The Housing ‘problem’: Words and Misconceptions

By Sarita Pillay,

In early December, while watching the evening news, I became suddenly acutely aware of a problem with the South African government's approach to housing. I watched with a sense of disbelief and outrage as the infamous 'Red Ants' tore down hundreds of homes in Ramaphosa, Ekurhuleni. The local government justified the destruction of the homes and displacement of families by highlighting the 'problem' of the makeshift homes being built on the land illegally. However, there were two worrying things that stood out from the local government's approach which could be applied to the national government's sentiment.

Firstly, the language used by the local government raises some concerns. As homes were being torn down and possessions damaged, no reference was made to people and their livelihoods but instead all we heard was ‘shacks’, ‘illegal settlements’, 'structures' and 'squatters'. The power of words can never be underestimated. Language plays a role in avoiding the true nature of the ‘housing problem’ and poverty in South Africa. By using words which desensitize and remove the human element of the situation, government officials succeed in downplaying reality.

Removing people from places where they have shaped their livelihoods and established their homes therefore becomes a process, a formality. The reasons why individuals have chosen to live in these areas, the conditions which force them to create makeshift homes in places near the city, the challenges they face daily through lack of sanitation and electricity, all of these factors become masked behind the usage of certain words and justification of tackling illegal land occupation. Unfortunately, the media often serves to perpetuate these terms.

Secondly, the removal of people from settlements which have been established illegally was brandished as a solution in solving the ‘housing question’. Now, even Friedrich Engels in the late 19th Century could have told you that the simple destruction and removal of informal housing settlements provides nothing but momentary ‘success’. The housing problem, namely the reality of informal houses, lacking durability, sanitation and/or electricity, is a feature of all of South Africa’s cities. In 2008, 1 in 10 South Africans were estimated to live in informal homes. Although the removal of the families living in that particular informal settlement in Ramaphosa may have provided momentary clear land and less of an ‘eyesore’ for passing vehicles - that is about the only ‘success’ established.

This approach is particularly worrying as it creates a sense of complacency in dealing with the establishment of informal housing settlements. The removal of those families living in Ramaphosa settlement will only spur the establishment of an informal housing settlement elsewhere (and, likely, nearby). Even where alternative housing is provided, in many cases these houses are located on the outskirts of urban areas where residents are made to live far from work and the convenience of urban life. In this case, the informal settlements continue to spring up in urban areas. So although the local government official who featured on the news that evening in December may have been proud of the fact that the ‘illegal settlement’ had been removed, it did little to remove the probability of a similar settlement being established nearby.

The housing problem is bigger than a few sheets of corrugated iron, a few cardboard boxes and makeshift toilets. The housing problem cannot be reduced to ‘illegal settlements’, ‘shacks’ and ‘squatters’. Arguably, the housing problem can only be truly solved by reshaping the way in which our economy and society functions - a world in which the few have a lot and the many have a little, where these conditions are perpetuated and it is almost impossible for the cycle to be broken.