community ....................................................................................... 48
SECTION 6: QUALITY OF LIFE ................................................................................... 49
6.1 Individual components of quality of life ............................................................................. 49
6.2 General levels of satisfaction and reasons related to satisfaction levels ............................ 51
6.3 Levels of attachment ............................................................................................................... 54
SECTION 7: GRIQUA-SPECIFIC ISSUES ................................................................... 56
7.1 Discussion of the quantitative data ........................................................................................ 56 7.1.1 Do you take pride in being a Griqua? .................................................................................... 56 7.1.2 Do you enjoy spending time with other Griqua? ................................................................... 57 7.1.3 Are national festivals important to you? ................................................................................ 58 7.1.4 Do you regard it as important to have the Griqua national history taught in school? ........... 59 7.1.5 Do you as parent regard it as important that your child retain the Griqua identity? ............. 60 7.1.6 Do you regard it as important that the Griqua should live close together in order to
retain/preserve their identity? ................................................................................................ 61 7.1.7 In your experience, does the unique Griqua history unify the nation? .................................. 62 7.1.8 In your opinion, does Griqua singing unify the nation? ........................................................ 62 7.1.9 In your opinion, has Griqua history been lost? ...................................................................... 63 7.1.10 Are you of the opinion that the South African government should help the Griqua? ........... 64
7.2 Analysis of data per age group ............................................................................................... 65
7.3 Analysis of qualitative questions ............................................................................................ 66
SECTION 8: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 68
2
List of Tables Table 2.1: Geographical areas of survey .......................................................................................... 3
Table 2.2: Age groups of respondents .............................................................................................. 4
Table 3.1: Age profile of members in the households ..................................................................... 6
Table 3.2: Age groups according to gender ..................................................................................... 8
Table 3.3: Educational levels of persons older than 18 years in the households ........................... 11
Table 3.4: Place of birth and place of residence of respondents in 1994 ....................................... 12
Table 3.5: Place of migration .......................................................................................................... 16
Table 4.1: Employment status per area, 2010 ................................................................................ 19
Table 4.2: Workplace of employed people for the GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010 ..................... 22
Table 4.3: Type of work done in the GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010 ......................................... 23
Table 4.4: Income for GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010 ................................................................. 25
Table 4.5: Types of grant and income not employment related ..................................................... 27
Table 4.6: Most important item money is spending on, 2010 ........................................................ 35
Table 5.1: Housing infrastructure ................................................................................................... 36
Table 5.2: Sanitation services......................................................................................................... 38
Table 5.3: Access to water facilities ............................................................................................... 40
Table 5.4: Energy sources to homes ............................................................................................... 42
Table 5.5: Average satisfaction with services ................................................................................ 45
Table 5.6: Clubs and organizations to which respondents belong ................................................. 47
Table 6.1: Rating of various components of quality of life ............................................................ 49
Table 6.2: Average satisfaction with quality of life ....................................................................... 51
Table 6.3: Reasons for rating of general quality of life .................................................................. 52
Table 6.4: Level of attachment to various components in each of the areas .................................. 54
Table 7.1: Responses to questions per age group ........................................................................... 66
3
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Griqua alliances of the survey respondents ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3.1: Gender profile of household members ............................................................................ 7
Figure 3.2: Average number of people per household ...................................................................... 8
Figure 3.3: Household composition ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3.4: Percentage of household members still being educated ................................................ 10
Figure 3.5: Respondents born and residing on a farm in 1994 ........................................................ 13
Figure 3.6: Envisaged placed of burial. ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 3.7: The percentage of households reporting that someone had left the households in
the respective areas during the past five years ............................................................... 15
Figure 3.8: Reasons why family members left the household in the preceding five years.............. 17
Figure 4.1: Economic sectors and their roles in the South African economy .................................. 21
Figure 4.2: Assumed average income per area ................................................................................ 26
Figure 4.3: Number of grants per area ............................................................................................. 27
Figure 4.4: Some basic requirements for households as part of the LSM qualifications, 2010 .... 29
Figure 4.5: Some higher end products of households as part of the LSM qualifications,
2010 ............................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 4.6: Combined LSM and Income groups, Griquarust, 2010 ............................................... 30
Figure 4.7: Combined LSM and Income groups, Bloemfontein, 2010 .......................................... 31
Figure 4.8: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kopanong, 2010 ................................................ 31
Figure 4.9: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kokstad, 2010 ................................................... 32
Figure 4.10: Combined LSM and Income groups, Campbell, 2010 ................................................. 32
Figure 4.11: Combined LSM and Income groups, Douglas, 2010 ................................................... 32
Figure 4.12: Combined LSM and Income groups, Griquastad, 2010 ............................................... 33
Figure 4.13: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kimberley, 2010 ............................................... 33
Figure 4.14: Combined LSM and Income groups, Cape Town, 2010 .............................................. 33
Figure 4.15: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kranshoek, 2010 ............................................... 34
Figure 4.16: Combined LSM and Income groups, Vredendal, 2010 ................................................ 34
Figure 5.1: Percentage of households receiving government low-income houses ......................... 37
Figure 5.2: Satisfaction with sanitation access ............................................................................... 39
Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with access to water .................................................................................. 40
Figure 5.4: Respondents satisfied with their water quality ............................................................. 41
Figure 5.5: Satisfaction with access to electricity .......................................................................... 43
Figure 5.6: Satisfaction levels with garbage-removal services ....................................................... 44
Figure 5.7: Average level of satisfaction with services .................................................................. 44
Figure 5.8: Percentage of respondents belonging to one or more organization or club .................. 46
4
Figure 7.1: Do you take pride in being a Griqua? .......................................................................... 57
Figure 7.2: Do you enjoy spending time with other Griqua? .......................................................... 58
Figure 7.3: Are national festivals important to you? ...................................................................... 59
Figure 7.4: Do you regard it as important to have the Griqua national history taught in
school? ......................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 7.5: Do you as parent regard it as important that your child retain the Griqua identity?.... 60
Figure 7.6: Do you regard it as important that the Griqua should live close together in order
to retain/preserve their identity? .................................................................................. 61
Figure 7.7: In your experience, does the unique Griqua history unify the nation? ........................ 62
Figure 7.8: In your opinion, does Griqua singing unify the nation? .............................................. 63
Figure 7.9: In your opinion, has Griqua history been lost?............................................................ 64
Figure 7.10: Are you of the opinion that the South African government should help the Griqua? ... 65
1
Section 1: Introduction
The history (or rather ‘histories’) of the Griqua people is a highly contested subject matter and
versions of the historical development of the Griqua nation are as diverse as the nation itself. From the
early 1800s, when the name Griqua was adopted to describe indigenous people with linkages to the
traditional Khoi-San culture, ‘true’ Griqua identity, and what defines Griqua identity have been the
topic of considerable controversy. As a result of the different historical narratives within Griqua
groupings, various Griqua factions exist throughout the country. Some Griqua factions acknowledge
other Griqua groupings while others deny the ‘indigenousness’ and historical context of Griqua
groupings other than their own1. The scope of the report is not to linger on different historical versions
of the identity of ‘true’ Griqua, but rather to reflect on contemporary socio-economic demography and
cultural perceptions of people throughout the country who regard themselves as being Griqua. Despite
their divergences, most Griqua groupings pursue similar ideals, inter alia recognition of their Griqua
status by the Constitution, acknowledgement of their diverse history and recognition of their leaders.
The University of the Free State signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Griqua
National Conference (GNC) of South Africa in January 2009. With this MOU the University of the
Free State committed itself to research related activities focusing on the economic, social, educational
and cultural heritage as well as the legislative aspects of the Griqua people. This report specifically
focuses on the socio-economic and cultural aspects of different Griqua groupings all over South
Africa. Although the MOU was signed with the GNC, the intention of the research was to be inclusive
of a variety of Griqua communities and as such, the research was not restricted only to Griqua
groupings that belong to the GNC group. The survey, focusing on the socio-economic and cultural
aspects of various Griqua groupings, commenced in June 2009 and was completed in January 2010.
During the second half of 2010, the research team returned to the Griqua communities that co-
operated with the research to give feedback on the survey results. The comments made on the survey
results were incorporated in this final report.
The following topics are discussed in this report:
Methodological overview of the research
Demographic analysis of the households interviewed
Economic profile of the Griqua groupings
Housing and physical infrastructure in which Griqua households live
Perceptions of quality of life as a Griqua person
Griqua specific aspects related to culture
1 Literature to consult that focuses on the historical and political narrative of the Griqua people include:
Besten, MP. 2006. Transformation and reconstitution of Khoe-San identities: A.A.S Le Fleur I, Griqua
identities and post-apartheid Khoe-San revivalism (1894-2004). Unpublished Thesis (PhD) University
of Leiden: Leiden.
Johnson, D. 2000. The first rainbow nation?: the Griqua in post-apartheid South Africa. In Translating
nations; edited by Prem Poddar, pp 115-128. Aarhus University Press: Aarhus, Denmark.
Waldman, L. 2007. The Griqua conundrum: political and socio-cultural identity in the Northern Cape.
Peter Lang: Switzerland.
Westley, DM. 2007 The Griqua of South Africa: an annotated bibliography. African Studies Center,
Boston University: Boston.
2
Section 2: Methodological overview
This methodological overview firstly focuses on the geography of where the survey took place, then
provides a profile of the respondents and lastly discusses the survey questionnaire in greater detail.
2.1. Geography
The largest Griqua grouping currently represented by one organisation is that of the Griqua National
Conference (GNC). While other Griqua factions are also large in number as a collective, they tend not
to function as groups but as smaller individual units. Thus, for the purposes of this report, two main
categories of analysis have been identified, namely that of the Griqua groupings belonging to the
GNC organisation and those who do not belong to this organisation (non-GNC).
Figure 2.1: Griqua alliances of the survey respondents
Although the aim was to interview an equal number of respondents in the GNC and non-GNC areas,
operationally, the aim proved to be difficult. The main reason for this difficulty was that the
University of the Free State signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the GNC. Thus,
from a research point of view it was challenging to convince Griqua groupings not belonging to the
GNC to participate in the study. Despite the challenges encountered in respect of non-GNC Griqua
groupings, most non-GNC groupings were in agreement regarding the merits of the project. The next
section gives a breakdown of the specific towns that participated in the survey and elaborates in more
detail on the methodological challenges experienced.
Table 2.1 indicates the different geographical areas (GNC and non-GNC) of the respondents who
participated in the study.
Griqua National Conference
54%
Other Griqua groupings
46%
Griqua alliance
3
Table 2.1: Geographical areas of survey Area Town/ City Province n % of total % in
grouping
GN
C
Vredendal Western Cape 65 15.7 29.1
Kranshoek Western Cape 61 14.7 27.4
Griquarust Western Cape 33 8.0 14.8
Cape Town and Hawston Western Cape 33 8.0 14.8
Kimberley Northern Cape 20 4.8 9.0
Philippolis Free State 11 2.7 4.9
Total GNC 223 53.9 100.0
No
n-G
NC
Kokstad KwaZuluNatal 48 11.6 25.1
Douglas Northern Cape 46 11.1 24.1
Campbell Northern Cape 39 9.4 20.4
Bloemfontein Free State 21 5.1 11.0
Kopanong (Philippolis and Bethany) Free State 19 4.6 9.9
Griquastad Northern Cape 18 4.3 9.4
Total non-GNC 191 46.1 100.0
TOTAL 414 100.0
As indicated in the table above, the majority of the GNC respondents resided in the Western Cape
Province (46.4%). The GNC reside mainly in the Western Cape because of historical factors. The Le
Fleur family, founding members of the GNC, acquired farms in Kranshoek and near Vredendal in the
Western Cape. Only 4.8% and 2.7% of the GNC respondents interviewed were living either in the
Northern Cape and the Free State provinces respectively. Although some Griqua groupings belong to
the GNC in the Kokstad area, we were not able to include interviews with them.
Most of the non-GNC respondents came firstly from the Northern Cape Province (24.9%) and
secondly from Kokstad in KwaZulu-Natal (11.6%). Less than 10% of the non-GNC respondents
resided in the Free State Province. Approximately 18% of the survey was done in cities (8% in Cape
Town, 4.8% in Kimberley and 5.1% in Bloemfontein), while 82.1% of the survey was conducted in
small towns.
The specific methodological challenges encountered include the following:
Cities (Cape Town, Kimberley, Bloemfontein): Interviews in both the GNC and non-GNC
city areas were difficult to accomplish because of budget constraints and proximity reasons,
while Griqua groupings appear to lack unity within densely populated areas.
o Cape Town: The original intention was to focus mainly on Cape Town as a city
area, but the methodology was adapted and ten of the 33 interviews were conducted
in the surrounding area of Hawston in Hermanus.
o Kimberley: the GNC influence on the Griqua grouping seems to be weaker in
Kimberley than in the Western Cape area.
o Bloemfontein: Responses in Bloemfontein were slow to get off the ground and only
21 questionnaires were completed in this area.
Griquastad: Although the research team was not able to meet the Griqua leader in
Griquastad, 18 interviews were completed with households in the area. Given the small
number of Griqua households living in the small town of Griquastad, it was nevertheless
possible to make some generalisations from the results.
Kopanong:. Two places were visited in Kopanong: Philippolis and the rural village of
Bethany. Philippolis has great historical significance for the Griqua people and both GNC
and non-GNC groupings reside in the town. Both groupings participated in the study. Only
36.3% of the Kopanong (Philippolis) respondents were from the GNC. The research results
4
of the rural village of Bethany (a non-GNC grouping) were combined with the non-GNC
survey results of Philippolis (63.3%).
Kokstad: Similar to Philippolis, both GNC and non-GNC members lived in Kokstad. The
GNC referred us to their contact person in Kokstad, but he was not willing to assist with the
research. Hence, households from non-GNC groupings participated in the survey.
2.2. The respondents
In order for the fieldwork to be as inclusive of all age categories as possible, the fieldworkers were
given guidelines in terms of the ages and gender of the respondents they had to interview. More
women than men participated in the research in both the GNC and the non-GNC areas. Whereas in
GNC areas, 55.6%, of the respondents were female, the figure in the non-GNC areas was 59.1%. Age
was categorised in terms of the following: 16 to 20 years; 21 to 35 years; 36 to 50 years; 51 to 64
years; and, 65 and older. Table 2.2 reflects the age groups in which the respondents fell.
Table 2.2: Age groups of respondents
Age group of the respondents GNC Non-GNC Total
n % n % n %
16-20 years 17 7.60 21 11.00 38 9.20
21-35 years 48 21.50 54 28.30 102 24.60
36-50 years 59 26.50 39 20.40 98 23.70
51-64 years 62 27.80 41 21.50 103 24.90
65 and older 32 14.30 34 17.80 66 15.90
Unknown / not indicated 5 2.20 2 1.00 7 1.70
Total 223 100.00 191 100.00 414 100.00
As indicated in the above table, the research was conducted across a number of age groups.
Significant differences between the youth and older respondents were visible especially in respect of
questions dealing with culture and social perceptions.
2.3. The questionnaire
The questionnaire was divided into six sections and included both closed and open-ended questions to
record the responses (see Annexure 1). The main sections focused on:
The demography of the family: Questions related to the number of people in the household,
their ages, gender, relation to respondent and their educational level attained. The respondents
also had to indicate the employment status of family members and the number of grants the
household was receiving.
Information on expenses and assets: Respondents had to indicate the current household
debt, savings, general household expenses, assets and income. Respondents were also asked
to name/list the five most important items on which the household spent money each month.
Migration patterns: Migration patterns are a good reflection of respondents’ closeness to
their current place of residence. Respondents had to indicate in or near which town they were
born, whether they were born on a farm, their town of residence in 1994, where they would
prefer to retire and be buried. In addition, respondents had to indicate how many members of
the household had left the household in the preceding five years.
Household infrastructure: This section asked information about the type of house in which
the households were living and their access to sanitation, water and electricity. Satisfaction
with these services and other government-related services was also recorded.
Quality of life: General quality of life was assessed by means of questions focusing on
respondents’ satisfaction with family life, health and income. Respondents also had to
indicate their attachment to aspects such as their immediate family, the neighborhood and the
5
town in which they were living, fellow Griqua people and South African people in general.
Questions were also asked about organisations to which they belonged and general social
problems in their community.
Griqua-related: Respondents had to indicate how important Griqua-related activities were to
them. In the last section, respondents could give their opinion on the role of religion, language
and tradition in the Griqua community.
The survey responses and feedback received from the communities on the results of the
survey are indicated in the sections that follow. The next sections focus on the demographic
and economic profile of the Griqua respondents. This is followed by a discussion on housing
and basic services and the quality of life of the Griqua respondents. Lastly, Griqua related
concerns and cultural aspects are discussed in further detail.
6
Section 3: Household demography
This section reflects on household demographics in the different areas and is structured as follows:
The age profiles of the population in the various towns
A gender profile
An analysis of average household size and composition
An analysis of the educational level of the Griqua population
Migration trends
3.1. Age profile
The age profile provides insight into the population distribution in terms of age. From this, general
assumptions are made in respect of the ratio of employed people to those who are dependent on the
incomes of those employed. Table 3.1 provides a detailed overview of the age profile.
Table 3.1: Age profile of members in the households
Area 0-15 16-35 36-59 60+ Total Average
age n % n % n % n % n %
GN
C Griquarust 24 22.4 38 35.5 33 30.8 12 11.2 107 100.0 32.02
Philippolis 20 35.1 21 36.8 10 17.5 6 10.5 57 100.0 27.07
Kimberley 19 20.0 40 42.1 26 27.4 10 10.5 95 100.0 32.47
Cape Town 23 24.7 28 30.1 28 30.1 14 15.1 93 100.0 34.04
Kranshoek 74 31.9 81 34.9 54 23.3 23 9.9 232 100.0 28.93
Vredendal 79 27.5 111 38.7 74 25.8 23 8.0 287 100.0 29.93
No
n-G
NC
Bloemfontein 22 30.1 22 30.1 24 32.9 5 6.8 73 100.0 30.00
Kopanong 23 29.5 28 35.9 19 24.4 8 10.3 78 100.0 29.40
Kokstad 56 29.9 83 44.4 33 17.6 15 8.0 187 100.0 26.81
Campbell 35 23.3 68 45.3 30 20.0 17 11.3 150 100.0 29.84
Douglas 85 36.5 76 32.6 38 16.3 34 14.6 233 100.0 28.18
Griquastad 7 11.7 30 50.0 21 35.0 2 3.3 60 100.0 32.47
Total 467 28.3 626 37.9 390 23.6 169 10.2 1652 100.0 29.56
GNC area 239 27.4 319 36.6 225 25.8 88 10.1 871 100.0 30.27
Non-GNC 228 29.2 307 39.3 165 21.1 81 10.4 781 100.0 28.77
The average ages vary between 26.81 years in Kokstad and 34.04 years in Cape Town (see Table 3.1).
This average age indicates that in all the areas, most members of the population are of prime working
age and in the top end of the youth profile2 where most people have not only already entered but also
started establishing themselves in the workforce. Further confirmation of this is that the cohorts with
the highest percentage in each area, Bloemfontein excepted, fell in the 15-34 age group. In
Bloemfontein, 32.9% of the household members were in the adult age cohort with ages ranging
between 35 and 59 years, and, as such, still considered to be economically active. However, despite
both Philippolis and Douglas having a large economically active age group, these towns also had a
large number of households members falling in the dependent age group (0-15 years). In Philippolis,
35.1% and in Douglas 36.5% fell within the youngest age cohort (0-15 years) The GNC and the non-
GNC areas had very similar age profiles, with the majority of household members being found in the
youth age cohort (15-34 years). Although the majority of the household members fell either in the
youth or adult age cohorts – thus able to participate in the economy – large-scale economic
participation in the economy was nevertheless lacking (to be discussed in Section 4).
2 In South Africa, this is the formal definition of being a youth. Internationally, the definition is usually
narrowed down to the age group 15-24.
7
3.2. Gender profile
Having considered the age profile, this section now reflects on the gender profile.
45.4%
46.7%
50.0%
49.7%
48.9%
48.1%
46.4%
46.1%
45.1%
45.0%
44.9%
43.6%
43.1%
41.2%
54.6%
53.3%
50.0%
50.3%
51.1%
51.9%
53.6%
53.9%
54.9%
55.0%
55.1%
56.4%
56.9%
58.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Kimberley
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Kopanong
Campbell
Kranshoek
Vredendal
Griquastad
Griquarust
Douglas
Philippolis (GNC)
Cape Town
Gender of household members
Male
Female
Figure 3.1: Gender profile of household members
As indicated in Figure 3.1, in most cases, with the exception of Kimberley, which had an equal
distribution, there were more women than men in the households. There was also not a significant
difference between GNC areas and non-GNC areas. The greatest numbers of women in households
were found in Cape Town (58.8%), Philippolis (56.9%) and Douglas (56.4%). The gender average in
both the GNC and non-GNC areas was generally slightly more than that of the South African average
of 52% females3.
Table 3.1 indicates the different age groups in the household, according to gender. In addition, the
table is sorted in descending order according to towns with the most economically active people to
those with the least (age groups16 to 59).
3 According to the 2001 census data, StatsSA
8
Table 3.2: Age groups according to gender 0-15 16-34 35-59 60+
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Griquastad 6 20.0 1 3.3 18 60.0 11 36.7 6 20.0 16 53.3 0 0.0 2 6.7
Kimberley 5 12.2 14 25.9 19 46.3 21 38.9 13 31.7 13 24.1 4 9.8 6 11.1
Griquarust 15 23.8 9 20.5 20 31.7 13 29.5 21 33.3 17 38.6 7 11.1 5 11.4
Campbell 12 24.5 23 22.8 19 38.8 47 46.5 13 26.5 19 18.8 5 10.2 12 11.9
Vredendal 32 28.8 47 26.7 43 38.7 64 36.4 27 24.3 51 29.0 9 8.1 14 8.0
Kokstad 14 25.0 42 32.1 24 42.9 53 40.5 12 21.4 27 20.6 6 10.7 9 6.9
Kopanong 5 16.1 18 38.3 7 22.6 18 38.3 15 48.4 7 14.9 4 12.9 4 8.5
Bloemfontein 9 30.0 13 30.2 8 26.7 12 27.9 9 30.0 17 39.5 4 13.3 1 2.3
Cape Town 16 28.1 7 19.4 15 26.3 11 30.6 19 33.3 11 30.6 7 12.3 7 19.4
Kranshoek 29 31.2 45 32.4 32 34.4 46 33.1 20 21.5 37 26.6 12 12.9 11 7.9
Philippolis 8 32.0 12 37.5 7 28.0 13 40.6 6 24.0 5 15.6 4 16.0 2 6.3
Douglas 41 36.3 44 36.7 37 32.7 38 31.7 15 13.3 24 20.0 20 17.7 14 11.7
Griquastad 6 20.0 1 3.3 18 60.0 11 36.7 6 20.0 16 53.3 0 0.0 2 6.7
GNC 114 28.8 124 26.2 140 35.4 164 34.6 104 26.3 136 28.7 38 9.6 50 10.5
Non-GNC 114 31.1 114 27.5 139 38.0 153 36.9 79 21.6 101 24.3 34 9.3 47 11.3
Total 192 27.5 275 28.9 249 35.6 347 36.4 176 25.2 244 25.6 82 11.7 87 9.1
3.3. Household size and household composition
Figure 3.2 gives an indication of the average household size for the various areas under consideration,
while also indicating the distribution of members of the household – for each of these areas – as they
are related to the heads of the household. This gives one an idea who the people are who are
dependent on the shared budget.
5.5
6.5
7.7
7.2
6.7
6.4
6.2
6.1
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.0
4.1
GNC
Non-GNC
Douglas
Philippolis (GNC)
Kopanong
Griquastad
Kimberley
Campbell
Vredendal
Bloemfontein
Kokstad
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Griquarust
Average number of people per household
Figure 3.2: Average number of people per household
Figure 3.3 represents the average number of people in the households (with the dark grey columns
representing GNC and the light grey representing non-GNC areas). The average household size
ranged from between 4.1 persons in Griquarust to 7.7 in Douglas. The small number of household
members in Griquastad (4.1 person per household) has been related to a recent, large-scale low-
9
income housing project that has been completed. Households who were living together before the
completion of the project, now live on their own properties. GNC areas have a mean household size of
5.5 household members. The non-GNC areas have a mean household size of 6.5. The numbers of the
household members in the GNC areas are significantly higher than the South African average of 3.8
persons per household.
25.6
24.5
22.0
22.3
23.9
26.2
30.0
30.6
25.1
25.7
21.4
26.3
30.8
35.1
12.6
10.5
6.0
12.3
13.6
10.7
8.3
3.2
11.6
11.8
11.2
14.2
18.7
7.4
49.1
53.7
60.0
59.2
54.5
54.4
53.3
53.2
51.2
50.8
49.0
46.1
43.9
24.5
10.3
10.5
8.0
6.2
8.0
8.7
8.3
11.3
10.4
11.2
15.3
6.9
5.6
33.0
2.4
0.8
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.5
3.1
6.5
0.9
0.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
GNC
Non-GNC
Kranshoek
Cape Town
Kimberley
Campbell
Philippolis (GNC)
Kopanong
Griquastad
Douglas
Vredendal
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Griquarust
Household composition
Respondent Partner Child / Grandchild of respondent Other family members Non-family member
Figure 3.3: Household composition
Two main aspects should be noted in terms of the figure above: firstly, there are fewer married people
or people living with life partners than the percentage of respondents; and secondly, there are large
numbers of children and grandchildren in the households. The low level of partners in the household
is an indication that there are several single-headed households. This tendency towards a growing
number of single-headed households was confirmed in all the focus-group sessions held in selected
areas. Yet, high percentages of children and grandchildren usually signify that there is a high level of
dependency with many young children. As indicated in Table 3.1, the majority of the population lie in
the 16 to 34 age cohort. This therefore suggests that a great number of working-age children are still
living with their parents. Focus-group members indicated that the Griqua people are very close to
their families, thus wherever possible, they live close to one another or in the same household.
However, poverty also contributes to the situation where children of adult age are unable to establish
their own households, and thus have no choice but to live with their families.
Only 24.5% of the household members in Cape Town were children. However, contrary to other
survey areas, approximately one-third (33.0%) of the households in Cape Town were comprised of
other family members, such as brothers, sisters and other relatives. This suggests that the households
in Cape Town were made up of the extended family who had joined family already living in Cape
Town. Another probable cause might be that they were attracted by the prospect of job opportunities
in the city. An alarming 60% of the population of Philippolis (GNC area) and 59.2% of Vredendal
were children. With low levels of household partners in relation to respondents, this data indicate that
there were several children in single-headed households. The figures for Kopanong , Campbell and
Douglas also indicate the presence of a high percentage of grandchildren. This further explains the
high average household size for Douglas: 55.4% of the households there consisted of children and
grandchildren.
10
3.4. Educational level
Figure 3.4 indicates the percentage of the children and youths still busy with schooling or other
education or who are too young to attend school.
36.2%
41.4%
52.3%
48.1%
46.9%
42.9%
40.9%
39.9%
37.4%
35.4%
34.6%
33.0%
27.9%
22.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
GNC
Non-GNC
Philippolis (GNC)
Douglas
Kopanong
Bloemfontein
Kranshoek
Kokstad
Campbell
Cape Town
Vredendal
Kimberley
Griquarust
Griquastad
% of household still busy with education
Figure 3.4: Percentage of household members still being educated
Given the large number of children in the households, it could be expected that equally large numbers
of the household members would be in the process of completing their education (see Figure 3.4). The
percentage of household members either still being educated or too young for school ranged from as
low as 22.8% in Griquastad to 53.3% in Philippolis. What was however more worrying was the
educational level of members of the households who were old enough to have completed their
education but had not. Table 3.3 reflects the educational level of youths older than 18, adults and
elderly household members of the areas under scrutiny.
11
Table 3.3: Educational levels of persons older than 18 years in the households
Table 3.3 above reflects the educational levels of household members older than 18 years. The overall
levels of education of household members (older than 18 years) were alarmingly low. Between 9.1%
(Bloemfontein) and 38.7% (Griquastad) of the household members older than 18 years either had no
schooling or only some primary education. The highest percentages in this category were in
Griquastad, Kopanong (29.4%), Philippolis (28.6%) and Douglas (26.9%). As indicated in the above
table, fewer than half of the household members in all areas had completed matric. Very few of the
population had completed either further courses or received higher education after schooling. In terms
of the difference between the GNC and the non-GNC areas, the percentages for each of the categories
of education were very similar. Where there was a distinction, 4.3% of the members of the households
in the GNC areas had received higher education, while only 0.2% of the non-GNC areas had done so.
Such low levels of education do not serve the Griqua cause.
3.5. Migration
The next section elaborates on the migration patterns of the population. This will be discussed in
terms of the place of birth, location in 1994, and also the preferred place of retirement and burial.
3.5.1. Historical migration process
Respondents were asked a couple of questions to determine their migration patterns over time. The
questions set out to determine the following:
Their place of birth.
Where they were located in 1994.
Where they should like to retire and be buried.
The answers to the questions are dealt with in more detail below. It should once again be realised that,
in the survey, the respondents were not always the main breadwinners in their households.
3.5.2 Place of birth and place of residence in 1994
Table 3.4 provides an overview of where the respondents were born and the town where they resided
in 1994. The decision to ask respondents where they were located in 1994 was motivated by the fact
that South Africa’s transition to a democratic country occurred in that year. In addition, 1994 followed
Area
Low levels >
Grade 8 Grades 8-11
Less
than
matric
Matric Higher
education Total
n % n % % n % n % n %
Philippolis (GNC) 6 28.6 13 61.9 90.5 2 9.5 0 0 21 100
Griquarust 29 38.7 36 48 86.7 10 13.3 0 0 75 100
Kopanong 10 29.4 19 55.9 85.3 5 14.7 0 0 34 100
Griquastad 11 25 22 50 75.0 11 25 0 0 44 100
Bloemfontein 4 9.1 26 59.1 68.2 14 31.8 0 0 44 100
Vredendal 26 13.8 100 52.9 66.7 52 27.5 11 5.8 189 100
Kokstad 10 9.3 59 55.1 64.4 38 35.5 0 0 107 100
Kranshoek 23 17.3 62 46.6 63.9 37 27.8 11 8.3 133 100
Kimberley 8 13.6 29 49.2 62.8 22 37.3 0 0 59 100
Campbell 18 22 33 40.2 62.2 30 36.6 1 1.2 82 100
Cape Town 7 13.2 24 45.3 58.5 21 39.6 1 1.9 53 100
Douglas 29 26.9 34 31.5 58.4 45 41.7 0 0 108 100
Total 181 19.1 457 48.2 67.3 287 30.2 24 2.5 949 100
GNC area 99 18.7 264 49.8 68.5 144 27.2 23 4.3 530 100
Non-GNC 82 19.6 193 46.1 65.7 143 34.1 1 0.2 419 100
12
some years after the abolition of the policy of orderly urbanisation4 in the early 1990s, and went hand
in hand with increasing exposure to global economic trends. However, opting for this specific date
(1994) is not the most important aspect to be considered – the changes since birth should receive more
attention. The tables and figure that follow thus reflect the migration patterns of the respondents from
birth to when they settled in their current town of residence (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: Place of birth and place of residence of respondents in 1994
Area
Same place as current
town
Same province - near
current town
Town farther than
200km away Total
Born 1994 Born 1994 Born 1994 Born 1994
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Vredendal 21 35.0 52 91.2 34 56.7 0 0.0 5 8.3 5 8.8 60 100 57 100
Kimberley 10 52.6 19 100 7 36.8 0 0.0 2 10.5 0 0.0 19 100 19 100
Campbell 19 55.9 32 94.1 14 41.2 2 5.9 1 2.9 0 0.0 34 100 34 100
Cape Town 18 64.3 25 100 7 25.0 0 0.0 3 10.7 0 0.0 28 100 25 100
Kranshoek 32 56.1 48 87.3 7 12.3 0 0.0 18 31.6 7 12.7 57 100 55 100
Philippolis 4 44.4 6 75.0 5 55.6 2 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 100 8 100
Bloemfontein 9 50.0 13 76.5 4 22.2 1 5.9 5 27.8 3 17.6 18 100 17 100
Douglas 11 27.5 21 53.8 28 70.0 17 43.6 1 2.5 1 2.6 40 100 39 100
Griquarust 20 66.7 26 89.7 4 13.3 3 10.3 6 20.0 0 0.0 30 100 29 100
Griquastad 9 69.2 11 84.6 3 23.1 2 15.4 1 7.7 0 0.0 13 100 13 100
Kopanong 13 81.3 14 87.5 3 18.8 2 12.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 100 16 100
Kokstad 37 86.0 38 88.4 5 11.6 4 9.3 1 2.3 1 2.3 43 100 43 100
Total 203 55.3 305 85.9 121 33.0 33 9.3 43 11.7 17 4.8 367 100 355 100
GNC 105 51.7 176 91.2 64 31.5 5 2.6 34 16.7 12 6.2 203 100 193 100
Non-GNC 98 59.8 129 79.6 57 34.8 28 17.3 9 5.5 5 3.1 164 100 162 100
Table 3.4 signifies that Griqua people do not generally migrate too far from where they were born.
Most of the respondents were born in the province in which they were living at the time of the survey,
but not necessarily in their current town of residence. In addition, there was a significant historical
link between the town where they resided in 1994 and their location at the time of the survey. By
1994, the respondents of seven areas – out of the twelve areas – had already settled in or near their
current town of residence (Kimberley, Campbell, Cape Town, Philippolis, Griquarust, Griquastad and
Kopanong). The specific place near the current town is significant in that a large number of
respondents were either born or had been living on a farm in 1994 and had at some time migrated to
the nearest town, where they were residing at the time of the survey (Figure 3.5 deals specifically with
rural-urban migration patterns). As indicated in Table 3.4, migration was much more prevalent before
1995 than after that date.
Although most residents of the respective towns had had a lengthy historical link with their province
of origin, the non-GNC respondents’ migration patterns were far less pronounced in terms of distance
than were those of their GNC counterparts. GNC respondents’ migration patterns up to 1994 reflect a
greater difference in terms of distance from the place they were born than do the non-GNC
respondents with regard to migration patterns. . Almost one-fifth (16.7%) of GNC respondents were
born either 200km away from their current town or in a different province; this was true of only 5.5%
of the non-GNC respondents. The greatest migration in terms of distance between respondents’ place
of birth, and where they were residing in 1994, occurred in the GNC towns of Vredendal and
Kimberley. Only 35% and 52%, respectively, of the respondents in Vredendal and Kimberley were
4 This policy followed influx control that was abolished in 1986. Yet, in reality, the outcomes of the said policy
were not much different from those of influx control: people of colour could still not settle in urban areas
without formal township establishment processes.
13
born in those towns. However, by 1994, 91.2% and 100%, respectively, of the respondents in
Vredendal and Kimberley were settled in these towns. In order to conceptualise the urbanisation
patterns from rural places to urban places, respondents were asked whether they were born and/or
lived on a farm in 1994. Figure 3.5 gives an analysis in terms of whether respondents were either born
and/or had been residing on farms in 1994.
Figure 3.5 indicates that, with a few exceptions, most of the respondents in the majority of the areas
had not been born on farms. Exceptions in this regard were Kopanong and Douglas, where 56.3%
and 55.0%, respectively, of the respondents from those areas had been born on farms.
15.0%
27.3%
62.5%
56.3%
55.0%
31.6%
23.5%
22.2%
22.0%
7.7%
7.4%
5.3%
3.3%
2.3%
1.0%
16.6%
22.2%
50.0%
33.3%
0.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
GNC
Non-GNC
Philippolis
Kapanong
Douglas
Kimberley
Campbell
Bloemfontein
Vredendal
Griquastad
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Griquarust
KokstadMigration
Resided on a farm in 1994
Born on a farm
Figure 3.5: Respondents born and residing on a farm in 1994
Far fewer respondents were located on the farms in 1994 compared with those born on a farm. The
highest percentage of respondents who had been living on farms in 1994 were from
Kopanong(50.0%) and Douglas (33.3%). However, the high frequency of farm dwellers in Kopanong
in 1994 can be ascribed to methodological reasons. Ten questionnaires were completed by farm
dwellers in Bethany, a small village near Edenburg. Bethany is of particular significance in that it is
one of the first successful land claims processed in favour of the Griqua people. Despite this
methodological consideration, and even if the non-GNC Griqua respondents in Philippolis are taken
into account, there was still a slight decline in the numbers of Griqua people who had been born on a
farm and still residing on a farm in 1994. Fewer Griqua respondents from GNC areas were both born
(15.0%) on farms and still resided (1.0%) there than was the case with their non-GNC counterparts. In
non-GNC areas, 27.3% respondents were born on farms and 16.6% still resided there in 1994.
However, it should be noted that owing to financial and logistical constraints, the study focused
mostly on urban habitants, and further studies focusing on rural parts are necessary to give a true
reflection of urbanisation patterns among the Griqua people. What is of importance, though, is that
among the respondents who were interviewed, urbanisation patterns in general seemed to indicate an
out-migration from rural parts to urban areas. It is possible that this urbanisation trend may be
attributable to deteriorating economic conditions in the agricultural sector, a factor that accelerated
the migration of large numbers of farm workers to urban areas. In addition, urban and rural policies
relating to farm workers could also have influenced migration patterns.
14
3.5.3 Place of retirement and burial
In order to gauge respondents’ future migration patterns, they were asked where they would like to
retire and where they would like to be buried. Both questions displayed similar trends and the
differences between where the respondents desired to retire and where they wanted to be buried were
insignificant. The main point of departure in this section is thus on respondents’ envisaged place of
burial in order to encapsulate the Griqua respondents’ long-term commitment to their respective
towns (See Figure 3.6).
64.8%
91.3%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97.6%
94.7%
92.5%
91.1%
90.9%
58.8%
50.0%
13.6%
33.7%
4.3%
5.0%
8.9%
29.4%
42.3%
86.4%
1.5%
4.3%
2.4%
5.3%
2.5%
9.1%
11.8%
7.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kopanong
Philippolis
Griquastad
Kokstad
Kimberley
Douglas
Kranshoek
Campbell
Bloemfontein
Cape Town
Vredendal
Envisaged place of burial
Same as current town
Other place than current tow, but of Griqua significance (Kranshoek,
Ratelgat, Beeswater, Bethany)
Other place (not Griqua related)
Figure 3.6: Envisaged placed of burial.
An interesting pattern emerged with regard to Griqua respondents’ long-term commitment to their
towns. With a few exceptions, non-GNC respondents were much more likely (91.3%) than their GNC
counterparts (64.8%) to express a desire to retire and be buried in their current town of residence. Of
significance here is the value respondents placed on a town’s historical link with Griqua history. In
cases where all of the respondents in a specific town expressed a desire to be buried in their current
town of residence, the historical link to that specific town can be traced back to be of significance for
the Griqua people. For example, Bethany (in Kopanong), Griquastad, Philippolis, and to a lesser
extent Griquarust, are prime examples of towns with rich Griqua history embedded in their formation.
A large number of GNC respondents (86.4% in Vredendal, 42.3% in Cape Town and 8.2% in
Kranshoek) expressed their need to be buried in places with significant value for them as people of
Griqua origin. These places included the farms of Ratelgat and Beeswater and the town of Kranshoek.
Respondents in the non-GNC city of Bloemfontein reflected similar wishes with regard to their
historical link to Bethany, the historical Griqua settlement near Edenburg in the Free State. Some
respondents (5%) in Douglas expressed a desire to be buried in their place of birth. Only a few
respondents (2.5% from Bloemfontein, 2.4% from Kokstad, and 2.1% from Northern Cape) wanted to
retire on a farm. There was a further handful of respondents who indicated that “it does not matter” or
“as long as it is with the family or [in] a Griqua place”.
The foregoing section investigated the past migration patterns of the respondents i and tried to predict
future patterns. The next session will look into the current migration processes.
3.5.4. Current migration processes
Having considered historical processes of migration, our emphasis now shifts to current processes and
patterns. In this regard, respondents were asked three basic questions:
15
Whether any members of the household had left the household to reside somewhere else
during the preceding five years.
What the main reason for moving was (some options were given).
Where they had migrated to.
Firstly, Figure 3.7 gives an indication of the percentage of households who reported that someone had
left the household during the preceding five years.
13.1%
15.3%
33.3%
31.3%
27.6%
27.3%
22.0%
20.0%
10.5%
10.5%
8.8%
6.7%
5.9%
5.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquastad
Kopanong
Cape Town
Philippolis
Douglas
Griquarust
Bloemfontein
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Kokstad
Campbell
Vredendal
% of households indicating household members had
left the household during the past five years
Figure 3.7: The percentage of households reporting that someone had left the households in
the respective areas during the past five years
Figure 3.7 reveals that the highest outflow of people had occurred in Griquastad and Kopanong with
33.3% and 31.3 of the respondents respectively in these towns reporting that someone had left the
household. Vredendal (5%) and Campbell (5.9%) were the areas that reported the smallest percentage
of people leaving the household. There was only a slight difference between the GNC (13.1%) and
non-GNC (15.3%) areas with regard to the respondents indicating that someone had left the
household.
Respondents had to indicate where these household members had migrated to (see Table 3.5).
16
Table 3.5: Place of migration
Same province
Different province-
Western Cape /
Gauteng
Different province-
Other Total
n % n % n % n %
Kranshoek 5 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 100.0
Vredendal 3 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 100.0
Cape Town 7 87.5 0 0.0 1 12.5 8 100.0
Bloemfontein 4 80.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 5 100.0
Douglas 9 69.2 4 30.8 0 0.0 13 100.0
Kopanong 11 64.7 0 0.0 6 35.3 17 100.0
Philippolis 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 4 100.0
Kimberley 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 2 100.0
Kokstad 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 4 100.0
Griquastad 2 22.2 7 77.8 0 0.0 9 100.0
Griquarust 1 16.7 5 83.3 0 0.0 6 100.0
Campbell 0 0.0 4 100.0 0 0.0 4 100.0
Total 46 57.5 25 31.3 9 11.3 80 100.0
GNC 19 67.9 6 21.4 3 10.7 28 100.0
Non-GNC 27 51.9 19 36.5 6 11.5 52 100.0
Table 3.5 indicates that the destination of choice of members who had left the household was firstly
the Western Cape and secondly, Gauteng. Household members of GNC respondents living in the
Western Cape usually migrated within the province of their family (Kranshoek, Vredendal, Cape
Town). The preferred town was Cape Town. In addition, Griquarust members also preferred
migrating to the Western Cape. Respondents from other GNC areas (Philippolis and Kimberley) in the
inland provinces indicated that family members had either relocated to Bloemfontein, Kimberley or
the Eastern Cape, and to a lesser extent to Cape Town. Contrary to the migration patterns of GNC
households who relocated to the Western Cape, the non-GNC areas’ migration patterns were much
more scattered, and being distributed amongst all the provinces like the Free State, Gauteng and
Northern Cape. Household members in areas such as Kokstad, Griquastad and Campbell seemed less
prone to migrate within their own province, whereas family members from Bloemfontein, Douglas
and Kopanong tended to relocate to places/towns within their home province. People leaving Kokstad
tended to move, in order of preference, to Gauteng, or Cape Town or Durban. The majority of family
members leaving Griquastad and Campbell preferred to go to Gauteng. A common trend seemed to be
that people relocated to urban areas. However, given the low response rate to this question, one would
be ill advised to generalise from these results.
The data in the figure below beg the question as to why these people left the households of the
respondents (see Figure 3.8).
17
32.1%
51.0%
100.0%
88.9%
66.7%
52.9%
50.0%
50.0%
40.0%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
16.7%
16.7%
21.4%
29.4%
11.1%
47.1%
50.0%
20.0%
50.0%
80.0%
16.7%
25.0%
15.7%
50.0%
20.0%
50.0%
12.5%
50.0%
50.0%
21.4%
3.9%
33.3%
20.0%
25.0%
12.5%
33.3%
16.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Campbell
Griquastad
Vredendal
Kopanong
Kokstad
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Philippolis
Cape Town
Bloemfontein
Griquarust
Douglas
Reasons for leaving household
To be close to place of employment
Social reasons / other
To look for work
To be near a place of education
Figure 3.8: Reasons why family members left the household in the preceding five years
Overall – in the five years prior to the 2009 survey – the largest percentage of those who left the
towns did so for economic reasons, either in search of work or to be close to their place of
employment. The social reasons mentioned in the above table relate to aspects such as getting
married, going to stay with children, moving to an old age home, etc. Access to education also played
a less significant role in out-migration.
In six of the towns (Campbell, 100%; Griquastad, 88.9%; Vredendal, 66.7%; Kokstad, 50%
and Kimberley, 50%) respondents indicated that the main reason for somebody leaving the
household was that they had found employment elsewhere.
In Douglas, Griquarust and Kokstad half of the respondents indicated that someone had left
the household “to look for work”.
In Bloemfontein (80%), Kimberley (50%) and Cape Town (50%) social and other reasons
were mentioned as having been the main factor for out-migration.
Figure 3.8 furthermore indicates reasons specified by the GNC and the non-GNC regions. As
established in Figure 3.8, most people living in non-GNC areas had left their previous areas to
be close to areas of employment (51%). GNC areas were more divided in terms of the reasons
why they had left, like to be close to a place of employment (32.1%), to look for work (25%),
to be near a place of education (21.4%) and for social reasons (21.4%).
The next section focuses on the economic profile of the respondents.
18
Section 4: Economic profile
Many economies, including the South African economy, are based on free enterprise. Free enterprise
provides the opportunity for an economy or a nation or a business to succeed or fail on the basis of
market supply and demand. A number of basic individual and business rights must exist for an
economy to function effectively. These rights are fundamental to the success of many countries’
economic development. Without these rights, a country cannot function effectively because the people
of the country are not motivated to succeed. In a country like South Africa, where there are many
different cultural groups, it is even more important to keep every group motivated by making it part of
the economy of the country as a whole.
This section considers the economic profile of the Griqua people in South Africa in their respective
towns. It is important to know their economic profile, even if they are a minority group, because each
and every one of them is also contributing to the South African economy. As mentioned earlier in the
report, there is, within the Griqua groupings, a movement called the GNC (Griqua National
Conference) and then there are also various groups of Griqua people who do not belong to this
organisation. When considering the economic profile of the Griqua, it is important to know, whether
there are any economic differences between the two groups.
This section is structured as follows:
First, there is an overview of the employment status of the respondents in the various areas.
This is to be followed by a profile of the economic sector in which household members are
employed in the respective areas.
Next, there will be a few comments in respect of a number of selected economic sectors.
Fourth, there will be a discussion of the size of the economies of the three areas in relation to
that of the Northern Cape.
After providing the above overview on the economic profiles of the areas, we finally turn to
providing a profile of employment per economic sector.
4.1. Employment status
The terms human resources, or labour, refer to the physical and mental abilities of people to produce
goods and services. The employment status of any nation is thus a very important indicator of the
personal and overall economic wealth and potential growth of a country or a nation. According to the
data gathered from the different areas in which the Griqua are living, there are a few interesting
aspects of employment to consider. Table 4.1 provides more detail in respect of the employment
status of the Griqua in the different areas of South Africa.
19
Table 4.1: Employment status per area, 2010
Area Employed
full-time
Employed
part-time /
seasonal
worker / not
indicated
full-time
Self-
employed /
own business
Unemployed
– not looking
for work
Unemployed
– looking for
work
Housewife /
Other
Student/
learner / too
young for
school
Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Cape Town 26 33.8 5 6.5 0 0.0 13 16.9 4 5.2 4 5.2 25 32.5 77 100
Vredendal 80 29.0 20 7.2 7 2.5 28 10.1 24 8.7 22 8.0 95 34.4 276 100
Griquarust 23 28.0 7 8.5 0 0.0 16 19.5 13 15.9 1 1.2 22 26.8 82 100
Kranshoek 56 28.0 8 4.0 2 1.0 28 14.0 15 7.5 8 4.0 83 41.5 200 100
Kokstad 41 25.3 3 1.9 4 2.5 16 9.9 23 14.2 13 8.0 62 38.3 162 100
Griquastad 13 28.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 17.8 13 28.9 1 2.2 10 22.2 45 100
Bloemfontein 18 22.2 5 6.2 0 0.0 15 18.5 8 9.9 6 7.4 29 35.8 81 100
Kimberley 19 19.6 5 5.2 1 1.0 19 19.6 22 22.7 7 7.2 24 24.7 97 100
Kopanong 16 25.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 20.6 6 9.5 1 1.6 27 42.9 63 100
Douglas 26 12.7 17 8.3 0 0.0 37 18.1 25 12.3 4 2.0 95 46.6 204 100
Philippolis 6 15.4 2 5.1 0 0.0 8 20.5 3 7.7 2 5.1 18 46.2 39 100
Campbell 9 7.3 3 2.4 0 0.0 15 12.2 43 35.0 10 8.1 43 35.0 123 100
Total 333 23.0 75 5.2 14 1.0 216 14.9 199 13.7 79 5.5 533 36.8 1449 100
GNC 210 27.2 47 6.1 10 1.3 112 14.5 81 10.5 44 5.7 267 34.6 771 100
Non-GNC 123 18.1 28 4.1 4 0.6 104 15.3 118 17.4 35 5.2 266 39.2 678 100
*Data sorted according to places with highest percentage of employment (full-time, part-time, self-employed) to least
**Data with missing values (data not indicated) has been omitted from the analysis
The following are important aspects to take into account when discussing the employment status of
the Griqua (see Table 4.1):
In general, when all types of employment are considered (full-time, part-time and self-
employment), the GNC areas of Cape Town (40.3%), Vredendal (38.8%), Griquarust (36.6%)
and Kranshoek (33.0%) are better off in this regard than most of their non-GNC counterparts.
Full-time employment ranged from 7.3% to 33.8% for all the areas. On average, the full-time
employment status of the households was lower than the average for South Africa. Areas that
were well below the average full-time employment rate were:
o Campbell, as a non-GNC area – 7.3%
o Douglas, as a non-GNC area – 12.7%
o Philippolis, a GNC area – 15.4%
o Kimberley, a GNC area –19.6%
Approximately one-third (34.6%) of the household members fell within the unemployed
category of student/learner/too young for school. Areas that had the least number of young
people falling within this category average were Griquastad (22.2%), Kimberley (24.74%)
and Griquarust (26.83%).
Almost one-third (28.6%) of the total population were either unemployed but not looking for
a job or unemployed but were looking for a job. Some deviations from the average occurred
in the following areas:
o Campbell, as a non-GNC area, had 47.2% unemployed household members, with
35.0% looking for a job. This corresponds with the low employment rate as
mentioned earlier.
o Griquastad (46.7%), a non-GNC area, and Kimberley (42.3%), as a GNC area, had
the second and third highest percentages of unemployed household members either
looking for or not looking for a job.
A mere 1.0%. of the household members in Vredendal (2.5%), Kokstad (2.5%), Kimberley
(1.0%) and Kranshoek (1.0%) were either owners of businesses or self-employed persons and
these were the only areas in which people were owners of businesses or self-employed. The
latter fact is problematic when one is considering economic growth and job creation, because
20
entrepreneurial ventures are the engines that create jobs and contribute to the economy of a
specific area or region.
Employment percentages in the GNC areas were on average higher than in the non-GNC
areas. The converse was true of unemployment percentages: approximately one-quarter (25%)
of household members were unemployed in the GNC areas, while nearly one-third (32.7%)
were unemployed in the non-GNC areas. Although this is a very small percentage, there were
more people in the GNC areas who owned a business or who were self-employed than were
in the non-GNC areas.
Whereas this section has considered the employment status of the household members, the following
section will examine the different economic sectors in which the working household members were
employed.
4.2. Economic sectors of employment
South Africa’s labour market has undergone a transformation since 1994, with emphasis being placed
on strategies to eliminate the labour inequalities of the past and improve general working conditions
for all South Africans. The introduction of new labour legislation has had a profound impact on the
SA labour market, notably in terms of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act (BCEA), the Employment Equity Act (EEA) and the Skills Development Act
(SDA).
The South African labour market is characterised by an oversupply of unskilled workers and a
shortage of skilled ones. High population growth constantly exceeds the growth in employment
demands. This is compounded by the consistent loss of jobs in the formal sector as the country’s
economy moves away from labour-intensive to capital-intensive operations.
Over the past four decades, the economy has been characterised by a structural shift in output. Since
the early 1990s, economic growth has been driven mainly by the tertiary sector – which includes
wholesale and retail trade, tourism and communications. Now South Africa is moving towards
becoming a knowledge-based economy, with a greater focus on technology, e-commerce and
financial and other services. Among the key sectors that contribute to the gross domestic product and
that keep the economic engine running are manufacturing, retail, financial services, information and
communication technology (ICT), mining, agriculture and tourism. Figure 4.1 reflects the different
economic sectors and the role they play in the South African economy.
21
Figure 4.1: Economic sectors and their roles in the South African economy
Government has pinpointed six sectors that are considered as having the greatest growth potential:
1. The automotive industry
2. Tourism
3. Mining and minerals
4. Information and communication technology (ICT)
5. The chemical industry
6. Infrastructure (Data source: Department of Minerals and Energy)
It follows that it is important to know not only how many people (as a percentage of the total
population) in an economy are employed, but also where (in which sector of the economy) they are
employed. The workplace plays an important role because, besides having an impact on job
sustainability, it also affects the employment earnings of people. Table 4.2 gives an indication of the
workplace of the Griqua people in the GNC and non-GNC areas.
22
Table 4.2: Workplace of employed people for the GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010
*Area
Private
sector Parastatal
Self-
employed State Municipality Other Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Griquarust 27 96.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 28 100
Vredendal 94 89.5 1 1.0 2 1.9 6 5.7 2 1.9 0 0.0 105 100
Kokstad 41 89.1 0 0.0 1 2.2 3 6.5 1 2.2 0 0.0 46 100
Philippolis 6 85.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 100
Bloemfontein 18 85.7 1 4.8 0 0.0 2 9.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 100
Kopanong 12 80.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 13.3 1 6.7 0 0.0 15 100
Kranshoek 52 80.0 2 3.1 0 0.0 8 12.3 3 4.6 0 0.0 65 100
Cape Town 21 70.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 26.7 1 3.3 0 0.0 30 100
Douglas 29 67.4 2 4.7 0 0.0 10 23.3 2 4.7 0 0.0 43 100
Kimberley 16 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 100
Campbell 7 63.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 36.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 100
Griquastad 7 53.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 23.1 1 7.7 2 15.4 13 100
Total 330 80.9 6 1.5 3 0.7 56 13.7 11 2.7 2 0.5 408 100
GNC 216 83.4 3 1.2 2 0.8 32 12.4 6 2.3 0 0.0 259 100
non-GNC 114 76.5 3 2.0 1 0.7 24 16.1 5 3.4 2 1.3 149 100
*Data sorted according to places with highest percentage of employment in private sector to those with the smallest
percentage in this sector
On average, nearly 81% of the respondents were employed in the private sector in their different
areas. Employment in the private sector ranged from 96.4% in Griquarust to 53.8% in Griquastad.
Only 0,7% of household members employed were self-employed, while the other just more than 18%,
were employed by the public sector – either the government, municipalities or parastatals
(government corporations).
Closer inspection of the individual areas reveals that the non-GNC areas, such as Griquastad (53.8%),
Campbell (63.6%), Douglas (67.4%), and even Kimberley (66.7%), a GNC area, had lower
employment figures in the private sector. This could be because there are not many large companies
in these areas (except Kimberley) and that the smaller entrepreneurial companies did not employ as
many people in the smaller towns in that government generally plays a more important role in job
creation in such towns. The following section gives an overview of the type of work done by
employed household members.
4.3. Type of work in the employment sector
Table 4.3 provides more detail regarding the type of work the Griqua respondents did in the different
areas.
23
Table 4.3: Type of work done in the GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010
Area
Technical:
(engineer,
electrician,
operator,
etc.)
Elementary Sales and
retail
State /
Municipality
services
Finances Services:
medical Education Transport Agriculture Hospitality
Other (e.g
hair-dressing
/ beauty. etc.)
Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Griquarust 16 55.2 4 13.8 5 17.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 6.9 2 6.9 0 0.0 29 100
Kokstad 19 43.2 0 0.0 13 29.5 2 4.5 7 15.9 2 4.5 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 44 100
Campbell 3 33.3 1 11.1 0 0.0 1 11.1 1 11.1 0 0.0 2 22.2 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 100
Kranshoek 19 29.7 7 10.9 11 17.2 4 6.3 5 7.8 7 10.9 5 7.8 2 3.1 2 3.1 0 0.0 2 3.1 64 100
Kimberley 6 25.0 2 8.3 6 25.0 4 16.7 1 4.2 0 0.0 2 8.3 1 4.2 0 0.0 2 8.3 0 0.0 24 100
Vredendal 26 24.5 31 29.2 19 17.9 4 3.8 7 6.6 3 2.8 4 3.8 8 7.5 0 0.0 1 0.9 3 2.8 106 100
Griquastad 3 23.1 0 0.0 1 7.7 3 23.1 4 30.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 15.4 13 100
Cape Town 6 20.0 5 16.7 4 13.3 2 6.7 2 6.7 7 23.3 1 3.3 3 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 100
Douglas 6 14.0 14 32.6 7 16.3 8 18.6 0 0.0 2 4.7 3 7.0 0 0.0 2 4.7 0 0.0 1 2.3 43 100
Bloemfontein 2 9.5 7 33.3 6 28.6 2 9.5 2 9.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.8 1 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 100
Kopanong 1 6.3 4 25.0 4 25.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 5 31.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 100
Philippolis 0 0.0 5 71.4 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 100
Total 107 26.4 80 19.7 78 19.2 31 7.6 29 7.1 21 5.2 19 4.7 16 3.9 12 3.0 5 1.2 8 2.0 406 100
GNC 73 28.1 54 20.8 47 18.1 14 5.4 15 5.8 17 6.5 12 4.6 14 5.4 4 1.5 5 1.9 5 1.9 260 100
Non-GNC 34 23.3 26 17.8 31 21.2 17 11.6 14 9.6 4 2.7 7 4.8 2 1.4 8 5.5 0 0.0 3 2.1 146 100
*Areas sorted according to profession and area
24
Closer scrutiny of the different areas reveals that there were also no truly significant trend in terms of
which the GNC areas differed from the non-GNC areas in the employment sector. It is interesting that
there were no respondents working in the agricultural sector in the real rural areas such as Kokstad,
Campbell, Griquastad and Vredendal. However, the low participation in the agricultural sector can be
ascribed to methodological reasons in that the survey mostly focused on urban areas. Another
interesting aspect is that only a few people (1,2%) were working in the hospitality industry even
though there are many job opportunities in this industry both in the rural areas and the cities.
As regards employment sectors, there were no major differences between the GNC areas and the non-
GNC areas. With a few exceptions (e.g. Griquastad) the majority of household members were either
employed in jobs related to technical skills or elementary work. The following are some of the types
of work employing more people – as a percentage of the total respondents – from the non-GNC areas
than from the GNC areas:
Sales and retail – 21,2% in the non-GNC areas as against the 18,1% in the GNC areas.
Government, parastatals and municipalities – 11.6 % in the non-GNC areas as against the
5.4% in the GNC areas.
Finances – 9,6% in the non-GNC areas as against the 5,8% in the GNC areas.
Agriculture – 5,5% in the non-GNC areas as against the 1,5% in the GNC areas.
Types of work employing more respondents – as a percentage of the total number of respondents –
from the GNC areas than from the non-GNC areas:
Technical, engineer, electrician, operator – 28.1% in the GNC areas as against the 23.3% in
the non-GNC areas.
Elementary, caretaker, gardener, domestic – 20.8% in the GNC areas as against the 17.8% in
the non-GNC areas.
Services medical – 6.5% in the GNC areas as against the 2.7% in the non-GNC areas.
Transport – 5.4% in the GNC areas as against the 1.4% in the non-GNC areas.
Hospitality – 1.9% in the GNC areas as against the 0% in the non-GNC areas.
Of the above-mentioned types of work, there is no noticeable trend that members of the GNC group
were doing more skilled types of work than were the members of the non-GNC group. Both groups
had people employed in doing skilled work and also in doing some unskilled lower-level work. The
next section provides an overview of income trends in the GNC and the non-GNC areas.
4.4. Income
Table 4.4 indicates the income groups for GNC areas and for non-GNC areas.
25
Table 4.4: Income for GNC and non-GNC areas, 2010
Area No income R1-R1500
R1501-
R3000
R3001-
R5000
R5001-
R7000
R7001-
R10000
More than
R10000 Total
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Cape Town 0 0.0 1 7.7 1 7.7 6 46.2 0 0.0 1 7.7 4 30.8 13 100
Kranshoek 4 7.5 2 3.8 16 30.2 20 37.7 5 9.4 5 9.4 1 1.9 53 100
Vredendal 0 0.0 7 11.7 18 30.0 19 31.7 8 13.3 4 6.7 4 6.7 60 100
Griquarust 0 0.0 6 20.0 17 56.7 7 23.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 100
Kimberley 0 0.0 4 21.1 6 31.6 6 31.6 2 10.5 0 0.0 1 5.3 19 100
Bloemfontein 1 6.7 3 20.0 5 33.3 2 13.3 2 13.3 2 13.3 0 0.0 15 100
Philippolis 0 0.0 3 33.3 4 44.4 2 22.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 100
Kokstad 0 0.0 14 35.9 14 35.9 10 25.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6 39 100
Douglas 0 0.0 18 45.0 10 25.0 10 25.0 2 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 40 100
Griquastad 0 0.0 7 53.8 3 23.1 3 23.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 100
Kopanong 7 43.8 5 31.3 2 12.5 1 6.3 0 0.0 1 6.3 0 0.0 16 100
Campbell 13 38.2 16 47.1 3 8.8 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.9 34 100
Total 25 7.3 86 25.2 99 29.0 87 25.5 19 5.6 13 3.8 12 3.5 341 100
GNC 4 2.2 23 12.5 62 33.7 60 32.6 15 8.2 10 5.4 10 5.4 184 100
Non-GNC 21 13.4 63 40.1 37 23.6 27 17.2 4 2.5 3 1.9 2 1.3 157 100
* Data sorted according to households with the lowest frequency of an income of R1500 to highest level of poverty
The general interpretation of the income groups based on responses from both the GNC areas and the
non-GNC areas is that people in the GNC areas had higher incomes than did people in the non-GNC
areas.
Though a large number of respondents in Kopanong (43.8%) and Campbell (38.2%) indicated
that they were receiving no income, some of the same respondents indicated that they were
receiving government grants of some kind. In the rest of the areas households with no income
were extremely rare, ranging from 0% to 7.5%.
With a few exceptions the most frequently cited income for the non-GNC areas lay in the R1-
R1500 category. Only Bloemfontein and Kokstad respondents cited incomes falling in the
R1501-R3000 category.
Compared with their non-GNC counterparts, the GNC households seemed much better off in
respect of income. The most often cited income for the GNC members were in the R3001-
R5000 category (Cape Town, Kranshoek, Vredendal). Griquarust and Philippolis indicated
that most of their households fell within the R1501-R3000 income category. Kimberley
respondents most frequently cited monthly household incomes of both R1501–R3000 (31.6%)
and R3001-R5000 (31.6%).
As an example to justify this statement, 10.8% of the GNC households fell in the income
category R7001 and higher, while the non-GNC percentage for this category was only 3.2%.
Figure 4.2 gives an indication of the average income per area.
26
3925
2403
6962
4404
4163
3589
3474
2603
2325
2111
2100
2083
2077
1714
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
GNC
Non-GNC
Cape Town
Vredendal
Kranshoek
Bloemfontein
Kimberley
Kokstad
Douglas
Kopanong
Griquarust
Philippolis
Griquastad
Campbell
Rand
Average income
Figure 4.2: Assumed average income per area
The highest average household incomes per month were found in the GNC areas of Cape Town
(R6962), Vredendal (R4404) and Kranshoek (R3849). The average income of the GNC areas was
substantially higher than that of the non-GNC areas. The non-GNC areas of Campbell (R1059),
Kopanong (R1188) and Griquastad (R2077) recorded the lowest income per month. As indicated in
Figure 4.2 above, the non-GNC areas’ average income, at R2081 per month, was significantly lower
than their GNC counterparts’ income at R3840 per month.
4.5. Grants and other income not related to employment
To indicate this in a more scientific way, the income and the LSM groups in each area were combined
to indicate people’s relative wealth/affluence in the different areas. Also important with regard to
income are government grants and income that is not employment related. In many households, grants
and other income not related to employment (e.g. rent money and money from family members) are
literally some households’ sole source of income. Thus, grants play a very important role in the South
African economy. Figure 4.3 provides more detail regarding the number of grants and other sources of
income per household in the different areas.
27
50.5
45.3
75.9
63.2
62.2
50.0
50.0
47.4
39.0
33.3
31.6
31.3
20.0
9.1
19.9
21.2
6.9
22.8
13.3
26.5
15.0
15.8
26.8
20.0
15.8
25.0
26.7
54.5
18.0
20.0
10.3
10.5
11.1
14.7
13.3
31.6
22.0
26.7
21.1
43.8
36.7
27.3
7.3
7.1
6.9
1.8
4.4
5.9
13.3
5.3
4.9
20.0
15.8
10.0
4.4
6.5
1.8
8.9
2.9
8.3
7.3
15.8
6.7
9.1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Kokstad
Campbell
Vredendal
Kimberley
Douglas
Griquastad
Bloemfontein
Kopanong
Griquarust
Philippolis
Grants per area
No grants One grant Two grants Three grants More than three grants
Figure 4.3: Number of grants per area
The number of government grants received differs greatly between the areas. The percentage of
households receiving government grants ranged from as low as the 24.1% of respondents receiving
grants in Cape Town, to as high as the 91.9% of households receiving one or more grants in
Philippolis. In GNC areas, just more than 50% of the respondents did not receive any grants from
government or any other institution. The percentage in the non-GNC area was slightly lower at
45.3%, meaning that they received more grants. Nearly 20% of the respondents in the GNC areas
received only one grant, while the percentage in respect of grants in the non-GNC areas was nearly
2% higher. The same trend was evident in respect of respondents receiving more than one grant in the
different areas. Table 4.5 gives a breakdown both of the types of grant and income that was not
employment related received in the areas.
Table 4.5: Types of grant and income not employment related
Area
Child
support
grant
State pension Disability
grant
Other
government
grants
Other income
(not
government
related)
Total
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Vredendal 28 38.4 19 26.0 12 16.4 9 12.3 5 6.8 73 100
Griquarust 19 38.8 7 14.3 15 30.6 7 14.3 1 2.0 49 100
Douglas 11 22.0 27 54.0 1 2.0 7 14.0 4 8.0 50 100
Kokstad 20 50.0 5 12.5 9 22.5 3 7.5 3 7.5 40 100
Bloemfontein 15 45.5 6 18.2 1 3.0 9 27.3 2 6.1 33 100
Campbell 9 30.0 18 60.0 2 6.7 0 0.0 1 3.3 30 100
Kranshoek 7 21.2 11 33.3 7 21.2 2 6.1 6 18.2 33 100
Philippolis 5 29.4 4 23.5 7 41.2 1 5.9 0 0.0 17 100
Kopanong 8 44.4 4 22.2 5 27.8 0 0.0 1 5.6 18 100
Griquastad
Kimberley 0 0.0 8 44.4 8 44.4 0 0.0 2 11.1 18 100
Cape Town 0 0.0 2 14.3 1 7.1 8 57.1 3 21.4 14 100
Total 124 31.4 113 28.6 73 18.5 54 13.7 31 7.8 395 100
GNC 59 28.9 51 25.0 50 24.5 27 13.2 17 8.3 204 100
Non-GNC 65 34.0 62 32.5 23 12.0 27 14.1 14 7.3 191 100
28
A number of comments can be made in respect of Table 4.5:
It was difficult to determine whether there were specific trends with regard to grants received
between the GNC and the non-GNC areas. On average, non-GNC areas received more child
support, old-age pensions and other government grants – such as foster care and war veterans’
grants – than did the GNC areas. GNC areas, in turn, received more disability grants and
support that was not government related than did the non-GNC areas.
The prominence of old-age pensions and child-support grants to households should be noted.
o No households in Kimberley and Cape Town indicated that they were receiving
child-support grants, while 50% of grants were related to child support in Kokstad.
o All of the areas indicated receiving an income from government pensions.
Government pension grants ranged from 10% in Griquastad to 60% in Campbell.
Disability grants were the third most prevalent type of grant received from government and
ranged between 2.0% in Douglas, to 44.2% of the grants received in Kimberley.
Overall income support not government related (e.g. from family, income from rent and
private pensions) was low compared with government-assisted grants.
Grants seemed to have been playing a substantial role in lifting people out of destitute
poverty. Grants were not only sustaining a substantial proportion of households in these
towns but such grants also formed the economic backbone of these towns.
Grants also probably played a crucial role in reducing urbanisation and migration away from
these towns. Grants, despite their positive contribution in respect of reducing poverty,
unfortunately also hold the negative implication of increased state dependency.
It is further important to look at the other factors that contributed to the wealth of households in the
different Griqua areas. Why is it necessary to classify people according to specific characteristics?
The answer, from an economic point of view, is the following:
Some people tend to behave in a different fashion than others.
Some people tend to behave in similar fashion.
4.6. Life Standard Measurements
Income is one of the aspects that are an indication of the wellness of a nation. In South African, the
Advertising Research Foundation (SAARF) has developed a non-racial measurement to describe the
South African market in demographic terms. They are using the “All Media Product Survey (AMPS)
data on an annual basis to identify the dominant characteristics in a database, based on empirical
demographic data. Instead of approaching social class from the point of view of obvious demographic
differences, the LSM quantifies the ownership of certain durable goods, access to services, and the
like, to yield a composite measure of social class. The attributes that were used to define the LSM
measure were: Fridge / freezer in home; flush toilet; non-supermarket shopper; use of financial
services; no water or electricity; no car in household; television set; microwave oven; rural dweller;
Hi-fi / music system; no domestic servant; washing machine; telephone; dishwasher; household
supermarket shopper; hot running water; no credit facilities; hut; vacuum cleaner; videocassette
recorder; cell phone; personal computer; electric stove; tumble drier; radio sets in the household; built
– in kitchen sink; home security; MNet or Dstv; sewing machine; and motor vehicle.
The presence or absence of these attributes for each respondent is coded to form the different LSM
groups. There are ten LSM groups in all, ranging from group ten, with the highest living standards, to
group one, with the lowest. The following are some more detail of the ten LSM groups:
LSM 1 (4.8%), Demographics – Female, 16 - 24, 50+, Primary Completed, Rural dweller
living in a Traditional Hut. The average household income is R1 058 per month.
LSM 2 (11%), Demographics – Female, 16 – 24, Primary Completed, Rural dweller in
House/Matchbox house. The average household income is R1 261 per month.
LSM 3 (11.9%), Demographics - Male / Female, 16 – 34, Up to some high school, Rural
dweller, House/Matchbox house. The average household income is R1 613 per month.
LSM 4 (14.4%), Demographics, Male / Female, 16 – 34, Schooling up to some high
school. The average household income is R2 022 per month.
29
LSM 5 (13.9%), Demographics, Male, 16-34, Up to Matric, Urban. Average household
income is R2 903 per month.
LSM 6 (16%), Demographics, Male, 25-34, Matric and higher, Urban. Average
household income is R4 723 per month.
LSM 7 (8.5%), Demographics, Male, 35-49, Matric and higher, Urban. Average
household income is R7 579 per month.
LSM 8 (6.2%), Demographics, Male, 35+, Matric and higher, Urban. Average household
income is R10 015 per month.
LSM 9 (7.2%), Demographics, 35+, Matric and higher, Urban. Average household
income is R13 500 per month.
LSM 10 (6.2%), Demographics, 35+, Matric and higher, Urban. Average household
income is R20 278 per month.
Because the LSM groups determine the living standard, it is also important to take notice of some of
the minimum assets that households have in the different areas. Figure 4.4 give some more detail of
four of the basic aspects that determine living standards in households. Running warm water is one of
the basic aspects for a household. According to the respondents, there are a few households that still
do not have it as part of the household.
In all the areas there are still households without running warm water. The percentage deviates from
around 3% to just over 15%.
84.1
32.3
91.7
83.1
73.3
94.7
28.6
90.0
46.5
26.3
41.5
38.5
5.9 10
.0
35.6
28.3
66.7
50.0
38.5
29.8
64.3
56.8
21.1
12.2
7.1 8.
8 10.0
73.7
47.6
75.0
85.0
86.7
58.9
85.7
76.7
34.1
57.9
41.5
57.1
47.1
55.6
76.0
65.0
79.2
66.7
83.3
89.3
85.7
72.4
62.8
83.3
58.5
38.5
67.6
44.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
GN
C
No
n-G
NC
Cap
e T
ow
n
Vre
de
nd
al
Kim
be
rle
y
Kra
nsh
oe
k
Gri
qu
asta
d
Gri
qu
aru
st
Ko
ksta
d
Blo
em
fon
tein
Do
ugl
as
Ko
pan
on
g
Cam
pb
ell
Ph
ilip
po
lis
% of households owning or having access to basic goods
Built in kitchen sink Running warm water Radio Cell phone (pre-paid)
Figure 4.4: Some basic requirements for households as part of the LSM qualifications,
2010
The four areas (Cape Town, Vredendal and Kimberley) with an above average percentage for the
having access to basic goods are all belonging to the GNC group. Figure 4.5 gives some detail of the
more expensive products that form part of the LSM groups.
30
5.2
4.8
8.3
5.3
5.3 6
.8 8.3 9
.8
13
.5
6.7
29
.2
10
.5
15
.8
33
.3
9.1 10
.0
15
.2
2.6 4
.2 7.1
4.7
9.8 1
2.5
36
.8
7.1 9
.1
3.3
2.9 4
.9
14
.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40G
NC
No
n-G
NC
Ko
pan
on
g
Vre
de
nd
al
Cam
pb
ell
Do
ugl
as
Gri
qu
asta
d
Ph
ilip
po
lis
Gri
qu
aru
st
Ko
ksta
d
Blo
em
fon
tein
Cap
e T
ow
n
Kim
be
rle
y
Kra
nsh
oe
k
% of households earning higher end goods
Internet access Camera (not in cell phone) Dishwasher Tumble dryer
Figure 4.5: Some higher end products of households as part of the LSM
qualifications, 2010
To gain more specific insight in the different LSM groups of the areas as well as their income, the
next part gives more specific detail thereof. A very interesting finding is that in general, the LSM
classifications according to the respondents are higher than their income levels, as indicated. This
means that their living conditions are higher than the indicated household income. There can be many
reasons for this fact, but some of the more obvious explanations for this can be the following:
Households borrowed more to buy household products than they earn
Household products are handed down to respondents by their families
Households are afraid to fill in their correct income on forms
Figure 4.6 is the combined sketch for Griquarust. The majority (just over 50%) of the respondents is
in LSM group 3. In this LSM group, their indicated income is slightly lower then the expected income
for this group. Nearly a quarter of the respondents are in LSM group 5. The rest is in LSM groups 1, 2
and 4. According to Figure 4.6, Griquarust is a poor community with no respondents in higher LSM
groups. This information corresponds with the other data like for example the employment, because
nearly 40% of the people are unemployed in the area.
Figure 4.6: Combined LSM and Income groups, Griquarust, 2010
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Griekwarust LSM / Income
LSM
Income
31
Bloemfontein is, according to Figure 4.7, in a better position. The LSM groups range from 4 to 8,
although there are only 5% of the households in group 8. An interesting fact is that the indicated
household income is a lot lower than the income levels in the different groups. More than two thirds
of the respondents are in group 5 and 6, which indicated that their living standards are on average.
Figure 4.7: Combined LSM and Income groups, Bloemfontein, 2010
Kopanong also have nearly 70% of the households in LSM groups 5 and 6. Almost 60% indicated that
their income is equal to LSM group 1, which is way below the norm for the LSM groups according to
their assets.
Figure 4.8: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kopanong, 2010
Kokstad, according to Figure 4.9, is the only area with households in LSM group 10. Although it is
only 2%, it shows that there are households in the top LSM group. The LSM groups of Kokstad range
from group 3 to ten, with around 25% in LSM group 6, which is the highest percentage.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Bloemfontein LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Kopanong LSM / Income
LSM
Income
32
Figure 4.9: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kokstad, 2010
When looking at Cambell (Figure 4.10), there is no correlation between income and the LSM groups.
The situation is more or less the same than in Kopanong, with a high percentage (just over 60%) in
LSM group 1, and just over 40% in LSM group 6 according to assets.
Figure 4.10: Combined LSM and Income groups, Campbell, 2010
Douglas has also a spread of households between LSM groups 2 up till group 9, with the highest
percentage (45%) in LSM group 6. Again the income indicated by the households is not
corresponding with the income according to the LSM groups.
Figure 4.11: Combined LSM and Income groups, Douglas, 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Kokstad LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Campbell LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Douglas LSM / Income
LSM
Income
33
According to their assets, the households of Griquastad are only in three LSM groups, namely group
6, 7 and 8. Their indicated income range from LSM group 1 to group 6. Again, there is not a
correlation between their income and their assets as part of what makes up their LSM classification.
Figure 4.12: Combined LSM and Income groups, Griquastad, 2010
Kimberley, according to Figure 4.13, has households ranging from LSM group 4 to group 8, with the
highest percentage of households in group 6 (63%). Income ranges from group 1 to group 6.
Figure 4.13: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kimberley, 2010
Around 60% of the households in Cape Town are in LSM group 6. Nearly a third of the households
are in groups 7, 8 and 9. The indicated income spread is also on par with the LSM income per group,
but the spread is not as skew as in some other cases.
Figure 4.14: Combined LSM and Income groups, Cape Town, 2010
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Griquastad LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Kimberley LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Cape Town LSM / Income
LSM
Income
34
The LSM groups in Kranshoek and Vredendal differs not too far from each other. Almost 45% of the
households in Kranshoek are in LSM 5 group while the same percentage of households in Vredendal
is in LSM 6 group. The indicated income for both areas deviates not too much from the LSM income
groups.
Figure 4.15: Combined LSM and Income groups, Kranshoek, 2010
Figure 4.16: Combined LSM and Income groups, Vredendal, 2010
It is important to take notice that no one of the areas is exactly the same. The following are a summary
of the most important facts according to Figures 4.6 to 4.16:
In all the areas, except for Griquarust, Bloemfontein and Kranshoek, the highest percentage
of all the households are in LSM group 6.
The indicated income is not on par with the LSM groups in all the different areas. In some
areas, the income is closer to the LSM groups, but in other cases even worse.
Areas that are in the lower LSM group categories are Griquarust, Kopanong and Campbell.
Two of the three areas are non GNC members while 50% of Kopanong is non-GNC area.
Areas in the higher LSM groups are Bloemfontein, Kokstad, Douglas, Kimberley, Cape
Town, Kranshoek and Vredendal.
4.7 Expenditure
Another factor that can explain the difference between the LSM groups and the income is the
important items they spend money on. Table 4.6 gives some detail about the most important items
Griqua people spend their money on.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Kranshoek LSM / Income
LSM
Income
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
%
LSM / Income Groups
Vredendal LSM / Income
LSM
Income
35
Table 4.6: Most important item money is spending on, 2010
GNC area Non-GNC area Total
Housing % 25 3.0 26 4.1 51 3.5
Clothing and shoes % 24 2.9 48 7.6 72 4.9
Education of children % 36 4.4 13 2.1 49 3.4
Rates and taxes % 7 .8 12 1.9 19 1.3
Water electricity % 166 20.1 130 20.7 296 20.3
Paraffin / gas % 20 2.4 8 1.3 28 1.9
Alcohol % 0 0.0 7 1.1 7 0.5
Cigarettes % 5 .6 16 2.5 21 1.4
Health % 13 1.6 28 4.5 41 2.8
Family outside household % 2 0.2 1 0.2 3 0.2
Social activities % 1 0.1 1 0.2 2 0.1
Food % 185 22.4 149 23.7 334 23.0
Transport / petrol % 50 6.1 20 3.2 70 4.8
Telephone % 32 3.9 5 0.8 37 2.5
Funeral policy / other policies % 84 10.2 78 12.4 162 11.1
Church % 105 12.7 58 9.2 163 11.2
Lotto / gambling % 0 0.0 4 0.6 4 0.3
Car payments % 48 5.8 11 1.7 59 4.1
Loans and credit cards % 12 1.5 1 0.2 13 0.9
Other % 11 1.3 13 2.1 24 1.6
Total % 826 100.0 629 100.0 1455 100.0
When looking at the GNC areas and the non-GNC areas, there are not too many differences. The
following are some of the items that the people in the GNC areas are spending more on then the
people in the non-GNC areas:
Education of children (GNC – 4.4% and non-GNC – 2.1%)
Paraffin / Gas (GNC - 2.4% and non-GNC - 1.3%)
Transport / petrol (GNC – 6.1% and non-GNC – 3.2%)
Telephone (GNC – 3.9% and non-GNC - 0.8%)
Church (GNC - 12.7% and non-GNC – 9.2%)
Car payments (GNC – 5.8% and non-GNC – 1.7%)
Loans and credit cards (GNC – 1.5% and non-GNC - 0.2%)
Items that the people in the non-GNC areas spend more on then the people in the GNC areas are the
following:
Housing (Non-GNC – 4.1% and GNC – 3.0%)
Clothing and shoes (Non-GNC – 7.6% and GNC – 2.9%)
Rates and taxes (Non-GNC – 1.9% and GNC – 0.8%)
Alcohol (Non-GNC – 1.1% and GNC – 0%)
Cigarettes (Non-GNC – 2.5% and GNC – 0.6%)
Health (Non-GNC – 4.5% and GNC – 1.6%)
Food (Non-GNC – 23.7% and GNC – 22.4%)
Funeral policies (Non-GNC –12.4% and GNC – 10.2%)
Lotto / gambling (Non-GNC – 0.6% and GNC – 0%)
The three items the GNC people spend the most on is water and electricity (20.1%), food (22.4%) and
church (12.7%). In the non-GNC areas, the three important items they spend their money on is
electricity (20.7%), food (23.7%) and funeral policy (12.4%).
36
Section 5: Housing and physical infrastructure
This section considers housing and physical infrastructure such as sanitation, water and electricity
provision. This is followed by a discussion on the respondents’ satisfaction with these services and
also their satisfaction with community services delivered by government.
5.1 Housing
This section provides an overview of the housing situation in the respective towns falling under the
GNC and also of those towns that are not members of the GNC. Table 5.1 indicates the differences
between the GNC and the non-GNC areas in respect of housing infrastructure.
Table 5.1: Housing infrastructure
Area
House on
separate stand
Flat /formal
unit in
backyard
Room (share
house with
other
household)
Informal unit
in backyard
Informal
settlement Total
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Griquarust 30 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 100
Philippolis 10 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 100
Griquastad 13 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 100
Kimberley 18 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 100
Campbell 33 97.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.9 34 100
Vredendal 55 93.2 4 6.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 59 100
Kranshoek 49 89.1 0 0.0 2 3.6 2 3.6 2 3.6 55 100
Cape Town 23 85.2 3 11.1 1 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 27 100
Douglas 30 75.0 1 2.5 3 7.5 2 5.0 4 10.0 40 100
Kokstad 32 74.4 3 7.0 8 18.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 43 100
Bloemfontein 14 73.7 0 0.0 2 10.5 2 10.5 1 5.3 19 100
Kopanong 9 56.3 0 0.0 1 6.3 1 6.3 5 31.3 16 100
Total 316 86.8 11 3.0 17 4.7 7 1.9 13 3.6 364 100
GNC 185 93.0 7 3.5 3 1.5 2 1.0 2 1.0 199 100
Non-GNC 131 79.4 4 2.4 14 8.5 5 3.0 11 6.7 165 100
*Data sorted according to area and households mostly living in house on separate stand to least
The table above suggests that, in general, the respondents in the GNC areas were better off than those
not belonging to the GNC. More than 90% of GNC respondents (93.0%) indicated that their
households were living in houses on separate stands, compared with the less than 80% of their non-
GNC counterparts then living under similar circumstances. Only 2.0% of GNC respondents were
living in informal units or in informal settlements, while 9.7% of non-GNC respondents were living
either in informal units in backyards or in informal settlements. The majority of respondents of the
non-GNC who indicated that they were living in informal structures were from Kopanong (Philippolis
and Bethany), Bloemfontein and Douglas in the Northern Cape.
5.1.1 Government-assisted housing
Figure 5.1 reflects the percentage of respondents receiving government-subsidised housing
37
19.7
40.3
84.6
65.5
56.4
37.5
26.5
20.0
16.7
11.1
10.5
7.5
5.9
3.8
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Campbell
Douglas
Kopanong
Kokstad
Philippolis
Kimberley
Griquastad
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Bloemfontein
Vredendal
% of households receiving government low-income houses
Figure 5.1: Percentage of households receiving government low-income houses
Figure 5.1 above indicates that a large number of the respondents had received government-subsidised
houses. Thus although, a general perception existed that government assistance was limited when it
came to Griqua matters, the above figures prove the contrary. Although, the majority of the
Griquarust (84.6%) respondents from the GNC area were beneficiaries of subsidised houses, many
more respondents from non-GNC (40.3%) areas received government-assisted housing than did their
GNC (19.7%) counterparts.
5.2 Access to sanitation, water and electricity
5.2.1 Access to sanitation
Access to sanitation is dependent on a number of aspects such as the availability of bulk infrastructure
and adequate provision of water. Table 5.2 reflects the different sanitation systems used in the areas
38
Table 5.2: Sanitation services
Area Waterborne
inside house
Waterborne
outside house Septic tank
VIP system /
bucket Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Vredendal 58 96.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.3 60 100
Kranshoek 53 94.6 3 5.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 56 100
Cape Town 24 82.8 2 6.9 1 3.4 2 6.9 29 100
Douglas 32 78.0 5 12.2 0 0.0 4 9.8 41 100
Kokstad 33 76.7 9 20.9 0 0.0 1 2.3 43 100
Griquastad 8 66.7 4 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 100
Kimberley 11 57.9 7 36.8 0 0.0 1 5.3 19 100
Griquarust 13 43.3 1 3.3 13 43.3 3 10.0 30 100
Kopanong 6 37.5 2 12.5 0 0.0 8 50.0 16 100
Philippolis 3 30.0 7 70.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 100
Bloemfontein 5 26.3 12 63.2 0 0.0 2 10.5 19 100
Campbell 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 33 97.1 34 100
Total 247 73.1 52 15.4 14 4.1 25 7.4 338 100
GNC 162 79.4 20 9.8 14 6.9 8 3.9 204 100
Non-GNC 85 51.5 32 19.4 0 0 48 29.1 165 100
The following observation can be made in respect of Table 5.2 above:
In general, the majority of towns had access to waterborne sanitation, either in or outside the
house. Overall, it appears as if GNC areas were better off with regard to sanitation access.
Almost 90% of GNC respondents had access to flush toilets either inside or outside the house
as compared with 70.9% of non-GNC respondents who had access.
Campbell and Kopanong (97.1% and 50.0% households in the respective towns) made use of
alternative sanitation systems such as ventilated pit latrines and bucket systems.
The GNC areas of Vredendal (96.7%), Kranshoek (94.6%) and Cape Town (82.8%) were the
three areas with the highest percentages of households having access to waterborne toilets in
the house.
Outside toilets were most often used in Philippolis (70%) and Bloemfontein (63.2%).
Figure 5.2 indicates the levels of satisfaction regarding sanitation facilities.
39
19.4
24.7
8.3
10.3
40.0
14.8
51.2
61.1
33.3
20.0
20.0
62.8
53.7
91.7
84.5
52.0
75.9
39.0
27.8
51.1
80.0
53.3
50.0
50.0
26.9
14.1
13.6
3.4
8.0
5.6
7.3
11.1
8.9
20.0
26.7
20.0
23.5
61.5
3.7
8.0
1.7
3.7
2.4
6.7
10.0
26.5
11.5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquastad
Vredendal
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Douglas
Kimberley
Kokstad
Kopanong
Bloemfontein
Philippolis
Campbell
Griquarust
Satisfaction with sanitation access
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Figure 5.2: Satisfaction with sanitation access
A number of trends should be mentioned in respect of access to sanitation (see Figure 5.2).
There was no significant difference between GNC and non-GNC responses. Kimberley
(61.1%) and Douglas (51.2%) respondents indicated the highest level of satisfaction if only
the ‘very satisfied’ category of satisfaction is considered. If the ‘Very satisfied‟ and ‘satisfied‟
columns are combined, respondents in Griquastad (100%), Vredendal (94.8%), and Cape
Town (92.0%) recorded the highest level of general satisfaction regarding their access to
sanitation.
With a few exceptions (Philippolis, Bloemfontein, Griquarust and Campbell), the majority of
areas recorded a relatively high satisfaction rate (80% or higher) in respect of their sanitation
access.
Respondents who mainly had to make use of outside toilets in Philippolis (70%) and
Bloemfontein (63.2%) recorded some dissatisfaction with their sanitation system. In
Philippolis, almost one-third (30%) and in Bloemfontein 26.7% of the respondents were
‘dissatisfied‟ or ‘very dissatisfied’ regarding their sanitation access.
Of more concern, however, were the low levels of satisfaction in the Griquarust and Campbell
areas.
o Almost three-quarters of the Griquarust respondents were either ‘dissatisfied‟
(61.5%) or „very dissatisfied‟ with their access to sanitation. Griquarust respondents
indicated a high frequency of septic tanks (43.3%) in the area. The low levels of
satisfaction were probably attributable to the use of septic tank systems in the area.
As indicated in Table 5.2, 43.3% of the respondents made use of septic tanks and
10% still used the ventilated pit system.
o In Campbell, none of the respondents were ‘very satisfied‟ with their sanitation
system. Half of the respondents were either ‘dissatisfied‟ (23.5%) or ‘very
dissatisfied’ (26.5%) regarding their sanitation access. A contributing factor to the
low levels of satisfaction was the fact that 97.1% of households interviewed in
Campbell still made use of the ventilated pit sanitation system.
5.2.2 Access to water
Table 5.3 below indicates the main source of water for households in the selected Griqua areas.
40
Table 5.3: Access to water facilities Area Water inside house Water in yard Public tap Other Total
n % n % n % n % n %
Vredendal 59 98.3 0 0.0 1 1.7 0 0.0 60 100.0
Cape Town 28 96.6 0 0.0 1 3.4 0 0.0 29 100.0
Kranshoek 52 94.5 2 3.6 1 1.8 0 0.0 55 100.0
Griquarust 26 86.7 3 10.0 1 3.3 0 0.0 30 100.0
Griquastad 10 83.3 2 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 100.0
Douglas 30 75.0 6 15.0 4 10.0 0 0.0 40 100.0
Kokstad 30 69.8 13 30.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 43 100.0
Kimberley 9 47.4 8 42.1 2 10.5 0 0.0 19 100.0
Kopanong 6 37.5 6 37.5 0 0.0 4 25.0 16 100.0
Bloemfontein 7 36.8 11 57.9 0 0.0 1 5.3 19 100.0
Philippolis 3 30.0 7 70.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 100.0
Campbell 1 3.1 30 93.8 1 3.1 0 0.0 32 100.0
Total 261 71.5 88 24.1 11 3.0 5 1.4 365 100.0
GNC 177 87.2 20 9.9 6 3.0 0 0.0 203 100.0
Non-GNC 84 51.9 68 42.0 5 3.1 5 3.1 162 100.0
Most of the households in these areas either had piped water inside the house or on-site taps as their
main source of water. In Campbell, most of the respondents (93.8%) did not have taps in the house
and used outside taps. A few respondents also used public taps and other sources, such as boreholes,
to access water. The highest percentages of households utilising public taps were in Kimberley
(10.5%) and Douglas (10.0%). One-quarter (25%) of the respondents in Bethany (Kaponong)
indicated that they did not have water either in the house or outside, nor did they have access to public
taps. In general, respondents from the GNC areas had more ready access to water than did their non-
GNC counterparts. Most of the households (87.2%) in GNC areas had piped water in their houses,
compared with only 51.9% of households in non-GNC areas. It therefore stands to reason that the low
levels of access to water services had an impact on the respondents’ satisfaction with this service (see
Figure 5.3).
18.4
23.2
40.0
33.3
48.1
8.5
52.6
8.8
20.6
25.0
43.9
11.1
67.7
45.1
60.0
66.7
48.1
86.4
42.1
86.0
73.5
56.3
34.1
50.0
22.2
31.0
9.5
24.4
3.7
3.4
1.8
5.9
18.8
17.1
31.3
51.1
51.7
4.5
7.3
1.7
5.3
3.5
4.9
18.8
15.6
17.2
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Philippolis
Griquastad
Cape Town
Vredendal
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Campbell
Bloemfontein
Douglas
Kopanong
Kokstad
Griquarust
Satisfaction with access to water
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Figure 5.3: Satisfaction with access to water
41
A number of comments in respect of Figure 5.3 can be made:
With a few exceptions (Griquarust, Kokstad, Kaponong), the level of satisfaction in the
Griqua towns was high regarding the supply of water to households. Philippolis and
Griquastad had the highest number of households who were either ‘very satisfied‟ or
‘satisfied‟ with their water-supply service level (100%).
Griquarust, Kokstad and Kopanong recorded the lowest levels of satisfaction as regards their
water access.
o Almost 70% of the Griquarust respondents were either ‘dissatisfied‟ (51.7%) or „very
dissatisfied‟ (17.2%) with their access to water. In Griquarust, none of the
respondents were „very satisfied‟ with their access to water. The reasons for low
levels of satisfaction with access to water in Griquarust are unclear as most of these
households had access to water either in their houses (86.7%) or outside in their yards
(10%).
o Kokstad’s low levels of satisfaction with water access (66.7%) are attributable to the
fact that 30.2% of the respondents in Kokstad indicated their main source of water to
be outside their houses.
o In Kopanong, the low levels of satisfaction (50.0%) with access to water can be
explained in terms of the large number of respondents who either made use of outside
taps (37.5%) or used other sources of water such as boreholes and streams (25%.0)
Surprisingly, in Campbell, where only 3.1% of the households reported having water inside
their houses, satisfaction with access to water was relatively high. None of the respondents
were ‘very dissatisfied’ regarding their access to water and, remarkably, 94.1% of households
were either ‘very satisfied’ (20.6%) or ‘satisfied’ (73.5%) in respect of access to water.
Similar to the satisfaction with sanitation, non-GNC respondents generally were less satisfied
with regard to their access to water than were their GNC counterparts.
The respondents’ satisfaction with access to water and with water quality was closely related (see
Figure 5.4).
85.4
56.8
100
100
100
100
93.2
85.2
68.8
62.5
62.5
61.8
29.5
25.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
GNC
Non-GNC
Philippolis
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Griquastad
Vredendal
Cape Town
Kopanong
Bloemfontein
Douglas
Campbell
Kokstad
Griquarust
Respondents very satisfied / satisfied with water quality
Figure 5.4: Respondents satisfied with their water quality
All of the households in Philippolis, Kimberley, Kranshoek and Griquastad indicated that they were
either ‘very satisfied‟ (36.5%) or ‘satisfied‟ with the quality of the water in their respective towns (see
42
Figure 5.4). Vredendal and Cape Town respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the
quality of their water, with 93.2% and 85.2% of the respondents indicating that they were either ‘very
satisfied’ or ‘satisfied‟ with the water quality in their respective towns. As with the levels of
satisfaction regarding water supply, Griquarust and Kokstad households were less satisfied with the
quality of the water in their towns. Only a quarter (25.0%) of the Griquarust respondents and 29% of
the Kokstad respondents were either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the quality of the water.
Respondents in GNC areas (85.4%) were generally much more satisfied with their water quality than
were those in non-GNC areas (56.8%).
5.2.3 Access to electricity
This section provides a brief overview of electricity supply, followed by an analysis of levels of
respondents’ satisfaction with electricity provision.
Table 5.4: Energy sources to homes Pre-paid Conventional
metres
No electricity Total
n % n % n % n %
Griquarust 30 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 100.0
Kopanong (GNC) 10 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 100.0
Campbell 34 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 34 100.0
Kranshoek 55 98.2 1 1.8 0 0.0 56 100.0
Kimberley 17 89.5 2 10.5 0 0.0 19 100.0
Bloemfontein 16 84.2 3 15.8 0 0.0 19 100.0
Kokstad 35 83.3 7 16.7 0 0.0 42 100.0
Cape Town 22 75.9 7 24.1 0 0.0 29 100.0
Kopanong 12 75.0 2 12.5 2 12.5 16 100.0
Griquastad 8 66.7 4 33.3 0 0.0 12 100.0
Vredendal 40 66.7 20 33.3 0 0.0 60 100.0
Douglas 24 58.5 17 41.5 0 0.0 41 100.0
Total 303 82.3 63 17.1 2 0.5 368 100.0
GNC 174 85.3 30 14.7 0 0.0 204 100.0
Non-GNC 129 78.7 33 20.1 2 1.2 164 100.0
An overview of Table 5.4 indicates that relatively few households in fact had no access to any form of
electricity in their households. Only two households in Kopanong, a non-GNC area, indicated that
they had no access to electricity. All of the other respondents in the Griqua towns either had access to
pre-paid electricity or electricity through conventional meters read by the municipality once a month.
Figure 5.5 reflects respondents’ satisfaction with their access to electricity.
43
15.3
20.4
40.0
15.2
5.3
46.3
40.7
25.0
6.8
25.0
38.9
4.4
60.5
43.2
50.0
69.7
75.4
31.7
37.0
50.0
73.3
66.1
68.4
41.7
27.8
22.2
20.5
27.8
15.2
15.8
14.6
14.8
25.0
25.4
31.6
33.3
27.8
57.8
3.7
8.6
10.0
3.5
7.3
7.4
26.7
1.7
5.6
15.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Philippolis
Campbell
Kranshoek
Douglas
Cape Town
Bloemfontein
Kopanong
Vredendal
Griquarust
Griquastad
Kimberley
Kokstad
Satisfaction with access to electricity
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Figure 5.5: Satisfaction with access to electricity
Philippolis, Campbell and Kranshoek exhibited the highest household levels of satisfaction regarding
electricity supply of the towns, with 90.0%, 84.8% and 80% of the respondents in these respective
towns being either ‘satisfied‟ or ‘very satisfied’ with the electricity services provided. The Kokstad
respondents exhibited by far the lowest general level of satisfaction with electricity provision in that
only 26.7% of households were either ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with this service. Kimberley,
Griquastad, and Griquarust also expressed some dissatisfaction with regard to electricity provision.
The main concerns in respect of electricity were firstly related to the price of electricity and, secondly,
to poor service delivery. There was a significant difference between GNC and non-GNC combined
satisfaction levels with electricity services, with non-GNC areas being less satisfied (63.6%) with the
service than were their GNC counterparts (75.8%).
Respondents were also asked to rate their satisfaction with garbage-removal services. Figure 5.6
reflects the combined satisfaction levels (‘very satisfied’ and ‘satisfied’) of households with garbage-
removal services.
44
70.5
65.9
100
90.0
88.9
78.9
73.2
68.8
66.7
64.7
64.4
61.7
50.0
22.2
0 20 40 60 80 100
GNC
Non-GNC
Cape Town
Philippolis
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Douglas
Bloemfontein
Griquastad
Campbell
Kokstad
Vredendal
Kopanong
Griquarust
Respondents very satisfied / satisfied with garbage removal services
Figure 5.6: Satisfaction levels with garbage-removal services
Satisfaction levels with garbage-removal services ranged from households being ‘very satisfied’
(100%) in Cape Town, Philippolis (90%), and Kimberley (88.9%) to households not at all being
satisfied with garbage removal in Griquarust (22.2%) and Kopanong. There was only a slight
difference between non-GNC satisfaction levels compared with those of the GNC areas. Figure 5.7
summarises the average levels of satisfaction in the respective areas.
2.92
2.80
3.44
3.28
3.22
3.18
3.16
2.96
2.95
2.89
2.72
2.55
2.49
2.17
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
GNC
Non-GNC
Kimberley
Cape Town
Philippolis
Griquastad
Douglas
Kranshoek
Bloemfontein
Vredendal
Campbell
Kopanong
Kokstad
Griquarust
Average satisfaction with services
Low levels of satisfaction Higher levels of satisfaction
Figure 5.7: Average level of satisfaction with services
The following concluding remarks are made in respect of satisfaction with services:
Access to basic infrastructure is relatively high in most areas.
45
The lowest levels of satisfaction with services were recorded in Griquarust, Kokstad and
Kopanong. The Griquarust respondents were less satisfied with services related to sanitation,
water provision, water quality, and garbage removal than were respondents in any of the other
areas. The Kokstad respondents indicated lowest levels of satisfaction with regard to
electricity provision.
The highest levels of satisfaction with services were recorded in Cape Town, Kimberley and
Philippolis.
5.6 Levels of satisfaction with community services
This section reviews how communities felt about an array of services such as policing, health
services, accessing ID documentation, libraries, educational facilities, the ease with which grants
could be accessed and social services.
Table 5.5: Average satisfaction with services Area Average (1= Very dissatisfied and 4= Very satisfied)
Police Hospital Provision of ID
documents
Libraries Education
facilities
Access to
grants
Social
services
Kimberley 3.16 2.74 3.37 3.67 3.47 3.53 3.53
Philippolis 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.00 3.38 3.30 3.29
Griquastad 2.50 2.93 3.29 3.71 3.29 3.36 3.00
Grquarust 3.00 2.97 3.00 3.00 3.08 3.12 3.00
Douglas 2.34 2.85 3.15 3.28 3.30 3.11 3.11
Cape Town 2.79 2.79 3.04 3.42 3.12 3.00 2.96
Bloemfontein 2.59 2.38 3.35 3.35 3.29 2.75 3.00
Vredendal 2.45 2.17 3.14 3.05 3.09 3.00 2.98
Campbell 2.81 2.38 2.88 3.06 2.85 2.79 2.70
Kranshoek 2.25 2.39 2.76 2.98 2.68 2.66 2.59
Kopanong 2.69 2.38 2.81 2.15 2.45 2.57 2.91
Kokstad 1.74 1.59 2.43 3.56 3.14 2.56 2.53
Total 2.50 2.45 2.97 3.19 3.06 2.92 2.90
GNC 2.62 2.54 3.02 3.13 3.02 2.99 2.97
Non-GNC 2.35 2.33 2.90 3.26 3.10 2.83 2.83
*Blocks highlighted in dark grey represent lowest level of satisfaction of the respondents in the respective towns and the
blocks in light grey highest level of satisfaction
Table 5.5 reflects the average satisfaction levels of the respective Griqua areas with regard to the
government services they receive.
In general, the lowest levels of service delivery were related to hospital services. Seven places
gave hospital services the lowest ratings of all the services they received. The specific places
and the low ratings received in respect of hospital services were Kokstad (1.59), Vredendal
(2.17), Bloemfontein (2.38), Campbell (2.38), Kimberley (2.74), Cape Town (2.79) and
Griquarust (2.97).
Police services were the second-lowest rated of all the services. Four towns indicated police
services to be the worst service they received. The towns of Kranshoek (2.25), Douglas
(2.34), Griquastad (2.50) and the city of Cape Town (2.79) had the most complaints regarding
the services delivered by the police.
Although respondents in Kopanong (2.15) and Philippolis (3.0) were least satisfied with their
access to libraries, access to libraries generally received very favourable ratings in most of the
other areas. Respondents in Kimberley, Griquastad, Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Campbell,
46
Kranshoek and Kokstad rated libraries to be the government service with which they were
most satisfied.
Respondents from Philippolis and Douglas were the most satisfied with educational facilities
in their respective towns.
Other services in respect of which respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction included
Kopanong, where the respondents rated social services to be the most acceptable service, and
Bloemfontein, where respondents indicated high levels of satisfaction with regard to the
provision of identity documents.
Although all of the towns were relatively satisfied with their access to grants, none of the
respondent rated access to grants as either the most or the least satisfactory service category.
In general, Kokstad, Kopanong and Kranshoek were the least satisfied with services delivered
by the government. Kimberley, Philippolis and Griquastad were generally the most satisfied
with services rendered by the government.
There was no significant difference between GNC and non-GNC areas in respect of levels of
satisfaction regarding access to government services. GNC areas were, in general, slightly
more satisfied with police and hospital services, provision of identity documents, access to
grants and social services. Non-GNC areas indicated higher levels of satisfaction in respect of
access to libraries and educational facilities.
This section has not only looked at respondents’ access to infrastructure and government services, but
also at their satisfaction with these services.
5.7 Social interaction with clubs and organistions
The respondents were asked to indicate which clubs or organizations they are members of. The
percentage of respondents that belong to one or more organisation or club is reflected in Figure 5.8
81.7
56.5
100.0
100.0
95.1
94.7
88.9
74.4
60.9
57.6
54.5
47.6
42.4
14.6
0 20 40 60 80 100
GNC
Non-GNC
Kimberley
Vredendal
Kranshoek
Kopanong
Griquastad
Campbell
Douglas
Cape Town
Philippolis
Bloemfontein
Griquarust
Kokstad
% of respondents belonging to one or more organisation
Figure 5.8: Percentage of respondents belonging to one or more organization or club
The importance that organisations play in the Griqua households is illustrated in the figure above. A
noteworthy 81.7% of GNC respondents said that they belong to some type of organisation, while only
56.5% of non-GNC respondents indicated that they are members of some organisation or club.
All of the respondents in GNC areas of Kimberley and Vredendal indicated that they partake
in activities related to organisations or clubs. The participation of Kranshoek households in
organisations was also very high, with 95.1% of respondents being members of organisations.
The three GNC areas with the lowest organisation or club membership were Cape Town
(57.6%), Phillipolis (54.5%) and Griquarust (42.4%)
47
Although the participation of non-GNC respondents in organisations was generally lower than
their GNC counterparts, a great number of households in Kaponong (94.7%), Griquastad
(88.9%) and Campbell (74.4%) indicated that they participate in organisational or club
activities. The lowest membership to organisations for non-GNC respondents was observed in
Kokstad (14.6%), Bloemfontein (47.6%) and Douglas (60.9%)
The organisations to which households belong were grouped into generic categories and are reflected
in Table 5.6
Table 5.6: Clubs and organizations to which respondents belong
Church
Griqua related
Women
Cultural
Youth
Sport
Social /
community
work
Other
Total
respondents
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Vredendal 52 80.0 35 53.8 33 50.8 19 29.2 8 12.3 4 6.2 3 4.6 3 4.6 65 100
Kimberley 10 47.6 21 100 5 23.8 0 0.0 3 14.3 1 4.8 1 4.8 3 14.3 21 100
Kranshoek 41 67.2 52 85.2 23 37.7 4 6.6 8 13.1 4 6.6 2 3.3 1 1.6 61 100
Kopanong 5 26.3 8 42.1 4 21.1 3 15.8 2 10.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 10.5 19 100
Griquastad 8 44.4 1 5.6 0 0.0 2 11.1 0 0.0 7 38.9 0 0.0 2 11.1 18 100
Campbell 20 51.3 6 15.4 0 0.0 1 2.6 3 7.7 4 10.3 2 5.1 7 17.9 39 100
Douglas 17 37.0 8 17.4 1 2.2 3 6.5 8 17.4 1 2.2 4 8.7 6 13.0 46 100
Cape Town 4 12.1 10 30.3 6 18.2 9 27.3 5 15.2 1 3.0 1 3.0 2 6.1 33 100
Philippolis 2 18.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 9.1 0 0.0 3 27.3 11 100
Bloemfontein 2 9.5 10 47.6 1 4.8 2 9.5 1 4.8 1 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 21 100
Griquarust 3 9.1 11 33.3 4 12.1 3 9.1 5 15.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.0 33 100
Kokstad 4 8.3 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0 2 4.2 2 4.2 1 2.1 48 100
Total 168 40.5 163 39.3 77 18.6 47 11.3 43 10.4 26 6.3 15 3.6 31 7.5 415 100
GNC 112 50.0 129 57.6 71 31.7 35 15.6 29 12.9 11 4.9 7 3.1 13 5.8 224 100
Non-GNC 56 29.3 34 17.8 6 3.1 12 6.3 14 7.3 15 7.9 8 4.2 18 9.4 191 100
Table 5.6 clearly highlights that of all the respondents most belong to church (40.5%) and Griqua
specific (39.3%) organisations. Women (18.6%), cultural (11.3%), youth (10.4%), sport (6.3%) and
community (3.6%) organisations also play a prominent role in the respondents’ lives. Other
organisations (7.5%) that were grouped together include organisations related to political (2.4%),
elderly (1.7%), agricultural (1.7%), school (1.0%) and business (0.7%) sectors. The following notes
relate to the table above:
In general many more GNC members than non-GNC respondents belong to organisations or
clubs. In addition, church, women, cultural and youth organisation participation was also
closely related to GNC Griqua matters.
The close relationship Griqua people have with church activities is highlighted in the table
above. In particular, GNC respondents mentioned that they belong to the Griqua Independent
Church. Not many non-GNC respondents indicated a specific church.
o Belonging to a church was ranked first in four of the six non-GNC areas. In
Campbell, approximately half (51.3%) of the respondents mentioned church
membership. In Griquastad 44.4%, Douglas 37.0% and in Kokstad a meager 8.3% of
respondents mentioned the church as the foremost organisation they belong to. The
only GNC area where respondents ranked the church as the organisation they mostly
support was Vredendal (80%). However, church membership in Vredendal was
closely related to the Griqua Independent Church and as such can also be classified
as belonging to Griqua related institution
Respondents from four of the GNC areas and two of the non-GNC areas confirmed that they
foremost belong to the Griqua organisation than any other organisation.
o GNC areas: All of the respondents in Kimberley and 85.2% of respondents in
Kranshoek seem to be very involved in the GNC. Although the GNC was mentioned
as the primary organisation of belonging, a third and less than a third of respondents
in Griquarust (33.3%) and Cape Town (30.3%) highlighted their membership to the
48
GNC. In Vredendal church membership outweighed belonging to a Griqua
organisation, but the GNC still plays a very big part in this areas, since more than
half (53.8%) of respondents highlighted the importance that the GNC played in their
life. None of the respondents in Phillipolis mentioned being a member of the GNC.
The lack of acknowledgement of the GNC in Phillipolis highlights the weak relations
the GNC has in this area.
o Non-GNC areas: A Griqua related organisation was the primary choice of
organisation for respondents in the Free State Province. In both Bloemfontein
(47.6%) and Kopanong (42.1%) respondents highlighted their membership to a
Griqua organisation. A possible reason for this is the presence of Captain J.
Kraalshoek, founding the Free State Griqua council, in the province. The mission
station Bethany where he is residing at the moment is of historical importance, since
Bethany was the first successful land claim in the Free State Province. In the other
non-GNC areas the participation in Griqua related organisations varies from as low
as 2.1% in Kokstad to 17.4% in Douglas.
Women, cultural and youth organisations also play a prominent role in the life of Griqua
households. In GNC areas the women, cultural and youth groups are generally closely related
to the GNC organisation.
o Participation in women-only organisations is particularly prominent in GNC areas,
with half of Vredendal respondents, 37.7% of Kranshoek, 23.8% of Kimberley, 18.2
% in Cape Town and 12.1% of Griquarust respondents saying they belong to a
women-only organisation. Kopanong was the only non-GNC area that stood out with
regard to engagement with women organisations.
o The two areas where membership to cultural groups were highlighted was the GNC
town of Vredendal and the City of Cape Town
o Respondents from Kokstad (45.5%) and Campbell (45.5%) favoured church or
charity organisations. Surprisingly, in Griquastad, a third of the respondents (31.8%)
participated in sporting activities like soccer, rugby and netball. In none of the other
areas was this activity so high. Recommendation: More sporting activities should be
promoted in all the areas because there is a large group between the ages of 14 and
35, as well as between 36 and 50.
o Respondents in GNC areas are involved in more Griqua specific activities (73.3%)
where in the non-GNC areas the respondents are more involved in church and charity
organisations, as well as Griqua specific activities (25.3%).
5.8 Social problems in the community
Social problem that respondents in nearly all the areas highlighted as the greatest setback were
Firstly, alcohol and drug abuse.
Secondly, crime related problems such as theft, rape and child molestation
Thirdly, unemployment and poverty were mentioned as social concerns
Fourthly, teenage pregnancies and abuse of grants
Other main social problems highlighted by the respondents were the lack of sports and social
facilities for children and teenagers, problems related to youth behavior, service delivery and
violence.
Some respondents, in particular the non-GNC areas (Kokstad and Griquastad) indicated the
disinterest of the youth in Griqua matters as a social problem
In the next section, our focus shifts to the respondents’ perception of the quality of life they
experienced in their towns and in their personal lives.
49
Section 6: Quality of Life
Respondents were given a list of questions measuring various aspects of quality of life. They were
asked to rate each item on a scale from One (‘very dissatisfied’) to Four (‘very satisfied’). They were
furthermore asked about their relations with other members and groups in the community.
6.1. Individual components of quality of life
This section addresses the ratings awarded by respondents in respect of the various components
constituting quality of life.
Table 6.1: Rating of various components of quality of life
Fa
mil
y l
ife
Fre
e ti
me
spen
t
Tim
e to
do
th
ing
s
Su
rro
un
din
g
nei
gh
bo
urh
oo
d
Sta
nd
ard
of
liv
ing
Hea
lth
Qu
ali
ty o
f li
fe i
n
gen
era
l
Inco
me
/ f
am
ily
inco
me
Am
ou
nt
of
tim
e
av
ail
ab
le
Av
era
ge
sati
sfa
ctio
n
Kimberley 3.62 3.29 3.48 3.43 3.68 3.00 3.22 3.17 2.74 3.62
Douglas 3.61 3.48 3.50 3.20 3.25 3.09 3.26 3.02 2.91 3.61
Philippolis 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.20 2.90 3.30 3.00 3.20 3.11 3.40
Vredendal 3.19 3.26 3.12 3.26 3.26 3.13 2.93 2.88 2.78 3.19
Griquarust 3.03 3.03 3.15 2.97 3.06 3.45 2.92 3.03 2.87 3.03
Griquastad 3.47 3.00 3.18 3.24 3.00 3.00 2.78 2.71 2.24 3.47
Bloemfontein 3.32 3.11 3.11 2.83 3.11 2.89 2.94 2.68 2.37 3.32
Cape Town 2.79 3.03 2.81 3.03 3.16 3.13 2.83 2.65 2.60 2.79
Kranshoek 3.02 3.19 3.00 3.05 2.95 2.91 2.78 2.54 2.38 3.02
Campbell 3.44 3.14 3.11 2.76 3.09 2.62 2.81 2.50 2.21 3.44
Kopanong 2.95 3.00 2.89 2.84 2.74 2.74 2.36 2.41 2.18 2.95
Kokstad 3.28 3.24 3.21 3.13 2.45 2.81 2.06 1.86 1.62 3.28
Total 3.23 3.20 3.15 3.09 3.05 3.00 2.87 2.67 2.47 3.23
GNC 3.11 3.19 3.10 3.14 3.15 3.11 2.91 2.81 2.67 3.11
Non-GNC 3.38 3.22 3.22 3.02 2.92 2.86 2.81 2.51 2.25 3.38
* Blocks highlighted in dark grey represent lowest level of satisfaction of the respondents in the respective towns and the
blocks in light grey highest level of satisfaction
In Table 6.1 the average ratings for different aspects of quality of life are reflected. The different
aspects of quality of life include: family life (the time spent with and the things respondents do with
their family); the way respondents spend free time, after work and on weekends; amount of time
available to do the things respondents want to do; surrounding neighbourhood/area where respondents
live; standard of living (things owned such as furniture, appliances, cooking utensils); respondents’
health in the past year; quality of life in general; income and family income; amount of money
available to spend, and average satisfaction. From Table 6.1 above the following is evident:
The amount of time spent on family activities, at 3.2 out of a possible four, received the
highest score from respondents. Most of the respondents in Douglas, Philippolis, Griquastad,
Bloemfontein, Campbell and Kokstad indicated that they were most satisfied with the time
they spent with their family.
This is closely followed by how respondents spent their free time after work and on weekends
at 3.2 and the amount of free time available to do the things respondents wanted to do, also at
50
3.2. Respondents in Philippolis, Vredendal, Kranshoek and Kopanong were mostly satisfied
with how they spent their free time after work and on weekends. Philippolis also recorded
high satisfaction with regard to the amount of free time available to do the things respondents
wanted to do. Vredendal respondents also indicated that they were highly satisfied with their
surrounding neighbourhood and general standard of living.
Except for Philippolis, the lowest scores were given to the amount of money available to the
individual and thus was followed by income. Philippolis respondents were least satisfied with
their standard of living. In addition, respondents in Griquastad indicated low levels of
satisfaction with their quality of life in general. When asked to rate their quality of life in
general, respondents gave this aspect a rating of 2.87 out of four.
Items in which statistically significant differences emerged between GNC and non-GNC areas
were family life – the time respondents spent and the things respondents did with family;
health in the past year; standard of living (things owned, such as furniture, appliances,
cooking utensils); income and family income and amount of money available to respondents
personally.
From Table 6.1 we see that respondents from non-GNC areas assigned significantly higher
ratings (3.38 compared with 3.11) for quality of family life than did the respondents of GNC
areas. In four other areas (health, standard of living, income and money) respondents from
GNC areas gave higher ratings than did those from non-GNC areas. Regarding four other
indicators, including the general rating, there were no statistically significant differences.
The urban/rural (the latter including small towns) divide influenced only the ratings for the
standard of living. This can probably be ascribed to the difficulties of acquiring durable goods
in the more rural locations.
Gender had a statistically significant effect only on the ratings of health, with women
reporting lower satisfaction than men (2.92 versus 3.11). This can be ascribed to the pressure
of the childbearing role on female health, the specific needs of women in health care or the
fact that women are more comfortable in admitting that they have health difficulties.
The age of the respondent had an influence on several of the factors. Older respondents were
more likely to report being happy with the amount of free time available to them (individuals
51 years and older reporting a rating of 3.30 compared with 2.99 for those between 21 and
35), family life (individuals 65 years and older reporting a rating of 3.38 compared with 3.04
for those between 21 and 35), income (individuals 65 years and older reporting a rating of
2.97 compared with 2.42 for those between 21 and 35) and the amount of money available for
own use (individuals 65 years and older reporting a rating of 2.71 compared with 2.25 for
those between 21 and 35). Conversely, younger respondents were more likely to report
satisfaction with their health (individuals 65 years and older reporting a rating of 2.74
compared with 3.46 for those between 16 and 20). It should be noted that, with the exception
of the question on health, those aged between 16 and 20 were more likely to agree with the 51
years and older cohorts than with those aged between 21 and 35. This is probably due to there
being a higher level of dependence among these than among those aged between 21 and 35.
The four other ratings, including the one for general satisfaction, displayed no statistically
significant differences according to age.
The level of education of respondents had an impact on the ratings. Those with higher levels
of education gave lower ratings on the amount of free time (those with secondary and with
higher education giving a rating of 2.91 compared with 3.32 for those with some primary
education), the spending of free time (those with secondary and with higher education giving
a rating of 2.92 compared with 3.33 for those with some primary education), family life (those
with secondary and with higher education giving a rating of 3.00 compared with 3.49 for
those with some primary education), and income (those with secondary and with higher
education giving a rating of 2.64 compared with 2.89 for those with some primary education).
51
The five other ratings, including the rating for general satisfaction, displayed no statistically
significant differences in respect of level of education.
Larger families also gave higher ratings for the amount of free time, the spending of free time,
family life and the standard of living. This can probably be ascribed to the fact that the
household responsibilities can be distributed among a large number of members, which then
allows more free/family time. The five other ratings, including the rating for general
satisfaction, displayed no statistically significant differences in respect of family size.
6.2 General levels of satisfaction and reasons related to satisfaction levels
After the question on quality of life in general, respondents were asked for a reason for their response.
The responses were divided into positive responses and negative responses and given mirror codes. It
should be noted that respondents could give more than one reason and that respondents could give
both positive and negative reasons. The percentages in the following table therefore reflect the
number of responses and not the number of respondents.
Table 6.2: Average satisfaction with quality of life
Satisfied Dissatisfied Total
n % n % n %
Philippolis 7 77.8 2 22.2 9 100.0
Kimberley 16 76.2 5 23.8 21 100.0
Griquarust 25 71.4 10 28.6 35 100.0
Vredendal 44 69.8 19 30.2 63 100.0
Kranshoek 39 65.0 21 35.0 60 100.0
Bloemfontein 12 63.2 7 36.8 19 100.0
Griquastad 10 62.5 6 37.5 16 100.0
Campbell 13 56.5 10 43.5 23 100.0
Douglas 21 52.5 19 47.5 40 100.0
Cape Town 7 41.2 10 58.8 17 100.0
Kopanong 7 36.8 12 63.2 19 100.0
Kokstad 6 17.1 29 82.9 35 100.0
Total 207 58.0 150 42.0 357 100.0
GNC 138 67.3 67 32.7 205 100.0
Non-GNC 69 45.4 83 54.6 152 100.0
As indicated in the above table, the highest level of general satisfaction with life is experienced by
GNC respondents. With the exception of Cape Town, all other GNC areas reported that they were
generally satisfied with life. The responses from Philippolis (77.8%), Kimberley (76.2%) and
Griquarust (71.4%) reflected the highest level of satisfaction. Although non-GNC areas were less
satisfied with their general quality of life, most of the areas still displayed even higher levels of
satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Kokstad and Kopanong were generally the least satisfied with the
quality of life in general. Only 17.1% and 36.8% of responses in Kokstad and Kopanong indicated
that respondents were more satisfied than dissatisfied with particular aspects of their lives. The
reasons associated with negative and positive responses are summarised in Table 6.3 below.
52
Table 6.3: Reasons for rating of general quality of life
K
imb
erle
y
Ph
ilip
po
lis
Gri
qu
aru
st
Gri
qu
ast
ad
Vre
den
da
l
Kra
nsh
oek
Blo
emfo
nte
in
Ca
mp
bel
l
Do
ug
las
Ca
pe
To
wn
Ko
pa
no
ng
Ko
kst
ad
Mea
n %
GN
C
No
n G
NC
Res
po
nse
s
% n
Money & income 7.4 - - 12.5 5.1 9.5 7.1 7.1 15.9 9.5 17.4 13.3 8.9 6.2 12.8 40
Employment - - - 12.5 1.3 10.7 10.7 7.1 3.2 4.8 4.3 26.7 6.5 4.2 9.6 29
Dissatisfied ( e.g. life not
ideal - have to accept
circumstances)
- - 10.0 - 15.2 1.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 4.8 - 13.3 5.8 6.9 4.3 26
Health or age 3.7 - 5.0 - 1.3 3.6 3.6 7.1 14.3 4.8 17.4 - 5.4 3.1 8.5 24
Economy (inflation, cost
of living) 3.7 22.2 - - 1.3 3.6 - 14.3 4.8 - 4.3 13.3 4.2 2.7 6.4 19
Infrastructure (services,
environment, facilities) - - 5.0 - 2.5 4.8 7.1 - 4.8 9.5 8.7 3.3 4.0 3.8 4.3 18
Family and
friends/Availability of
time
3.7 - 2.5 6.3 2.5 2.4 - - 1.6 14.3 8.7 10.0 3.6 3.5 3.7 16
Political environment
and community/Griqua
relations
- - - - 3.8 3.6 7.1 3.6 1.6 9.5 - - 2.7 3.1 2.1 12
Negative responses -
Total 18.5 22.2 22.5 31.3 32.9 39.3 39.3 42.9 49.2 57.1 60.9 80.0 41.1 33.5 51.6 184
Satisfied ( e.g. life not
ideal but can provide in
basic needs)
25.9 66.7 32.5 43.8 32.9 32.1 35.7 35.7 17.5 19.0 13.0 13.3 28.6 31.9 23.9 128
Religion 22.2 - 12.5 6.3 15.2 10.7 17.9 14.3 6.3 9.5 4.3 - 10.9 13.1 8.0 49
Family and friends
/Availability of time 14.8 - 17.5 12.5 6.3 2.4 3.6 3.6 19.0 - 13.0 3.3 8.5 6.9 10.6 38
Health or age 7.4 - - - 12.7 3.6 - 3.6 3.2 14.3 4.3 - 4.9 6.9 2.1 22
Employment and
economy 11.1 11.1 - 6.3 - 7.1 3.6 - 4.8 - - 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.2 16
Other (political, Griqua
relations and
environment-related
reasons)
- - 15.0 - - 4.8 - - - - 4.3 - 2.5 3.8 0.5 11
Positive responses -
Total 81.5 77.8 77.5 68.8 67.1 60.7 60.7 57.1 50.8 42.9 39.1 20.0 58.9 66.5 48.4 264
Total % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Number of responses 27 9 40 16 79 84 28 28 63 21 23 30 448 260 188 448
*Blocks highlighted in dark grey represent lowest level of satisfaction with certain aspects and the blocks in light grey
highest level of satisfaction
The following should be noted in respect of the positive and the negative reasons for the respondents’
dissatisfaction or satisfaction with their quality of life:
In general, more respondents gave positive reasons relating to their quality of life than
negative reasons. GNC respondents (66.5%) were much more positive towards life than were
their non-GNC counterparts (48.4%). More specifically:
53
o Reasons for quality of life given in nine of the twelve towns were more positive than
negative. However, the positive responses ranged from very high percentages of
satisfaction in Kimberley (81.5%), Philippolis (77.8%) and Griquarust (77.5%) to
average levels of satisfaction in Griquastad (68.8%), Vredendal (67.1%), Kranshoek
(60.7%), Bloemfontein (60.7%) and Campbell (57.1%). The responses in Douglas
were on the borderline between positive and negative, with just over half of
respondents (50.8%) indicating positive responses for their satisfaction with life.
o Cape Town, Kopanong and Kokstad respondents gave the largest number of negative
responses related to their quality of life. Only 20.0% of Kokstad, 39.1% of Kopanong
and 42.9% of Cape Town respondents gave positive reasons relating to their quality
of life.
Positive responses:
The foremost reason why respondents were generally satisfied with their quality of life was
related to a generally positive attitude towards life. Some respondents did not necessarily
mention a specific aspect related to their satisfaction (e.g. ‘life is good to me’ and ‘I am happy
with life’), while others would argue that although their life was not ideal, at least they were
happy or that they were able to satisfy their basic needs.
o Philippolis (66.7%), Griquastad (43.8%), Vredendal (32.9%), Campbell (35.7%),
Bloemfontein (35.7%), Griquarust (32.1), Kranshoek (32.1%), Kimberley (25.9%),
and Cape Town (19.0%) respondents indicated that they were above all other aspects
mostly positive about their life and were generally satisfied with their quality of life.
The role religion played in the Griqua communities was also highlighted in the responses
regarding why respondents were satisfied with life. Religion was mentioned as the second
most important reason why respondents felt they enjoyed a good quality of life. The high
number of responses relating to religion in Kimberley (22.2%), Bloemfontein (17.9%) and
Vredendal (15.2%) are worth mentioning.
The third most frequently cited reason why respondents felt they enjoyed a good quality of
life was related to family and friends and also to the time they had available to spend with
their loved ones. Douglas, with responses of 19.0%, considered family and friends to be the
most important reason for their being satisfied with life.
Other positive responses were linked to good health, employment, and positive political and
community relations related to Griqua matters.
Negative responses:
From Table 6.3 we see that the most common negative factor to influence ratings of general
quality of life was related to either money or income (8.9% of responses), with respondents
stating that they did not earn enough or could not afford everything they wanted with the
money at their disposal. Also receiving frequent mention was the lack of employment (6.5%),
general dissatisfaction with life (5.8%) and health- or age-related problems (5.4%).
o Specifically in Kopanong, lack of income (17.4%) and health-related problems
(17.4%) were mentioned as main reasons why respondents in this area were less
satisfied with their quality of life than in the other towns.
o More than a quarter ( 26.7%) of the respondents in Kokstad indicated that their
quality of life was severely compromised by the lack of employment.
o Respondents who were generally just dissatisfied with life frequently mentioned that
although their lives were not ideal, they had no choice but to accept their
circumstances. Vredendal respondents – of all the places –most often (15.2%)
mentioned general dissatisfaction with life.
54
o Economy-related reasons – such as inflation and the high cost of living – were
specifically cited by respondents in the small towns of Philippolis (22.2%), Campbell
(14.3%) and Kokstad (13.3%).
Other negative responses were related to housing infrastructure and to housing services, the
physical environment and facilities, family and friends, as well as the lack of availability of
free time, and lastly, the political environment within the community. Negative Griqua
relations were also categorised in this political category. Particularly in Cape Town, the
above-mentioned negative responses were frequently given.
6.3 Levels of attachment
Section 6.3 reflects in more detail on levels of attachment shown by households in the various areas
towards components of their lives such as their households, family, friends, the church, people in
their suburb or neighbourhood, fellow workers, their local community (town), organisations to
which they belong, fellow South Africans, fellow Griqua people and Griqua history.
Table 6.4: Level of attachment to various components in each of the areas Average (1=Not attached at all and 3=Very attached )
Ho
use
ho
ld
Fa
mil
y
Ch
urc
h
Gri
qu
a h
isto
ry
Fel
low
Gri
qu
a
peo
ple
Org
an
isa
tio
ns
Fri
end
s
Fel
low
wo
rker
s
Lo
cal
com
mu
nit
y
Fel
low
So
uth
Afr
ica
ns
Peo
ple
in
nei
gh
bo
urh
oo
d
Griquarust 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.93 2.88 2.90 2.60 2.97 2.34
Vredendal 2.95 2.85 2.98 3.00 2.97 2.88 2.69 2.70 2.50 2.51 2.49
Kimberley 2.95 2.90 2.95 2.86 2.90 2.81 2.56 2.50 2.44 2.62 2.52
Douglas 2.91 2.90 2.82 2.85 2.83 2.63 2.77 2.53 2.42 2.52 2.42
Cape Town 2.94 2.94 2.97 2.97 2.97 2.75 2.64 2.38 2.31 2.33 2.12
Kranshoek 2.97 2.88 2.95 2.98 2.83 2.77 2.51 2.32 2.48 2.19 2.28
Kopanong 2.74 2.68 2.95 2.58 2.68 2.62 2.53 2.60 2.37 2.42 2.33
Griquastad 2.94 2.94 2.53 2.35 2.35 2.47 2.76 2.45 2.56 2.47 2.41
Campbell 2.97 3.00 2.79 2.68 2.69 2.52 2.51 2.27 2.14 2.12 2.13
Philippolis 3.00 3.00 2.70 2.00 1.90 2.33 2.40 3.00 2.50 1.90 2.90
Kokstad 2.87 2.94 2.50 2.38 2.39 2.11 2.68 2.38 2.34 2.30 2.43
Bloemfontein 2.95 2.79 2.47 2.74 2.79 2.46 2.05 2.33 2.32 2.26 2.16
Total 2.94 2.90 2.83 2.79 2.77 2.65 2.62 2.51 2.41 2.41 2.36
GNC 2.96 2.91 2.96 2.94 2.88 2.80 2.64 2.57 2.48 2.45 2.38
Non-GNC 2.90 2.90 2.68 2.61 2.63 2.45 2.60 2.43 2.34 2.36 2.33
* Blocks highlighted in dark grey represent lowest level of attachment of the respondents in the respective towns and the
blocks in light grey highest level of attachment
Table 6.4 illustrates the level of attachment shown by respondents to various components of their
lives. Each of the respondents had to indicate whether they were ‘very attached’ (3), ‘slightly
attached’ (2) or ‘not attached at all’ (1) to each of the said components. The averages in each area for
each of these components were calculated and then the components were ranked from highest to
lowest level of attachment. The following comments are made in respect of Table 6.4:
The three components to which Griqua respondents were most attached were firstly, their
household, secondly, their families and thirdly, the church. These high averages of attachment
55
were closely followed by high levels of attachment to the Griqua history and to fellow Griqua
people.
o In seven of the areas (Griquarust, Kimberley, Douglas, Kopanong, Griquastad,
Philippolis and Bloemfontein), respondents assigned the highest rankings to the
household being their highest level of attachment. These averages ranged from a total
score of 3.0 to 2.91.
o The ranking of family had the highest mean in the five towns of Griquarust,
Griquastad, Campbell, Philippolis and Kokstad.
o The church was considered to be of great importance in most areas and the three
GNC towns of Griquarust, Vredendal and Kimberley ranked the church as the
component to which respondents were most attached.
o Furthermore, GNC households in Griquarust, Cape Town and Kranshoek ranked
Griqua history as equally important in terms of attachment. The importance of fellow
Griqua people in respondents’ lives was also highlighted in Griquarust and Cape
Town
The respondents in most of the areas, were least attached to the people living in the
neighbourhood/suburb (Griquarust, Vredendal, Douglas, Cape Town, Kopanong and
Griquastad), while respondents in Kranshoek, Campbell and Philippolis admitted to being
least attached to fellow South Africans, and respondents in Douglas professed to be least
attached to the community in their own town.
56
Section 7: Griqua-specific issues
This section of the report deals with the responses to questions relating to Griqua-specific issues. The
questionnaire was drafted in such a way that two types of responses were elicited, i.e. quantitative
responses and qualitative responses. In each subsection of this section, the report will distinguish both
between statistical responses and how they can be interpreted, and more interpretive responses and
how they are to be understood. Furthermore, the quantitative data can be divided into two large
groups, i.e. according to either geographical area or according to whether respondents were GNC
members or not. These statistics will be reflected in two graphs for every section, with the first always
portraying the responses according to geographical area and the second respondents’ affiliation, i.e.
GNC or non-GNC.
7.1 Discussion of the quantitative data
The following questions were posed to the Griqua respondents:
Are you proud to be a Griqua?
Do you enjoy spending some time with other Griqua people?
Are Griqua cultural festivals important to you?
Is it important to you that the Griqua history be presented in school?
Is it important to you as parent that the Griqua identity is preserved in your children?
Is it important for you that the Griquas stay close to one another in order to preserve their
identity?
Do you feel that the unique Griqua history binds the population?
Do you feel that Griqua songs bind the population?
Do you feel that the culture and heritage of the Griqua have been lost?
Do you feel that the South African government should help the Griqua population?
In all the quantitative questions, respondents were asked to indicate their responses by choosing from
the following categories: always, mostly, sometimes, never. All graphs and discussions reflect these
categories according to the different geographical areas.
7.1.1 Do you take pride in being a Griqua?
The first question pertains to pride in the Griqua identity. At 91%, the positive response rate to this
question was extremely high. Vredendal and Kimberley had 100% responses for ‘always’5. The only
exception to high positive responses was Griquastad, with a response rate for ‘always’ of 33%, for
‘mostly’ of 40%, for ‘sometimes’ at 40%, and even for ‘never‟ at 40%. The total of all the responses
indicated that nearly 90% of respondents viewed themselves to be proud Griqua.
57
97.3
83.3
100
100
98.3
97.8
97.0
93.9
89.5
84.2
81.4
78.9
77.8
33.3
1.8
6.7
2.2
3.0
6.1
2.6
2.3
15.8
11.1
40.0
0.9
8.9
1.7
7.9
15.8
14.0
11.1
26.7
1.1
2.3
5.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Kimberley
Vredendal
Kranshoek
Douglas
Griquarust
Cape Town
Campbell
Kopanong
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Philippolis
Griquastad
Pride in being a Griqua
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.1: Do you take pride in being a Griqua?
Both GNC and non-GNC responses were high, but the GNC responses were significantly higher, this
indicating a higher level of pride amongst GNC members in respect of being Griqua. The data in this
section indicate a considerable amount of pride amongst Griqua people in their identity. It is notable
that the two largest cities, i.e. Bloemfontein and Cape Town, reported the highest responses under
‘mostly’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’, with the exception again of Griquastad – which seems to have
generated the only data out of line with the rest of the country. This observation – concerning
Bloemfontein and Cape Town – may indicate that urbanisation impacts negatively on identity. It may
also be a reflection of the Griqua identity as being mainly rural and situated in pockets around strong
leaders, which is more difficult to attain in urban areas. In this regard, the response pattern from urban
areas also needs to be considered if more distinctly refined conclusions are to be drawn.
As far as Griquastad is concerned, the research has no clear explanation for the data. On a qualitative
basis, the researchers did initially meet with some negative response and subsequently battled to get
the questionnaires back from the fieldworkers. With factions being a reality in the Griqua community,
the negative figures could also relate to internal struggles within the community. However, for well-
considered reasons, further research in this regard is imperative.
7.1.2 Do you enjoy spending time with other Griqua?
Respondents were asked if they enjoy spending time with other Griqua people. The responses of the
respondents are reflected in Figure 7.2
58
93.6
77.8
100
100
96.9
93.8
90.0
87.0
84.2
84.2
82.1
78.3
55.6
25.0
3.2
10.8
3.1
6.3
5.0
8.7
10.5
10.5
12.8
4.3
31.3
1.4
9.2
5.0
2.2
5.1
15.2
43.8
1.8
2.2
2.2
5.3
5.3
2.2
44.4
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kimberley
Vredendal
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Douglas
Bloemfontein
Kopanong
Campbell
Kokstad
Philippolis
Griquastad
Enjoy spending time with other Griqua's
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.2: Do you enjoy spending time with other Griqua?
GNC members once again recorded a higher response in all categories, this indicating higher cohesion
and group sentiment amongst GNC members. Responses in the ‘always’ category were once again
extremely high, with Griquarust and Kimberley recording 100% responses. Griquastad was again the
most negative, recording 25% for ‘always’, 31.3% for ‘mostly’, and 43.8% for ‘sometimes’.
Interestingly enough, there were no responses for in the ‘never’ category at Griquastad. The highest
‘never’ response came from Philipolis in the Free State. This negative response indicate the divisions
that exist within the GNC grouping itself. Overall, more than 80% of respondents indicated that they
enjoyed spending time with other Griqua.
The data for this question indicate high levels of cohesion and group sentiment amongst Griqua
respondents from all over the country, Griquastad being the exception. The small numbers of negative
responses are difficult to interpret in that no distinct pattern seems to have emerged. Urban location,
too, does not seem to have played a role here, because Campbell had the highest number of responses
under ‘mostly’, Kokstad the highest under ‘sometimes’, and Philippolis the highest under ‘never’,
excluding ,that is, Griquastad.
7.1.3 Are national festivals important to you?
The importance of national festivals for the Griqua people are indicated in Figure 7.3
59
98.1
81.5
100
100
100
100
96.7
94.6
85.4
82.6
77.8
76.5
50.0
42.9
5.8
8.7
11.1
5.9
21.4
0.5
11.6
3.3
5.4
12.2
8.7
11.1
11.8
35.7
1.4
1.2
2.4
5.9
50.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Vredendal
Cape Town
Campbell
Kokstad
Douglas
Kopanong
Bloemfontein
Philippolis
Griquastad
Importance of Griqua national festival days
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.3: Are national festivals important to you?
To this question, four areas recorded 100% responses under ‘always’, i.e. Griquarust, Kimberley,
Kranshoek, and Vredendal. Griquastad was once again the most negative, having recorded 42% for
‘always’, 21% for ‘mostly’, and 35% for ‘sometimes’. Negative responses were elicited from
Philippolis (50 % for ‘never), Bloemfontein (12% for ‘sometimes’), Kopanong (11% for ‘sometimes‟)
from Kokstad (12% for ‘sometimes’ and 2.4% for ‘never’), Douglas (8% for ‘sometimes’). When we
total the responses to find a national picture, about 90% of respondents deemed Griqua national
festivals to be important. Once again, GNC members were significantly more positive about national
festivals than were non-GNC members.
Responses to this question confirm the clear trend that is emerging from the data, i.e. an
overwhelmingly positive response to being connected to the Griqua community, and a higher level of
connection among GNC members than non-members. No pattern is discernible for the negative
responses, except that responses from Griquastad were consistently more negative than were those of
the rest of the country.
7.1.4 Do you regard it as important to have the Griqua national history taught in school?
The respondents were asked on the importance of teaching children Griqua history in school. This
question, once again, elicited overwhelmingly positive responses.
60
89.5
87.9
100
94.9
93.9
89.5
89.1
88.9
86.7
85.7
85.0
84.4
81.3
75.0
7.8
9.3
5.1
6.1
5.3
7.8
11.1
13.3
14.3
11.7
11.1
6.3
1.4
2.2
1.6
3.3
4.4
12.5
1.4
0.5
5.3
1.6
25.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Campbell
Cape Town
Bloemfontein
Vredendal
Kopanong
Douglas
Kimberley
Kranshoek
Kokstad
Griquastad
Philippolis
Importance of teaching Griqua history in schools
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.4: Do you regard it as important to have the Griqua national history taught in
school?
Griquarust had a 100% response in the ‘always’ category. Griquastad had the lowest response, but in
this case, the difference between this and other areas was not that significant. In total, about 86% of
respondents considered it important to have the Griqua national history taught in high school.
Regarding this question, there was a very small difference between GNC and non-GNC respondents,
with GNC respondents being slightly/marginally more positive regarding Griqua history being taught
in school. The data in this section could potentially be used by lobby groups from the Griqua
community in discussions with government officials regarding these issues.
7.1.5 Do you as parent regard it as important that your child retain the Griqua identity?
The responses to the question related to the importance of Griqua children retaining their identity are
shown in Figure 7.5:
98.6
88.1
100
100
100
100
100
97.4
94.1
94.1
90.9
86.7
66.7
46.7
8.5
2.6
5.9
9.1
11.1
26.7
0.9
2.8
2.2
22.2
26.7
0.5
0.6
5.9
11.1
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kimberley
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Vredendal
Campbell
Bloemfontein
Kopanong
Douglas
Kokstad
Philippolis
Griquastad
Importance of children retaining Griqua identity
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.5: Do you as parent regard it as important that your child retain the Griqua identity?
In response to this question, Griquarust, Kimberley, Cape Town, Kranshoek and Vredendal recorded
responses of 100% in the ‘always’ category. Griquastad, once again, stands out as having the largest
61
number of negative responses. In this question, which relates to a vision of the future of the Griqua,
one would, in line with the findings under 7.1, have expected to see differences between urban and
rural areas. The data, however, do not support a generalised view on the influence of urbanisation in
the Griqua community. If one has to look at factors that may explain these tendencies, i.e. larger
numbers of negative responses in Kopanong and Kokstad, this phenomenon may be related to
distance from centres of Griqua power. This hypothesis should at least be further investigated in that
there is no clear pattern in the data to explain it. As with all other questions, the GNC responses are
higher than that of non-GNC respondents. In general, the Griqua community seemed to be bent on
leaving their Griqua heritage to their children, and they clearly wanted to see their children continuing
the Griqua identity.
7.1.6 Do you regard it as important that the Griqua should live close together in order to
retain/preserve their identity?
Respondents were asked if they thought that it was important that Griqua people live in close
proximity in order to preserve the Griqua identity (see Figure 7.6)
96.8
86.9
100
100
100
98.3
97.4
97.0
95.4
86.4
81.4
78.9
75.0
71.4
1.4
9.1
1.7
3.0
13.6
11.6
15.8
12.5
14.3
1.4
2.9
2.6
4.6
4.7
14.3
0.5
1.1
2.3
5.3
12.5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kimberley
Kopanong
Kranshoek
Campbell
Cape Town
Vredendal
Douglas
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Philippolis
Griquastad
Important of Griqua people living in close proximity in order to
retain/preserve their identity
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.6: Do you regard it as important that the Griqua should live close together in order to
retain/preserve their identity?
As shown in the figure above, Griquarust, Kimberley and Kopanong recorded 100% responses in the
‘always’ category, while Kranshoek, Campbell, and Douglas were close on their heels with 98%,
97%, and 97% respectively. Griquastad was once again the most negative regarding this question,
with almost 29% indicating that it was only ‘sometimes‟ or ‘never‟ important for Griqua people to live
in close proximity to each other. Philippolis, Bloemfontein, Kokstad, and Douglas, following
Griquastad with some negative responses ranging from 13.6% to 25% with the ‘sometimes‟ and
‘never‟ categories combined. % respectively, were somewhat more circumspect in responding to this
question, and Kokstad, Griquastad, and Vredendal had responses in the ‘sometimes’ category.
Bloemfontein, Kopanong, and Kokstad, however, were the only areas to record significant numbers of
responses in the ‘never’ category. As no clear pattern was evident, the negative responses seemed to
be related to individual views. GNC responses were yet again more positive regarding this question
than were the non-GNC responses. The data seemed to point to a strong general preference among the
Griqua not only to be in touch and to keep their national identity alive by attending national festivals,
but one also discerns a strong tendency towards geographical unity. Whether this was still part of the
apartheid influence is difficult to tell. Also, whether this tendency differs from other cultural groups in
South Africa needs to be determined by further research. According to the research data,
Bloemfontein was the only city in which there was not a near-unanimous support for living together
62
in communities. One question that arises pertains to the bias in the responses. During fieldwork, it was
clear that Griqua communities were organised around strong leaders wielding significant influence in
the communities. In cities such as Kimberley and Cape Town, the GNC’s influence seemed to be
strong, while in Bloemfontein this was not felt so strongly. In order to determine the validity of the
data, one also has to factor in the real numbers of non-GNC respondents in comparison with GNC
respondents.
7.1.7 In your experience, does the unique Griqua history unify the nation?
Figure 7.7 indicated respondents perception regarding the degree the unique Griqua history unify the
Griqua nation.
97.3
78.1
100
100
100
100
90.9
90.5
87.5
86.5
79.5
77.3
68.4
47.1
0.9
15.7
6.1
8.1
15.9
15.9
21.1
41.2
1.4
4.5
3.0
9.5
5.4
4.5
2.3
5.3
11.8
0.5
1.7
12.5
4.5
5.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Kopanong
Kranshoek
Vredendal
Cape Town
Kimberley
Philippolis
Campbell
Douglas
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Griquastad
Unique Griqua history unify the nation
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.7: In your experience, does the unique Griqua history unify the nation?
In response to this question, Griquarust, Kranshoek, and Vredendal recorded 100% responses to the
‘always’ category. Here, Bloemfontein and Griquastad recorded remarkably low figures of 68% and
47% respectively. The figures for Kokstad and Douglas were also below 80% in respect of the
‘always’ category. In this case, and as is evident from the data in Figure 7.7, there is a clear indicator
that where GNC influence is strongest, Griqua history plays a unifying role. In respect of this
question, the difference between GNC and non-GNC was about 20%. Also, in the areas of Kokstad
and Douglas the GNC did not seem to have that much influence. The data for Kopanong, where the
GNC is also not that strong, did however not fit the pattern of the above figures. The reason for this is
not clear. On the whole, Griqua history, especially as it is recounted in GNC circles, seems to be a
major factor in Griqua unity.
7.1.8 In your opinion, does Griqua singing unify the nation?
The role singing play in unifying the Griqua groupings are shown in Figure 7.8.
63
98.6
83.1
100
100
100
97.0
95.2
94.3
94.1
87.5
86.0
81.4
68.4
60.0
11.0
2.9
5.9
11.6
11.6
26.3
13.3
0.5
4.7
3.0
2.9
2.3
4.7
26.7
0.9
1.2
4.8
12.5
2.3
5.3
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Cape Town
Kranshoek
Vredendal
Griquarust
Kimberley
Campbell
Kopanong
Philippolis
Douglas
Kokstad
Bloemfontein
Griquastad
Griqua singing unify the nation
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.8: In your opinion, does Griqua singing unify the nation?
Here, the GNC-dominated areas were clearly the most positive about singing, with Cape Town,
Kranshoek, and Vredendal recording 100% responses in the ‘always’ category and with Griquarus
coming in a close second. Bloemfontein and Griquasad here once again recorded the most negative
responses, but because Cape Town boasted a high positive figure in this regard, the fact of living in
the city seemed not to have been an explanatory factor. The only remaining possibility was that the
GNC had had a role play. The above suggestion regarding the GNC having had an influence on
singing is confirmed by the data in Figure 7.8. There was a significant difference between GNC and
non-GNC respondents in their appreciation of Griqua singing. On the whole then, Griqua singing was
viewed as a unifying factor in the Griqua community, especially by GNC members.
7.1.9 In your opinion, has Griqua history been lost?
Opinions amongst respondents regarding this question whether the Griqua history has been lost
differed as in no other question (see Figure 7.9).
64
16.6
52.0
19.3
12.1
16.7
35.3
11.5
19.0
77.8
60.0
9.2
48.7
63.6
64.7
11.4
26.3
5.3
38.9
17.6
15.4
33.3
11.1
17.5
13.8
38.5
25.0
17.6
49.3
12.0
38.6
51.5
16.7
23.5
50.0
28.6
12.5
70.8
7.7
6.8
17.6
22.7
9.7
36.8
36.4
27.8
23.5
23.1
19.0
11.1
10.0
6.2
5.1
4.5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Kranshoek
Griquarust
Bloemfontein
Griquastad
Cape Town
Kimberley
Philippolis
Kokstad
Vredendal
Campbell
Douglas
Kopanong
Griqua history being lost
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.9: In your opinion, has Griqua history been lost?
Firstly, there is no clear indication as to whether Griqua history has indeed been lost. Percentages of
more than 50% saying that Griqua history had ‘always’ been lost were found only in Kopanong,
Kokstad, and Douglas. Campbell and Griquastad recorded figures of about 30% in respect of the same
question. In all other areas, the opinion seemed to be that Griqua history had not ‘always’ been lost.
Vredendal, Cape Town, and Griquarust had the lowest numbers of ‘always’ responses, thus indicating
that most respondents in these areas did not view their history as lost. These three areas, together with
Kranshoek, did however also have large percentages of ‘sometimes’ responses , which does reflect a
sense of loss of culture. It is interesting that the urban areas or the larger rural areas were amongst the
most positive in respect of the retention of Griqua history, while rural areas were distinctly negative in
this regard, with Griquarust being an exception. The answer to the above puzzle indicate that non-
GNC respondents displayed a drastically higher sense of loss of history. A trend that one also has to
consider so as to be able to account for the relatively positive views recorded in Bloemfontein, is that
well-organised areas, be they urban or rural, have a lower sense of loss of history. This question
yielded markedly mixed results. In the Griqua community, views differ on whether their history has
been lost. On the whole, however, the percentage of respondents who thought that their history had
‘never’ been lost, was very low – not even 20%. About 50% of respondents opined that their history
had ‘always’ or ‘mostly’ been lost, and approximately 80% felt that their history had ‘always’,
‘mostly’, and ‘sometimes’ been lost. This reflects a deep sense of loss in the community.
7.1.10 Are you of the opinion that the South African government should help the Griqua?
Respondents were asked whether the South African government should help the Griqua people (see
Figure 7.10).
65
85.3
82.2
100
92.1
88.2
87.7
85.7
84.6
81.4
77.8
75.0
75.0
72.2
70.6
9.6
7.5
5.3
11.8
10.8
9.5
7.7
8.5
8.9
21.9
11.1
5.0
9.8
2.6
1.5
4.8
7.7
10.2
13.3
25.0
3.1
11.1
29.4
0.6
5.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
GNC
Non-GNC
Griquarust
Campbell
Kopanong
Vredendal
Kimberley
Kokstad
Kranshoek
Douglas
Philippolis
Cape Town
Bloemfontein
Griquastad
Government assistance
Always Mostly Sometimes Never
Figure 7.10: Are you of the opinion that the South African government should help the
Griqua?
Regarding this question, Griquarust was the only area with a 100% ‘always’ response. Bloemfontein,
Douglas, Griquastad, and Cape Town had the lowest number of ‘always’ responses for. Cape Town
had the highest percentage of ‘mostly’ responses, while Griquastad has the highest percentage of
‘sometimes’ responses. Bloemfontein was the only area to record ‘never’ responses, although,
admittedly, the percentage was low. As far as this question is concerned, the GNC and non-GNC
respondents seemed to be of one mind. The difference between the two groups was the smallest in
respect of this particular question. Other than the Griqua community being united in their wish for
state support, a clear pattern does not emerge from this data.
7.2 Analysis of data per age group
Regarding an analysis per age group, the trend seems to have been that there was a positive
correlation between age and positive sentiments regarding Griqua identity. For example, in response
to the question, ‘Do you take pride in being a Griqua?’, 82.9% of respondents in the 16-20 age group ,
84.4% in the 21-35 age group, 91.8% in the 36-50 age group, 95.5% in the 51-64 age group, and
98.3% of the respondents in the above 65 age group indicated ‘always’. The same trend held for the
next two questions, 25.2 and 25.3 – the older the respondents, the stronger their identification with
Griqua national identity seemed to be.
In the next number of questions some exceptions to this rule do occur (marked in grey in the graph).
Responses in the 36-50 age group to Question 25.4 were thus ever so slightly lower than for the 21-35
age group. A reason for this deviation does not seem obvious. In respect of Question 25.5,
respondents in the above 65 age group were a little more than 2% lower than the 51-64 age group. A
possible explanation for this phenomenon could be that people in this age group had their children
established and out of school. They were thus not so much interested in schooling matters. However,
this is mere conjecture and there could be other factors with which to explain the data. Similarly,
respondents in the 21-35 age group were about 1% less likely to have viewed living together as
Griqua to be a good idea for enhancing Griqua identity. Could the typical yuppy phenomenon explain
the data? The same may hold true for responses to Question 25.10, in respect of which the members
of the 21-35 age group were also less inclined to feel that the government should help the Griqua. In
both questions 25.7 and 25.8, responses of the elderly group showed them to be less convinced that
66
Griqua history and song had a strong role to play in unifying the nation. Once again, no possible
explanations immediately spring to mind. With regard to the question on the loss of Griqua history,
the 16-20 age group had a stronger sense of loss of history than did the 21-35 age group.
Intergenerational factors could explain this, but are in no way self-evident. For instance, the 16-20 age
group could still have been at school or university and thus under their parents’ influence.
Table 7.1: Responses to questions per age group
All 16-
20
21-
35
36-
50
51-
64
>65
Do you take pride in being a Griqua? 91.1% 82.9% 84.4% 91.8% 95.5% 98.3%
Do you enjoy spending time with other Griqua?
86.5% 74.3% 81.5% 83.7% 92.2% 98.3%
Are national festivals important to you?
90.9% 76.5% 89.8% 91.6% 94.3% 94.7%
Do you regard it as important to have the Griqua national
history taught at school?
88.6% 86.1% 84.6% 84.3% 92.2% 98.3%
Do you as parent regard it as important that your child retains
the Griqua identity?
94.3% 87.9% 90.7% 94.0% 98.9% 96.6%
Do you regard it as important that the Griqua should live close
together in order to retain/preserve their identity?
92.7% 88.9% 87.8% 91.4% 96.7% 98.2%
In your experience, does the unique Griqua history unify the
nation?
88.3% 75.0% 84.8% 85.5% 96.7% 94.5%
In your opinion, does Griqua singing unify the nation?
91.5% 82.9% 89.9% 91.3% 97.7% 89.7%
In your opinion, has Griqua history been lost?
32.5% 25.0% 19.5% 27.2% 40.4% 51.8%
Are you of the opinion that the South-African government
should help the Griqua? 84.4% 85.7% 79.5% 84.0% 88.6% 84.7%
7.3 Analysis of qualitative questions
Besides the quantitative survey analysed above, the questionnaire also included a number of open-
ended, qualitative questions to probe respondents’ views on various matters with regard to various
aspects of Griqua identity.
First, some open-ended questions followed on the quantitative questions. The first of these open-
ended questions related to reasons why national days were deemed important. The responses can be
summarised as follows:
They strengthen the national case. This point is related to religious ideas concerning calling,
faith, and prophecies, which, according to respondents, play an important role on these days.
They strengthen the sense of history and traditions of the Griqua.
They offer an opportunity to teach culture, especially to children.
They bind the nation together and create national pride.
They offer an opportunity to remember veterans of the national struggle.
Some of the less commonly mentioned notions were the following:
They create a sense of humanness amongst people.
They afford people opportunities to communicate in love at these occasions.
They enhance the quality of life.
They strengthen human dignity.
They offer people opportunities to be exposed to new thoughts.
67
The second open-ended question that further probed a quantitative question pertained to the type of
aid that the Griqua community expected from government.
Land was a recurrent theme amongst respondents. Some respondents indicated that they
would prefer a homeland for the Griqua.
Equally important was recognition as a nation.
A significant number of responses referred to living conditions in all respects, with a specific
need for start-up capital.
The recognition of the Griqua language was deemed to be important.
Respondents also expected help with national projects, such as documentary programmes and
dramas, and historical sites.
The next four questions were not related to quantitative questions. The first of these probed the
importance of religion in the Griqua community. The following is a summary of what respondents
deemed important:
It is evident that national identity and religious identity correspond in the Griqua community.
Also, religious and cultural identities are one. This connection affords many respondents the
idea of an exclusive identity because of being ‘called by God’.
The responses bear witness to a deep spirituality amongst the Griqua.
Religion is furthermore connected to education, especially for the youth.
It also pertains to morality in society and is viewed as playing a social role.
Giving praise is one of the most important parts of Griqua religion.
As far as language is concerned, one finds an expected connection between language and
culture/identity. Also, language is deemed to be important in education. What is however clear from
the responses is that when respondents talk about their language, it is not clear precisely what that
language is: some clearly refer to Afrikaans, some to Nama, and, others to Griqua. This phenomenon
reflects the loss of language the Griqua community has suffered and can be further researched.
The questions referring to Griqua rituals rendered a rich and diverse crop of responses. The Griqua are
evidently aware of their culture-specific traditions and rituals. These include:
Dances (specifically Nama/reel dances)
The drill ritual
Year-end rituals (slaughtering a sheep, year-end function)
Matters related to history (Griqua flag/national anthem, monuments)
Cage-girl tradition
Praise-giving evenings and other church activities
Conferences
Circle greeting
Music
Storytelling
Clothing
Fluid women? Perhaps water sprites/water nymphs/water spirits – otherwise some
explanation?
Predictions
Herbs/drinks/food
The last question pertained to Griqua identity. As indicated by the responses to the quantitative
questions, respondents were overwhelmingly positive about their identity as Griqua. It was evident
that they took pride in being Griqua, this pride being connected to their religion, their history, their
traditions and their view of themselves as a first or indigenous nation. It was further also clear that
they would appreciate being recognised as such.
68
Section 8: Conclusion
This report focused on the socio-economic conditions and cultural perceptions of the Griqua
groupings as it was in 2009 and 2010. The largest Griqua grouping currently represented by one
organisation is that of the Griqua National Conference (GNC). While other Griqua factions are also
large in number as a collective, they tend not to function as groups but as smaller individual units.
Thus, for the purposes of this report, the individual areas in which the Griqua respondents lived as
well as two distinctive groups of analysis have been identified, namely that of the Griqua groupings
belonging to the GNC organisation and those who do not belong to this organisation (non-GNC).
The two groups represented were that of the groups belonging to the Griqua National Conference
(GNC) and those that were not part of the GNC (non-GNC). Respondents from the GNC group
(53.9%) were from Vredendal, Kranshoek, Griquarust, Cape Town, Kimberley and a few households
from Philippolis. The non-GNC group (46.1%) was comprised of Griqua households from Kokstad,
Douglas, Campbell, Bloemfontein, Kopanong (Philippolis and Bethany) and Griquastad. The
following conclusions can be drawn from the different sections
The following conclusions can be made of each section:
HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY
The GNC and the non-GNC areas had very similar age and
gender profiles. The majority of household members being
found in the youth age cohort (15-34 years) with slightly
more females than males in the household
This average age indicates that the
population are of prime working
age
The large family sizes put great
economic stress on income
providers
Low levels of education lead to
greater levels of poverty
Griqua culture a dominant part of a
person’s existence.
The numbers of the household members in both areas as are
significantly higher than the South African average of 3.8
persons per household. In addition there were a large
number of single-headed households in both areas and
households consist of large numbers of children and
grandchildren, The average number of people in GNC
households was 5.5 household members and non-GNC
recorded an average household size of 6.5 in 2010.
The overall levels of education of household members
(older than 18 years) that have completed their schooling
are a matter of concern. In addition, very few of the
population had received higher education after schooling.
Migration patterns indicate that Griqua people tend not to
migrate too far from where they were born and had strong
historical links with places of signifying Griqua
importance. Migration trends of family members that left
the household were usually not out of choice, but related to
economic reasons
ECONOMIC PROFILE
In general, the majority of GNC areas were better off with
regard to employment than most of their non-GNC
counterparts. Full-time employment was in general lower
than the South African average and ranged from 7.3% to
33.8% for all the areas. Approximately one-third of the
household members fell within the unemployed category of
student/learner/too young for school. Almost one-third of
the total population unemployed.
High levels of poverty noticeable,
with non-GNC areas being more
affected by poverty than the GNC
areas
Low levels of entrepreneurship in
both areas are a concern and is a
contributing factor to the high
levels of poverty amongst some
Griqua communities
Grants sustaining a substantial
proportion of Griqua households
Grants also probably played a
crucial role in reducing
The vast majority of Griqua’s were employed in the private
sector and the low levels of entrepreneurship in both GNC
and non-GNC areas are noteworthy. Households in the
GNC areas had on average higher incomes than did people
in the non-GNC areas (R3 925 compared to R2 403).
69
The number of government grants received differs greatly
between the areas. In GNC areas, just more than 50% of the
respondents receive grants from government compared to
54.6% in non-GNC.
urbanisation and migration away
from these towns.
Grants, despite their positive
contribution in respect of reducing
poverty, unfortunately also hold the
negative implication of increased
state dependency.
Overall GNC areas had a higher Life Standard
Measurement (LSM) that their non-GNC counterparts.
HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Access to basic infrastructure is relatively high in most
areas. But in general, the respondents in the GNC areas
were better off in terms of housing, sanitation and water
provision than those not belonging to the GNC.
Non-GNC households displayed
greater dissatisfaction with housing
and infrastructure than their GNC
counterparts
Both Griqua groups equally
benefited or were affected by
government services.
GNC members displayed greater
social cohesion through
organizations than households not
belonging to the GNC Similar
social problems needs to be
addressed in all Griqua
communities.
There was no significant difference between GNC and non-
GNC areas in respect of levels of satisfaction regarding
access to government services
Respondents in GNC areas were more involved in Griqua
and women specific organisations than households in the
non-GNC areas.
Social problems noted were very similar in both GNC and
non-GNC areas. were highlighted as the most prominent
social problems in communities
QUALITY OF LIFE
Respondents from non-GNC areas assigned significantly
higher ratings for quality of family life than did the
respondents of GNC areas
Griqua family life, culture and religion
plays a dominant role in defining a
Griqua person’s quality of life.
Factors that had an impact on respondents ratings related to
quality of life were gender, age, education and size of the
family
The three foremost reasons why respondents were
generally satisfied with their quality of life was related to a
generally positive attitude towards life, the role religion
play in the households life and family and friends. Reasons
related to dissatisfaction to life were either money or
income, lack of employment and dissatisfaction with life in
general
The three components to which Griqua respondents were
most attached were firstly, their household, secondly, their
families and thirdly, the church. These high averages of
attachment were closely followed by high levels of
attachment to the Griqua history and to fellow Griqua
people.
GRIQUA RELATED MATTERS
Non-GNC respondents displayed a drastically higher sense
of loss of culture and history than their GNC counterparts
Historical linkages and
geographical location play a major
part in defining the Griqua identity
within a specific Griqua group.
Cultural aspects such as the Griqua
history, language, religion and
singing (for the GNC areas) are
High importance were attach to cultural aspects such as
history, language, religion and rituals
Cultural aspects that are more important to GNC members
than for the non-GNC group include celebrating national
festivals and singing
70
GNC members (with the exceptions of Philippolis) tend to
give greater importance to spending time with fellow
Griqua’s than non-GNC persons.
prominent factors influencing a
Griqua person’s identity
Where GNC influence is strongest,
Griqua history plays a unifying role
Although the GNC appears to be
unified in their culture, divisions
are noticeable in areas far away
from the GNC stronghold in the
Western Cape (Kimberley,
Philippolis and Kokstad).
Griquastad responses on Griqua
matters influenced the non-GNC
group’s average totals negatively
The continuation of Griqua culture
is equally important to both GNC
and non-GNC Griqua’s
Responses from Griquastad were consistently more
negative than were those of the rest of the country
For both groups it is imperative that their children retain
Griqua identity
There was a positive correlation between age and positive
sentiments regarding Griqua identity. Younger groups tend
to rate Griqua identity lower than older age categories
Both groups desire Government aid. Government
assistance include land related concerns and recognition of
the Griqua nation and culture,
To conclude, in the view of the respondents, the Griqua are a community with a strong identity, a
strong sense of history and culture, and strong national feelings. It also seems clear that the GNC
generally plays a huge role in fostering the positive sentiments towards national identity. On the
whole, a number of questions were left unanswered. This points to a need for more research and more
precisely defined research in this regard. The data seemed to point to a strong general preference
among the Griqua not only to be in touch and to keep their national identity alive by attending
national festivals, but one also discerns a strong tendency towards geographical unity. Whether this
was still part of the apartheid influence is difficult to tell. Also, whether this tendency differs from
other cultural groups in South Africa needs to be determined by further research. During fieldwork, it
was clear that Griqua communities were organised around strong leaders wielding significant
influence in the communities. As far as Griquastad is concerned, the research has no clear explanation
for the data. On a qualitative basis, the researchers did initially meet with some negative response and
subsequently battled to get the questionnaires back from the fieldworkers. With factions being a
reality in the Griqua community, the negative figures could also relate to internal struggles within the
community. However, for well-considered reasons, further research in this regard is imperative.
