Recently I have been confronted with open space in the city that is yet to be developed. These spaces are in controversy as to who rightfully owns them, who currently should, and who controls them. In the interim, these spaces have become vacant, “unclaimed” and uncontrolled. These areas or plots are easy “hi-jack” by street people, homeless individuals, drug users and dealers, gang members and prostitution. The ownership of space becomes crucial in maintaining social services, in providing adequate care, safety and security to the city as a whole. Public service (state and para-state) will not overstep the invisible boundaries onto land that is “private”. The confusion created between ownership, positionality, open and closed spaces further marginalises these spaces and their “night-time-residence”. As an almost human-rights-‘drunk’-nation these spaces contradict the bill of rights. The “powers” care for the politics and the economy but not for the social ecosystems in these spaces. We claim the narrative of human rights, but we fail to instil a human rights responsibility and accountability in our cities. If the rhetoric of capture the land of inner cities continue [with the current impasse] it will perpetuate the already developing camps and insecurities. To relocate and shift is not a solution – as always presented. Shifting problems from one space to another for the convenience of the privilege is an ‘apartheid’ notion. The action detaches state entities from their responsibility to provide a human rights narrative. All entities (state, non-state, para-state) must start ‘buying’ into the restoration of communities and the outsiders within them. Control is built from both formal and informal rules. Each set of rules construct appropriate behaviour for space. The concern about these insecure spaces is that “he who controls the rules, controls the appropriateness of behaviour.” Who controls spaces more than the people who enter and reside. The residence and the informal leadership will enforce their own rules of appropriateness onto the ‘unclaimed’, ‘vacant’ land. The action of self-regulation and ownership – further perpetuates their own marginalisation and their othering from the community. The question of reformation and reclaiming inner cities and open space will always be entrenched in politics, in social- and economic-entrepreneurship, and conflict. The task is how do we create safe spaces and solution that surpass the current political narrative that does not perpetuate forceful removal and violence. How do we reclaim the narrative of peacebuilding, community building even in city centres? The bottom-up approach with participation from communities has shown the greatest effect in re-establishing safer space. In the end, our success in upliftment, in change, in reclaiming space, in redefining space is ultimately tied to our capacity as communities to find the right solutions; our ability as humans to work together – not the state's capacity to support an initiative. Finally, it is our understanding that we have just as much a right and responsibility to provide safety and security in a vacant land, as to the individuals who call them safe. Hannes Koekemoer
0 Comments
|
AuthorArchives
February 2018
CategoriesDisclaimer:
|