As noted in earlier chapters, there are elements of disadvantage that keep people in a deprivation trap. According to Chambers (1983), issues such as physical weakness, powerlessness, poverty, isolation and vulnerability keep people trapped in a cycle of deprivation. Breaking the cycle of poverty therefore requires addressing these factors to protect people from vulnerability. It goes without saying that a household or individual’s inability to deal with risks, shocks and stresses leaves people susceptible to vulnerability (Satge, 2002). In the community of Makause, it was
71
found that people are vulnerable to poverty, homelessness, ill-health, and social and economic exclusion. In some instances, this is due to factors beyond their control. It emerged during the FGDs that these root causes of poverty are a direct consequence of the relocation to the Tsakane area. In October 2006, the EMM declared Makause unsafe for human settlement after a woman died as a result of falling into an old open mine shaft in extension 3. Based on this tragic incident, a private security company (colloquially referred to as the 'red ants') was contracted by EMM in January 2007 to relocate affected residents to Tsakane Township in Brakpan; about 40km from Makause. The Makause residents applied for an urgent court order to stop the evictions; however 10 days later the company demolished their houses. They were promised houses and services but when they arrived at the new location they were given temporary homes.
To their surprise, the infrastructure (electricity, flush toilets, running water and refuse removal) which had been promised by the EMM was non-existent in their new location. Furthermore, the area was far from schools and amenities and transport costs were unaffordable. According to Lotter (2011) infrastructure is regarded as basic services in many countries; however, the situation is different in Makause.
It is for this reason that all the participants identified the relocation to Tsakane as the major event that had a significant impact on their livelihoods, which were either destroyed or lost. These include loss of employment and the education of their children. The relocation process contradicted the values cited in South Africa’s housing policy (Department of Human Settlements, 2009), which asserts that housing development should take place where people are located. On the contrary, the people of Makause were evicted and placed in a new community;
thus the government violated clause 26 of the Bill of Rights which asserts that, “no one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances...” (South African Constitution, 1996: 7). In addition, the notion of developing people where they are situated is a critical policy intervention since most informal settlements are established based on services that attracted residents to the area (Huchzermeyer, 2000). Put differently, the informal settlements are directly linked to livelihoods opportunities; therefore relocations often have an adverse effect as observed in Makause. It goes without saying that sudden events such as forced removals undermine household livelihoods, thus leaving people vulnerable to risks. The capacity to deal with risks
72
and manage losses depends on the resources available to an individual or household (UNDP, 2002).
It was reported that the majority of those who had been moved to the new settlement returned to Makause after a few days to re-join the residents who had chosen to remain behind. This was despite the fact that they did not have a place to stay when they came back as their stands were occupied by new people. The EMM did not make any arrangements to ensure people’s safety and security by improving the ‘unsafe area’. Fortunately, community leaders managed to mediate between the old owners and the new occupiers and they were fully integrated back into the community. However, insecurities around land tenure continued to deepen already existing vulnerabilities. All the participants confirmed that they live in constant fear of eviction. This goes back to the land question discussed in chapter 2. Lack of access to land is responsible for perpetuating urban poverty as black people were forced to become squatters without secure land tenure (Hall, 2013).
Furthermore, the residents argue that the environmental challenges (mining shaft) cited to justify the relocation are not convincing. It was established that there is only a small portion of land with mining holes specifically located in extension 3. Therefore there is no strong justification to declare the entire settlement unsafe for human habitat. It emerged during the interviews that the residents have managed to mobilise legal and financial support to litigate against the EMM. To demonstrate their determination to fight the proposed forced removals, the residents have taken their case to the Supreme Court.
This situation results in ongoing stresses and pressures that threaten livelihoods in Makause. As argued earlier, a livelihood entails “the capabilities, assets and activities which are all required for a means of a living” (Chambers and Conway, 1992:7; Neefjes, 2000:82). While it was observed that people of Makause have capabilities, assets and activities to secure their livelihoods, these were not realised in a context of uncertainty due to forced removals.
73