“It is not a coincidence that the majority who do not participate in sustainable economic activities to manage a standard lifestyle expected of citizens in post-1994 South Africa, also don’t have access or cannot afford decent housing.“
In all fairness, the Department of Human Settlements’ decision to end the massive RDP free housing project for the country’s poor households (mainly drawn from the so-called Historically Disadvantaged Individuals) was meant to happen at some point , a case of when and not if. Well-intentioned as it may have been, the project defied economic realities. It was incredible to expect the government to be building brick and mortar structures using the overstrained tax payer’s kitty to redress the historical problem of limited or lack of access to decent housing continuously. The Department said, at last count, there was a backlog of houses for 2.6 million South Africans on the waiting list. But the figure could easily have been higher. Thus, doubtless, continuing with the programme would have meant sacrificing money from other development initiatives of national import, a desperate effort to Rob Peter to Pay Paul. This move would have been deemed populist, at best, to the chagrin of taxpayers.
But where to from here? What next for the people on the waiting list whose lofty dream of living in a decent house with a hot shower and tap water has been taken away?
Proposed alternative
Alternatively, the Department of Human Settlements has decided to replace the RDP programme with the system of providing serviced lots a subsidised fee to people, who drawn from categories with different financial means. This group includes both people who are destitute and others who could neither qualify for an RDP house nor meet the bare minimum to qualify for a home mortgage required by commercial banks.
Notwithstanding loopholes in the RDP system, which saw some in the latter category and some black middle class individuals greedily getting houses they did not deserve, the destitute, who cannot afford three meals a day, genuinely need assistance. And it would be inconceivable to expect them to build a house for themselves, let alone afford to buy subsided serviced land even at the lowest knockdown price. Some of them cannot consistently pay their landlords rental for the shacks they call home in densely populated informal settlements where they live.
The dilemma
Evidently, government is thrust in a spot of bother, with the dilemma of fulfilling the obligation of performing the social duty of helping poor households, on the one hand, and ensuring frugal management of overstretched public kitty, on the other. The Constitution stipulates that everybody has a right to adequate housing, but nowhere does it oblige government to provide to people at its own expense.
To all intents and purposes, the expectations of people who are affected by the housing crisis cannot be managed by promising to throw money, which is not there in the first place, at the problem they face. So, the Department of Human Resources’ decision was a very brave one. It is the new reality – harsh as it may be. In recent years, some economists and political commentators have faulted government for promising people free things, warning about the danger of unwittingly creating the world’s biggest Welfare State.
A sustainable solution
However, there is no need for dithering on debates. A sustainable solution has to be sought. And fast at that.
It is not a coincidence that the majority who do not participate in sustainable economic activities to manage a standard lifestyle expected of citizens in post-1994 South Africa, also don’t have access or cannot afford decent housing. Logically, the answer lies in building an enterprising human capital to ensure citizens have skills to participate in economic activities, in addition to formally recognising and supporting informal businesses, which provide majority in informal settlements a livelihood. Ultimately, with access to disposable income, increasingly, people will afford to buy serviced land and build their own homes. There should be no illusion that this can be addressed by the approach of a miracle-performing charlatan prosperity gospel pastor or a crowd-pulling populist politician promising the moon aiming to amass support from gullible voters at the ballot. Instead, it is nothing but through action.
