An analysis of the South African communities’ perspectives and activism on the expropriation of land without compensation: the case of Cato Manor.

Abstract

The apartheid project pursued hundreds of separate development legislative laws, which promoted the economic and social interests of the minority, whilst marginalizing and disenfranchising the majority in South Africa. Amongst the apartheid government’s most unjust laws was the Group Areas Act of 1950, which racialized spatial occupation, by forcibly removing hundreds of thousands of South Africans from their primary communities of origin, into areas newly designated for their particular race group. This Act happened on the back of the Native Land Act of 1913, which allocated fewer than tenth of the land to Black Southern Africans, outlawing from purchasing or leasing land outside these “Black reserves”. Together, the Land Act of 1913 and the Group Areas Act of 1950 ensured the present reality of spatial inequality, and gross levels of inequality in the ownership of land in South Africa. This is the history that has given rise to the country’s growing social movements for land ownership and access to decent housing. Amongst the communities most affected by the country’s historically unjust spatial laws is Cato Manor, a community with a history of forced removals in Durban, KwaZulu Natal. Cato Manor has a robust history of land activism, and thus provides an appropriate research opportunity to explore the perspectives and activism of ordinary South Africans on land reform and the country’s hotly contested land expropriation without compensation (LEWC) policy. This thesis describes the findings of a qualitative study that was conducted among 15 men and women residing in Cato Manor, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. The findings reveal a great demand for land and housing in Cato Manor, which was expressed through different forms of activism and protests, which started out as peaceful engagements and later escalated to violent marches spreading to the central business district of Durban. Importantly, the research shows that the violent tactics which Cato Manor is notorious for were not the residents’ first nor most preferred route of demanding for land reform and decent public housing. Furthermore, the study revealed the self-silencing, self-policing, splintering and demobilization effects that labelling and characterising activism as violent had on the community’s social movements for land and housing in Cato Manor. The findings also indicate perspectives that government’s allocation of housing and land to the disgruntled Cato Manor residents, was a ploy to destabilize and retard the growth and vigour of social movements in this community. Finally, the findings show a disparity in the perspectives regarding LEWC with nearly half of the interviewees opposing the policy, because they have little faith in the government to employ this policy swiftly and successfully. The other half of the respondents professed support for the LEWC, believing it will level the inequality in land ownership. Altogether the findings of this research indicate that activism for access to land and public housing is ongoing and resilient, but hugely affected by the tactics that government employs in response to protests, and by how the movements for social change are labelled and characterised by social institutions such as the media. The findings indicate a lack of trust in the ruling party, resulting in mixed reactions to the policy on LEWC.