2.4 Literature on Abahlali baseMjondolo
2.4.1 Early academic work and reactions to these
As a post-1994 grassroots movement, Abahlali created a space for visiting concepts such as autonomous politics, self-assertion and bottom-up political formation. The account by Lyons (2005) in her article Amandla Awethu: Direct action by civil society in eThekwini recalls the first wave of uprisings that was led by shackdwellers around this time. In her article, Lyons (2005) writes about Abahlali’s tactics of protest and marches, and illegal connections to services such as electricity and water as part of what she argues are direct actions. Quoting Zikode, Lyons (2005) writes:
We are prepared to talk, but if that doesn’t work we are prepared to use our strength.
We will do whatever it costs us to get what we need to live safely. (Zikode cited in Lyons, 2005, p. 1)
In her summary discussion, Lyons (2005) asserts that the different actions that were taken by Abahlali ranged from direct democracy organisation, marches, mock funerals, road
blockading with burning tyres and mattresses, land occupations, illegal connections and reconnections, and actively resisting cut-offs. All of these were a rational response to a perceived failure of government to care for its people.
Another early work that emerged is a report by Bryant (2006) when he sought to provide what he called a ‘geography’ of the movement. In his understanding, Abahlali, in addition to the demands they make or the tactics they employ, represent a thrust for ‘bottom-up
democracy’ (p. 50). Equally important is his description of Kennedy Road settlement which carries a resemblance to other shack settlements in eThekwini. He writes:
People do not have real houses, but cardboard and mud shacks built onto a hillside next to a dump that smells, they said, and when it rains the floors of the shacks are wet and muddy. (p. 53)
The response to these living conditions has been promises that ranged from cleaning up the settlement through refuse collection to building formal houses. Bryant (2006) records that people’s responses to these promises and their views of the government are laced with words like ‘broken promises’ and with feelings of betrayal, and thus the motivation for their protests (p. 54). Reflecting on people’s views on the road blockade in March 2005 by Kennedy Road shack residents, Bryant (2006) asserts that it gave people a new ‘feeling of power’, thus what began as an isolated protest from one settlement grew to a series of protests and negotiations in partnership with other settlements (p. 64). It is all this organising and mobilising in various shack settlements that gave rise to a movement, Abahlali BaseMjondolo. Bryant quotes Zikode describing the objectives of the movement as being a political endeavour to
“[provide] a real platform of togetherness and contribute whatever we can to change living conditions in shack settlements” (p. 72).
I now turn to Beresford (2006) who did a comparison between the Abahlali movement and the Durban faction of the trade union federation, COSATU, with the view to explore the likelihood of co-operation between the two. Since this research is on Abahlali, I am interested in what he says about the Abahlali movement as he makes the comparison. However, it is important to acknowledge what Beresford (2006) is saying about COSATU although it actually goes beyond the scope of this research. A key point that he makes is that because COSATU is an affiliate of the tripartite alliance with the ANC, which is the ruling party and
‘locked into a neoliberal paradigm’, it has not managed to forge changes in policy and practice of the corporate sector (p. 22). In his article Beresford (2006) describes his view about Abahlali’s struggle. He asserts:
Abahlali’s struggle does not simply come from impatience at the lack of housing or service delivery. Rather, it comes from the lack of respect and outright contempt with which they feel they have been treated by their local government. (p. 26)
Here Beresford (2006) views Abahlali’s struggle as one that comes out of a sense of alienation from the local government. This point forms part of the ongoing debate about whether Abahlali’s struggle is materialistic or not, and whether or not it is about changing the system of power in the city. Notably, for Beresford (2006) Abahlali’s struggle is a
continuation of a struggle to reclaim dignity and to exercise their right to be heard.
I now turn to Pithouse (2006a). From early on Pithouse viewed Abahlali’s struggle as a rebellion. Starting from Kennedy Road in 2005 to shack settlements across eThekwini, Abahlali broke out of obedience (thus a road blockade) and continued to demonstrate earnest and thorough work of organising on the ground. In his early article, Pithouse (2006a) argued that Abahlali’s struggle was a school and through the struggle Abahlali had accomplished the creation of a ‘community of struggle’ among its members. This was born out of a practice that every important decision was made through a collective decision-making process of mass meetings. Opportunities for travel and interactions with external organisations were rotated amongst members. For Pithouse the underlying and most critical feature in Abahlali practice was the consistency of their collective reflection on their experience, thus giving new
meaning to concepts of participation and leadership. Pithouse concluded his article by
arguing that all the events that happened in shack settlements from March to November 2005 were actually a demonstration that a ‘new movement has given birth to itself’ (p. 5).
From its inception the Abahlali movement was understood to have been built on the
foundations of openness to truth and collective critical reflection, thus creating a legitimate political project. Seemingly what gave strength to Abahlali was the rigorous and consistent rhythm of holding mass meetings where everyone was allowed to speak, thus creating a democratic practice. More accounts of this early formation and emerging politics and theorising in Abahlali is summed up in the article by Pithouse (2006a), Our struggle is thought, on the ground, running: The University of Abahlali baseMjondolo.
I was drawn to Patel’s (2006) similar view of Abahlali’s struggle as argued in his article, A short course of politics in the University of Abahlali baseMjondolo. In this article Patel uses Badiou (2005) to argue that Abahlali’s struggle provided necessary space to understand the connection between place, event, fidelity to the event and real political discourse. The series of protests, marches and theoretical work that resulted in the birth of Abahlali in 2005 amounted to a break with the false politics that had kept shackdwellers waiting for decades without seeing any real fruits of the 1994 transition to democracy.
According to Patel (2006), Abahlali meetings were an important space to reinforce fidelity to the event - the rupture with dominant politics. This explains why Patel (2006) yearns for consistency saying:
…once the political value of the intellectual work done in the meeting is accepted then the next question that will have to be confronted is how far the principles that sustain the meeting can move into other sites and modes of thinking and action in the social realm that sustain the meeting. (p. 98)
No wonder his concluding remarks state:
We need, in other words, to understand the meeting and its politics not only by connecting it backwards and forwards in time with Events, but also by connecting it in space with the ‘ordinary’ material and lived experience of People. (p. 98)
On the whole, it seems that Abahlali’s struggle, at least at the beginning, raised interest in looking at shackdwellers’ lived experience in relation to their agency to change their reality.
However, as the discussion about Abahlali expanded, so did the interest of intellectuals who were sceptical about legitimacy of the claim of autonomous movement. One of the key points of difference is the presentation of Abahlali’s struggle as a unique and radical political
opportunity that has grown from within Abahlali itself. As Bhmke (2010) states, “a key element in Abahlali’s portrayal is how different it is to the old, authoritarian, vanguard Left who were ‘in control’ of the social movements that just preceded it” (p. 2).
In Bhmke’s (2010) caution about the portrayal of Abahlali’s struggle is a suggestion that Abahlali are just a breeding ground for academic work. Bhmke accuses scholars of using Abahlali as a research subject proving the viability of their own breathless political fantasies (ibid), with members of Abahlali “portrayed as subjects who are resolutely militant and possessed of unusual clarity and courage” (p. 4).
Bhmke (2010) refutes Abahlali’s own self-presentation as a movement of radical and direct democratic practice. He does not see any connection between Abahlali as they actually are, and their claims that they are an independent, vibrantly democratic and autonomous unit:
They are, in their being and constitution, as prone to economism, reformism and chauvinism as any trade union and no amount of dressing up of their politics as a quest for “recognition”, “voice”, “dignity” and “humanity” can hide that. (p. 11)
I now turn to Walsh (2008) who agrees that Abahlali have been the source of a great deal of academic and activist writings from the beginning, and has similar concerns to those of Bhmke. In her article, Uncomfortable collaborations, Walsh deals with the friction between the reality of Abahlali’s activism and thought, and how they are portrayed by left-leaning academics and middle class activists. She also critiques Abahlali’s spread to other parts of South Africa. For Walsh (2008) there are clearly contradictions in the way Abahlali themselves account for their struggle. She notes that the insistence on ‘speaking for themselves’ actually clashes with their claim and aspiration of becoming a national movement as this means they ‘speak for others’ (p. 81).
This critical scrutiny of the account of Abahlali’s struggle is also picked up on by Sinwell (2010) in his article, Social movement defensive battles: The need to engage with politics. He
argues that the left’s depiction of social movements in post-apartheid South Africa has
“tended to be superficial, labelling the poor’s voice as a virtuous one that needs no outside political strategy – as is the case with Abahlali” (p. 1). In his article, Sinwell warns of romanticisation of social movements and the uncritical view that the poor are embodiments of the truth as pure subjects. In the case of Abahlali he says:
Merely amplifying the voices of the poor and assuming that those participating from below embody the truth, does not enable us to understand the potential and
limitations of movements to challenge neoliberalism. Nor is there any possibility in this line of thinking to chart a way forward for liberation or to contest capitalism.
(p. 2)
In his conclusion Sinwell (2010) calls for rethinking the roles of academics and other activist intellectuals together with grassroots activists to ensure development of political and strategic direction in order to bring about fundamental changes in society.
Clearly what seems to be important from the above discussions is that from early on the Abahlali struggle revived the interest of studying and writing about grassroots struggles and confronting the question of autonomy, participation, democracy and politics. I now move to recent academic work to argue that the interest in writing about knowledge production and learning has increased slowly but still appears to be a critical area of work that needs attention.