The Albert Park community engaged in rigorous debate at the recent community conversation
November 5, 2009 – “It’s only us who can really understand our challenges and come up with appropriate solutions. The time for talking is over. It’s now time for action.”
These words, from a participant in the Nelson Mandela Foundation’s community conversations on social cohesion, expressed the determination with which the Albert Park community began its second series of community conversations. This community in KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), stressed by poverty and insecurity, clearly views dialogue as the way to unearth the causes of their problems and take decisions. And they are making real progress.
The Foundation and its partners (the KZN Christian Council, the KZN Refugee Council, the Refugee Social Services and the Union of Refugee Women) held a community conversation at the YMCA in Albert Park, Durban, on October 22, 2009. The event was the culmination of a series of dialogues that have been held in this area and aimed at exploring concerns identified by the community in previous conversations. It also gave the community their first opportunity to plan a response to these concerns.
About 75 people attended this conversation, including government officials, members of civil society and community-based organisations. Migrants and local people were well represented.
Community members were particularly pleased with the participation and commitment of government officials. In attendance were the local ward councillor (Vusi Khoza) and representatives from the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Social Development and Ethekwini Municipality. Each of these officials came with the full backing of their departments and worked side by side with the community during the exercises for the day. For the community this meant a lot, because their request for greater government participation was honoured and they felt government was listening to them. During the plenary these officials remained available to respond to queries raised by community and gave guidance on the best approach in engaging with government on various issues.
The main purpose of the October 22 conversation was to begin translating dialogue into action. This was done in two stages – first, establishing the root causes of some of the concerns identified in the earlier conversations, and second, developing action plans to address these concerns.
The investment made in building relationships during earlier conversations paid off, as the community entered this stage of planning surrounded by an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. This is particularly necessary for a community that needs to engage deeply with uncomfortable issues.
First, facilitators summarised the concerns that had emerged during the last conversation. They grouped these into five key areas – leadership and participation, crime and security, awareness of rights and culture, access to resources, and degeneration of moral/ethical values.
The community was then invited to think about the “roots” and “fruits” (causes and consequences) of these “trunk” concerns. The aim was to take all factors into account before making decisions. Participants were also introduced to some planning tools to help them reflect on resources and timing.
Groups of community members identified the following root causes of their five areas of concern:
- Degeneration of values – breakdown of the family unit and a dearth of role models; drug and alcohol abuse; materialism; the influence of the media
- Crime – unemployment and poverty; destruction of cultural values; drug and alcohol abuse
- Rights and cultural awareness – historical legacy of apartheid and colonialism; leaders motivated by self-interest; lack of transparency and accountability; illiteracy; apathy and despondency
- Access to resources – language barrier; lack of accountability; lack of documentation; low levels of literacy; financial and administrative barriers; lack of trust
- Leadership and participation – poor communication; selfishness; dictatorship; competition at the expense of co-operation; failure to recognise gender equality
It emerged that participants clearly understood the root causes and the impact that that these were having on their community. There was robust debate on whether these roots should be viewed as distinct from one another, or whether they flowed out of one deeper root (such as apartheid). Participants also saw how the five main areas of concern were linked and how root causes were located within the inner sphere of attitudes and cultural value systems. The community agreed that any proposed interventions needed to take this inner world into account.
However, they also recognised the importance of external influences on behaviour. For example, they resolved to draft a petition to the Liquor Licensing Board seeking to reduce the number of liquor outlets in the area. There over 40 liquor outlets in Albert Park, making it difficult to change young people’s values and behaviour. The community mandated the local Community Policing Forum representative, together with the councillor, to present their petition to the Liquor Board. “We must act now while the metal is hot,” said one participant.
Presenting their action plans, the community also noted the enormous social network existing within Albert Park: the presence of NGOs and faith-based organisations working to promote social cohesion.
On crime, the community discussed the growing number of people sleeping in the park itself and the close connection between this and insecurity. Some participants proposed using municipal bylaws to clear the park; others pointed out that the real issue was the shortage of accommodation and employment.
“People are sleeping in that park because they have no jobs, no income and no family to take them in,” said Councillor Khoza. “The problem of the park can only be resolved when we know how to integrate these people into the mainstream. Remember, they are human beings.”
The discussions that followed revealed that many of the people living in the park possessed various skills. The KZN Council of Churches offered to support the community in conducting an audit of the skills available in the area, to match them with the needs of the community.
One major breakthrough that came out of this conversation was the agreement reached to include migrants in community structures addressing crime and security. “There is a lot we can contribute if we are given the opportunity to play a part. This crime affects us all and we want to help the authorities in their fight against crime,” said one migrant participant. Local participants belonging to safety forums in the area welcomed this eagerness to participate and resolved to formalise it.
On the subject of access to resources, the migrant section of the community believed that one critical obstacle was the lack of recognised documentation. “No one recognises these papers we have. Without a green ID book in this country you are going nowhere. You will not get a job, a house or schools for your children. You can’t even access a hospital,” was how one participant put it. The Home Affairs representative acknowledged that it had been difficult for migrants to get documentation but said that the department’s co-operation with refugee community leaders had brought improvements. He added that other government departments should play their part in addressing migrants’ needs.
In discussing rights awareness, the community spoke of the historical legacy of apartheid and people’s general apathy about their rights. Some mentioned the damage suffered by the entire African population through experiences of injustice during colonialism. One participant challenged others to learn more about other cultures as well as their own rights.
They looked at how they could use existing campaigns to highlight diversity – such as using a planned march for children’s rights to raise awareness of the needs of refugee children.
The Albert Park community continues to show how dialogue can be used by a community and its leadership as a platform to discuss ways of resolving their common challenges. It is also clear that the government and local leadership structures found the conversation a useful forum through which they could engage in active listening and understand the diverse range of needs the community was facing. The community has taken ownership of the conversations and committed to continue to use this platform to refine its action plans.
This community appears to be creating a future quite different from anything it has so far experienced – a future that can be recreated in other regions of South Africa.