Research evidence on long-term adaptation mechanisms – what they are and how they work – are still limited (Rugalema et al., 2010:29). While vulnerability attempts to describe the likelihood of experiencing adverse consequences as a result of HIV and AIDS, resilience encompasses the ability of HIV and AIDS affected households to bounce back from a shock. Resilience means that a livelihood system is able to absorb the impacts of disturbances due to AIDS, without resulting in significant changes to its structural features or declines in livelihood outputs. It thus refers to the ability of HIV and AIDS-affected households to adopt responsive livelihood strategies to avoid negative consequences in order to rebuild their livelihoods faster and on a surer footing (Loevinsohn and Gillespie, 2003). Resilience is normally analysed through proxy indicators like the ability to preserve some assets, the condition of the homestead, the quality of life before and after, and the ability to re-bounce out a crisis. This thesis considers the matter of resilience and, in doing so, also profiles the contribution of ART in strengthening resilience. This is done through an analysis of livelihood strategies before HIV infection, during chronic illness but before ART, and once the individual has joined an ART regimen. In the context of my study of a marginalised community, particularly considering that most households are poor and generally asset deficient, social capital and political capital become critical for long-term coping and resilience.
2.6.1 The role of social capital
HIV and AIDS and the stigma and discrimination which accompanies it causes a deterioration in an individual’s social capital by disrupting social networks, institutions,
41 organisations and social support mechanisms. Infected individuals regularly face social exclusion, loneliness, and lack of support and comfort from families and broader networks. Taylor et al. (1996:55) argue – in relation to both the infected and affected – that care-giving by household members and AIDS-based illnesses prevent individuals and households from creating and sustaining networks (Seeley et al., 1993). UNAIDS (2002) also notes social cohesion within households has been heavily compromised. Households in some instances will eventually dissolve, as parents die and children are sent to relatives for care and upbringing.
The growing impact of the AIDS pandemic is weakening community safety nets (Forster and Williamson, 2000). Reliance on social networks (involving reciprocal arrangements for sharing resources through gifts, loans of cash, food and labour between relatives) becomes more difficult as the demand for resources and assets has been intensifying with the progression of the condition. The loss of labour (both productive and unproductive) often strains the capacity of a household to mobilise social capital. Topouzis (1998:9) argues that HIV and AIDS may “create a crisis of an unprecedented proportion particularly among the extended family and kinship systems, with implications not only for the spread of HIV but also for the viability of rural institutions and of traditional social safety mechanisms”. Studies are confirming that families are failing to cope as demands for support are increasing and the social safety system is overburdened with the demands for care giving, cash and labour needs (Forster and Williamson, 2000).
Community labour and credit groups, which have existed historically, are increasingly undermined by the number of affected persons. Findings from a study conducted by TANGO (2003) revealed that HIV and AIDS affected households had challenges getting assistance from kinship networks and there were challenges in mobilising the HIV and AIDS affected to participate in community activities. HIV and AIDS have led to the straining of local community-based institutions to the point of collapse (TANGO, 2002).
2.6.2 Grassroots politics and local power manifestations
Although evidence is mounting about the importance of political capital (or access to power) for HIV and AIDS-affected households’ survival strategies, Tobin (2003) found
42 out that insignificant research has been conducted on the linkages between political capital and affected households’ coping strategies. Despite the fact that studies on the impact of HIV and AIDS on other livelihood capitals (such as human, physical, income, natural and social) exist, research on the impact of political capital is severely lacking (Nkurunziza and Rakodi, 2005; Tobin, 2003). Moreover, though the research that has been done has focused heavily on rural areas, none of it has covered marginal communities with their unique social configuration of power, as typified in Chivanhu settlement. To reiterate, further research is needed on other forms of settlements which do not fit the typical rural and smallholder agricultural systems setup. In many cases, because of the failure of community networks for dealing with HIV and AIDS and the shortcomings of traditional (often kinship-based) safety nets in coping with demands, new forms of social capital have formed. These new evolving forms of community-based safety nets (in the form of community-based organisations) are designed specifically for dealing with chronic illness and orphan care in the context of the pandemic, and they happen where there is committed leadership and organic community mobilisation.
Coping strategies at community level by HIV and AIDS-affected households are not devoid of local power manifestations. Various forms of political alliances and groups have been observed in dealing with the impacts of HIV and AIDS and also for harnessing and mobilising forms of support and resources for affected individuals. Empirical evidence has demonstrated that, even in comparatively stable communities with high levels of social integration and community cohesion, households report that the character and quality of support accessed or given depends on alliances that households have forged at community level (Makonese, 2007). As a result, households involved in influential alliances benefit more and at the expense of weaker and more vulnerable HIV and AIDS-affected households in the same community.
Community leadership is an important factor in the success or failure of community- based approaches for dealing with the effects of HIV and AIDS. However, recent studies reveal that community leadership does not always act in the best interests of community members (Makonese, 2007; Mazzeo and Makonese, 2009; Makonese and Chiweshe,
43 2008). Often, and this is the case in Zimbabwe, current multi-sectorial strategies for dealing with HIV and AIDS are designed and implemented through formal and traditional governance structures at community level. But the available literature has not critically looked into how effective these structures are in delivering the necessary support (Makonese, 2007). If political capital and its implications throw up these challenges in stable and coherent communities, one wonders what the scenario is like for other fluid communities like Chivanhu Settlement.
Policies governing HIV and AIDS resources and their allocation may not function efficiently, to the detriment of the sustainable distribution and management of the resources in general for HIV and AIDS-affected households.Recent political and socio- economic events in Zimbabwe have resulted in the rapid disintegration of many national and local governance structures. Studies are revealing that where institutions governing resource access and allocation are ineffective and insensitive to the needs of the affected and the infected, the livelihoods of HIV and AIDS households are detrimentally impinged upon (Makonese, 2007; Mazzeo and Makonese, 2009). Through combining vulnerability and resilience analysis, this thesis provides an opportunity to explore both passiveness and agency in the livelihood strategies of the HIV and AIDS-affected.