Mediation and the contradictions of representing the urban poor in South Africa: The case of SANCO leaders in Imizamo Yethu in Cape Town, South Africa.

The formal system of local governance in South Africa has the ‘ward’ as its lowest and smallest electoral level — a spatial unit consisting of between 5,000 and 15,000 voters. The ward is equivalent to the ‘constituency’ in much of the rest of the world. Notably, the history of South Africa means that the vast majority of people live in ‘communities’ or neighbourhoods that are far smaller in scale than the ward, and most of these are the site of multiple claims of informal leadership by a variety of local organisations and their leaders. For example, the Cape Town ward, in which our case study is located, includes at least five different communities, distinguished in racial and class terms

Party politics, the poor and the city: Reflections from the South African case

Local democracy and ‘spaces’ of citizenship and participation are at the core of much contemporary research focusing on cities (Barnett and Low, 2004). This is the case both for researchers interested in issues of urban governance and social and spatial justice, around for instance the notion of ‘right to the city’, and also for those focusing on urban social dynamics and local identities. This is because local citizenship can be an important dimension of such identities and group formation, and local identities can profoundly impact the lived experiences of citizenship. Local democracy indeed, while not necessarily equivalent to deeper democracy or greater justice at the more general level (Purcell, 2006), at least opens avenues for the engagement of urban residents in debates about their immediate environment, including on issues dealing with the distribution or design of urban goods (housing, services, access to space). Notably absent from the literature focusing on local democracies on cities, and maybe more especially in African contexts, is the importance of party politics in the construction of local debates and urban citizenship. This is the gap that this themed issue begins to address

Without the blanket of the land: agrarian change and biopolitics in post–Apartheid South Africa

This paper connects Marxist approaches to the agrarian political economy of South Africa with post-Marshallian and Foucauldian analyses of distributional regimes and late capitalist governmentality. Looking at South Africa’s stalled agrarian transition through the lens of biopolitics as well as class analysis can make visible otherwise disregarded connections between processes of agrarian change and broader contests about the terms of social and economic incorporation into the South African social and political order before, during and after Apartheid. This can bring a fresh sense of the broader political implications of the course of agrarian change in South Africa, and helps contextualise the enduring salience of land as a flashpoint within South Africa’s unresolved democratic transition

Why Is Co-management of Parks Not Working in Johannesburg?

Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ) has affirmed its strong redistributive objective in post-apartheid Johannesburg, with the rapid development of new urban parks in former black townships. However, its operational budgets have remained limited in the face of the many pressing housing and infrastructural needs. Many park users, especially in formerly white (and still middle-class) suburbs, have resorted to forms of neighbourhood or community management to compensate for JCPZ’s absence. JCPZ is attempting to rebuild its mandate with regards to these public spaces, developing various policy instruments in response to the involvement of park users in the management of urban parks, but also to formalise that involvement. This chapter traces the genealogy of these policy instruments in the making, caught between multiple logics where neo-liberal pressures and models, regular engagements with park users marked by contested legitimacies and racial tensions, and the broader municipal redistributive agenda shape the way in which the post-apartheid state redefines its mandate. The chapter argues that the specific social and racial configurations in which these partnerships are framed on the ground are used by municipal officials to resist transforming their own practices towards more participatory and democratic processes of co-production of parks. The chapter reflects on shifting state mandates in urban governance in contemporary cities of the South and analyses policy instruments crafted for the complex task of formalising and regulating state–society co-production of urban services in the field of park management

Multiculturalisme et apartheid : gouvernement urbain et représentation des groupes ethniques à Johanesburg (réflexions à partir de Los Angeles)

Bénit Claire. Multiculturalisme et apartheid : gouvernement urbain et représentation des groupes ethniques à Johanesburg (réflexions à partir de Los Angeles) . In: Quaderni, n°47, Printemps 2002. Le multiculturalisme en quête d'universalité ? pp. 101-117

Local officials and the struggle to transform cities.: A view from post-apartheid South Africa

International audienceWhy are even progressive local authorities with the ‘will to improve’ seldom able to change cities? Why does it seem almost impossible to redress spatial inequalities, deliver and maintain basic services, elevate impoverished areas and protect the marginalised communities? Why do municipalities in the Global South refuse to work with prevailing social informalities, and resort instead to interventions that are known to displace and aggravate the very issues they aim to address?Local Officials and the Struggle to Transform Cities analyses these challenges in South African cities, where the brief post-apartheid moment opened a window for progressive city government and made research into state practices both possible and necessary. In debate with other ‘progressive moments’ in large cities in Brazil, the USA and India, the book interrogates City officials’ practices. It considers the instruments they invent and negotiate to implement urban policies, the agency they develop and the constraints they navigate in governing unequal cities. This focus on actual officials’ practices is captured through first-hand experience, state ethnographies and engaged research. These reveal day-to-day practice that question generalised explanations of state failure in complex urban societies as essential malevolence, contextual weakness, corruption and inefficiency. It is hoped that opening the black box of the workings of state opens paths for the construction of progressive policies in contemporary cities

La difficile définition de la justice spatiale à Johannesburg. Un processus de démocratie participative

Claire Bénit. Spatial justice in post-apartheid Johannesburg Recent policies to reduce spatial segregation in the cities of South Africa are driven by two principles : equal access to municipal public services, and the participation of residents in the future of their communities. The negotiated creation of new districts between black townships and white residential areas in Johannesburg brings together these two principles in a practical manner. Participatory democracy does not always follow these projects.Deux principes animent les politiques récentes de réduction de la ségrégation spatiale dans les villes d'Afrique du Sud : l'égal accès aux services publics de l'agglomération, la participation des habitants au devenir de leur espace quotidien. La réalisation négociée des quartiers nouveaux entre townships noirs et résidences blanches à Johannesburg combine pratiquement ces deux principes. La démocratie participative ne suit pas toujours ces projets.Bénit Claire. La difficile définition de la justice spatiale à Johannesburg. Un processus de démocratie participative. In: Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, N°99, 2005. Intercommunalité et intérêt général. pp. 48-59

Why Is Co-management of Parks Not Working in Johannesburg?

Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (JCPZ) has affirmed its strong redistributive objective in post-apartheid Johannesburg, with the rapid development of new urban parks in former black townships. However, its operational budgets have remained limited in the face of the many pressing housing and infrastructural needs. Many park users, especially in formerly white (and still middle-class) suburbs, have resorted to forms of neighbourhood or community management to compensate for JCPZ’s absence. JCPZ is attempting to rebuild its mandate with regards to these public spaces, developing various policy instruments in response to the involvement of park users in the management of urban parks, but also to formalise that involvement. This chapter traces the genealogy of these policy instruments in the making, caught between multiple logics where neo-liberal pressures and models, regular engagements with park users marked by contested legitimacies and racial tensions, and the broader municipal redistributive agenda shape the way in which the post-apartheid state redefines its mandate. The chapter argues that the specific social and racial configurations in which these partnerships are framed on the ground are used by municipal officials to resist transforming their own practices towards more participatory and democratic processes of co-production of parks. The chapter reflects on shifting state mandates in urban governance in contemporary cities of the South and analyses policy instruments crafted for the complex task of formalising and regulating state–society co-production of urban services in the field of park management

Gouvernement urbain et production de la ségrégation : quelles leçons de la « ville d'apartheid » ? Une comparaison Johannesburg-Los Angeles

Urban Government and Production of Segregation, which Lesson from « Apartheid City » ? Claire BENIT The racialization and ethnicization of urban segregations can be considered a a second specifity. Numerous racial and ethnic differenciations of space were constructed, not only by institutional means, but also by the agregated dynamics of such constructed groups. These agregated dynamics are still active today, even if socio-ethnic segregation tends to replace ethnic segregation, and in spite of powerful post-apartheid forms of local government aimed at at fighting the institutional production of segregation. This paper questions the notion of the « apartheid » : what are its specificities, between the uniqueness of the apartheid system and the worldwide phenomenon of urban segregation ? A first specificity can be seen in the unicity of this explicit, voluntary ans systematic organization of urban segregation. However, through a comparison between Johannseburg and Los Angeles City, the author shows that is pointed through the common use of « apartheid city » is not so specific : the residential zonning through exclusionary urban planning, the fiscal disjunction between wealthy and improvershed spaces, the myth of separate societies as a means to implement an ambiguous local democracy, can also befound in a metropolis like Los Angeles.Gouvernement urbain et production de la ségrégation. Quelles leçons de la « ville d'apartheid » ? Claire BENIT L'article s'interroge sur la notion de « ville d'apartheid », forme exacerbée ou forme exceptionnelle de la ségrégation urbaine ? L'organisation volontariste et systématique de la ségrégation urbaine en constitue une première spécificité. Toutefois, à travers une comparaison entre les villes de Johannesburg et de Los Angeles, l'auteur montre que la notion de « ville d'apartheid », telle qu'elle est habituellement comprise et utilisés, n'est souvent que la radicalisation des phénomènes de ségrégation plus classiques ; le zonage résidentiel des groupes par des plans d'urbanisme exclusifs, la disjonction fiscale entre espaces déshérités et espaces favorisés, le mythe des sociétés séparées et des vertus d'une démocratie locale parfois ambiguë, tous ces mécanismes désignés pour dénoncer la « ville d'apartheid » semblent également à l'oeuvre dans une ville comme Los Angeles. La racialisation et l'ethnicisation des ségrégations résidentielles, plus poussées qu'ailleurs, constituent une deuxième spécificité de la « ville d'apartheid ». La démultiplication des différenciations raciales et ethniques des groupes et des espaces fut d'autant plus puissante qu'aux mécanismes de ségrégation institutionnelle souvent s'ajouter des effets d'agrégation des groupes ainsi construits. Ces effets semblent perdurer aujourd'hui alors même que l'on passe progressivement d'une ségrégation ethnique à une ségrégation socio-ethnique, et que les modes de gouvernement urbain mis en place depuis la fin de l'apartheid semblent donner les moyens d'une lutte contre la production institutionnelle des ségrégations urbaines.Gobierno urbano y producción de la segregación. ¿Que lecciones de la « ciudad de apartheid » ? Claire BENIT El presente articulo se interroga sobre la noción de « ciudad de apartheid » : ¿ forma exacerbada o forma excepcional de la segregación urbana ? La organización voluntaria y sistemática de la segregación constituye su primera especificidad. Sin embargo, comparando a Johannesburg y Los Ángeles, la autora muestra que la noción de « ciudad de apartheid », tal como se tiene costumbre de entenderla y utilizarla, es frecuentemente solo la radicalización de fenómenos de segregación mas clásicos : el « zoning » residencial de grupos por parte de pianos de urbanización exclusivos, la disociación fiscal entre espacios desamparados y espacios favorecidos, el mito de las sociedades separadas y de las virtudes de una democracia local ambigua, todos estos mecanismos definidos para denunciar a la « ciudad de apartheid » parecen igualmente en acción en una ciudad como Los Ángeles. La racialización y la etnitización de las segregaciones residenciales, llevadas mas lejos que en otras ciudades, constituyen una segunda especificidad de la « ciudad de apartheid ». Numerosas diferenciaciones raciales y étnicas entre grupos y entre espacios fueron construidas, no solo por los mecanismos institucionales pero también porque fenómenos de agregación vinieron a reforzarlas. Estos efectos parecen perdurar hoy, mientras se pasa progresivamente de una segregación étnica a una segregación socio-étnica, y que los modos de gobierno urbano que se están elaborando desde el fin del apartheid parecen producir instrumentas de lucha contra la producción institucional de segregaciones urbanas.Benit Claire. Gouvernement urbain et production de la ségrégation : quelles leçons de la « ville d'apartheid » ? Une comparaison Johannesburg-Los Angeles. In: Revue européenne des migrations internationales, vol. 14, n°1,1998. La ville déstabilisée ? Faits et représentations, sous la direction de Sophie Body-Gendrot et Michelle Guillon. pp. 159-192

Unpacking State Practices in City-Making,in Conversations with Ananya Roy

International audienceThis is a robust introduction to a special section of the Journal of Development Studies interrogating, theorising and illustrating "informal practices of the state" in the governance of cities of the South - here southern african cities in particular.The collection of papers originates in a reading group organised around the visit of Ananya Roy in the School of Architecture and Planning, at Wits University, in May 2013. Focused around the politics of informality and city-making, participants reflected on the echoes of Roy’s work with their ownresearch. All authors were interested in interrogating state power, its modalities and its effects in building Southern African cities.Papers in this collection have approached this shared interrogation in two different ways that can aptly be described as the governability of cities on the one hand, and the uses of governmentality in cities on the other. ‘Governability’ is a fuzzy but useful concept that refers both to the capacity of the state to steer society, and to the capacity or inclination of societies to comply or to resist being governed. Although the two are linked, we focus here on the first meaning (state’s ability to steer society), as we are attempting to direct an analytical gaze towards the state and its practices. ‘Governmentality’ on the other hand is a more classic, Foucauldian concept that we understand here as the ways in which governable subjects areproduced through the internalisation of urban policies’ dominant visions and norms. This introduction to the special issue of the journal, developed in conversations with Ananya Roy and her work, frames the papers’ engagements with these two concepts, and contributes to emerging debates on informal practices of the state