An Afrocentric approach to spatial planning: a myth or a potential reality?
> Tony Williams
Africa, this huge continent of ours, has for centuries experienced a mass of violation and abuse. Its resources and its people are no strangers to devastation, deprivation, tension and all manner of strife and deep mischief. Slavery deprived this continent of an important resource: who could possibly calculate the potential of those countless souls that perished on the vast oceans and in strange lands. Colonialism imposed values that greedily manipulated existing social and economic systems in the name of progress and constructed new ones, primarily through the statute books, to plunder all potential that could be extracted from this land: an elitism that parasitically nurtured its own interest, even if this meant the demise of human life, or at the very least reduced or removed any and all dignity Families in varying states of disintegration as wave upon wave of brutal enforcement of foreign ideology found its mark on the resident human psyche. The intense betrayal of one's own government as liberty and rights gave way to imprisonment and torture in the vain attempt to hold on to power and with this perpetuate the insatiable lust and allure of consumerism and comfort. Africa, a land that is no
Ubuntu is a dynamic concept and sadly it is little understood, let alone appreciated, particularly by those whose view of life is immersed in the prescripts of the modernistic paradigm, which includes a reliance on a reality derived from claimed rationalisation and empiricism.
stranger to the taste of its own blood, its own tears and foreboding darkness, stemming from a calculated poverty of mind and body, that in turn becomes a virtual prison, an ideal and fertile ground for nurturing anger and resentment; the poison needed for the infection of not only a current generation, but new generations as well. Apartheid and its onslaught on human dignity, territory and life: whose consequences are both temporal and permanent: a constant state of tension that continues to exist to this day! Many of those living in Africa have paid a huge price for their existence and regrettably in many instances continue to do so. Yet despite this reality there is ‘something' very special and precious that originates out of Africa, in spite of all the tragedy embodied and deliberately alluded to in the narrative above. Perhaps because of it, the endearing quality takes on a new lustre. This ‘something' desperately needs to be recognised, systematically nurtured and preserved for all generations to come. The essence of African culture is that ‘something'! In the past it was vilified and portrayed as something inherently evil, and yet despite all these attempts through centuries of foreign and even domestic governance or even in the name of Christianity, it has not only survived, but also developed. At the very heart of African culture is the concept of ‘Ubuntu'. ‘I am because you are!'
Ubuntu recognises the intrinsic value of social connectedness and its multiple advantages. Our very existence hinges on relationship, not to exploit, but to nurture. ‘Motho ke motho ka batho' meaning 'a person is a person through other persons' is the basis of African communalism. Antjie Krog (2011) views Ubuntu as an ability to see every person as interconnected with you .
There is no doubt that spatial planning contributed to the inequalities of the past and now it is left with a responsibility to assist in overcoming such.
Humanity is a collective whole rather than a set of free individuals. In order for you to become fully humane, you need me, but I also need you for my full humanness. Relationship is mutually beneficial. Relationship is the essence of survival. Social relationship is the precursor to the economic. Social order, built on the premise of Ubuntu is the cornerstone of African civilisation. Ubuntu is a dynamic concept and sadly it is little understood, let alone appreciated, particularly by those whose view of life is immersed in the prescripts of the modernistic paradigm, which includes a reliance on a reality derived from claimed rationalisation and empiricism. The dominance of the individual prevails and persists in this same agenda. Selfishness is the antithesis of Ubuntu. Post modernism on the other hand, accepts the concept of multiple realities and it is in this context that Ubuntu finds a resonance, a comfortable acceptance and abode which enables it the potential to not only exist, but to also develop. Ubuntu embraces multiplicity and complexity which self-seeking individualistic pursuits can never fully understand, let alone achieve. Ubuntu embraces leadership. Ubuntu has an adaptive quality. As circumstances and people change, so do the issues and solutions. "Adaptive work consists of the learning required to address conflicts in the values that members of society hold and to use those conflicts both within self-criticism and being open to criticism by others. It requires accepting the bona fides and integrity of those who criticise you and at times questioning the comfortable assumptions and dogmas of your own history and of your own constituencies." (Xolela Mangcu: 2008: p133) ‘I am because you are'! Interconnectedness! My frame of reference is directly connected to yours and visa versa. Adaption can never be totally one sided. Where there is discord, interaction and consultation are essential in order to achieve a consensus, and that consensus is based on restoring both the collective and individual benefit. Collaboration is not only the cornerstone for consensus it is also a prerequisite for implementation and ultimately achieving enduring sustainability.
The potential stemming from the internalised use of the concept of Ubuntu is enormous, in fact staggering. If there is any doubt about the sincerity of the previous statement, then one need look no further than the Constitution and Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Ubuntu lies at the very heart of this country's constitution and was the basic premise for the TRC deliberations and processes. Some have claimed that the process of transition of this country from a fragmented, deeply divided and unequal society to one embracing a developmental democratic one has been nothing short of miraculous. Whilst there is a long way to go and many, many challenges to face, whatever progress there has been is in no small measure due to the application of African (Ubuntu) philosophy, a very special African concept which tangibly contributes to a life of quality. This quality is perhaps best encapsulated in the form of our very own past president, Nelson Mandela. Surely if the Ubuntu qualities are to be found within, or identified with this eminent person then one needs to take careful note: surely such attributes enabled and empowered this great man to deal with every agonising moment of his burden for the people of this land, both in captivity and freedom.
One may argue that the concept of Ubuntu, as well as the adherence to the principles arising from this, in no small measure contributed to the greatness and uniqueness of the man. Ubuntu therefore has considerable potential and yet it appears it is not widely broadcast as such. In everyday language it appears to be referred to in subdued tones, generating little excitement, sometimes even a faint measure of embarrassment is attached to its reference. Perhaps for some, this concept represents another order or reference point in time, a time that is passing. If this is in any way true, then a sad day is indeed dawning, for then Africa will be losing one of its most potentially dynamic and important attributes/ characteristics. This must never be allowed to happen. Africa, more especially South Africa, has something that it must be extremely jealous of, and that is this precious ‘commodity' referred to as Ubuntu. Over time this may prove to be the most significant export we will ever have!
Ubuntu and its focus on interconnectedness is the heart and pulse of genuine, unadulterated African culture. It is in most instances a far cry from the Eurocentric values that have shaped spatial planning theory and practice in this country. Yes, spatial planning has been influenced by culture, primarily the culture and values of the ‘north'. This Eurocentric or ‘northern' approach has embedded those values that stem from or are closely associated with the modernistic paradigm. At its very core is the concept of individualism and with this directly and indirectly, exclusivity. This in turn has a particular meaning/ interpretation in the context of rights! Protectionism becomes the new undercurrent, waiting to defend. Attached to this idea of modernity is the idea/concept of rationality and empiricism Reality can only be established in the context of rational deduction. There is and can only be one reality! In the South African context spatial planning was ‘rationalised' (manipulated and contrived) even further. It was used to give expression and shape to the grand apartheid strategy, the legacy of which raises huge challenges, not the least of which are overcoming social injustice and inequality.
Within the context of local government, the planning environment evolved into a bureaucratic structure, and at its very heart, power and hence position was developed and maintained through, primarily the instruments of development control.
The modernistic era also saw the spectacular rise of specialisation and with this the formulation of many new languages and processes, many of which became ‘islands' (professions) of knowledge far removed from the ordinary man/ woman trying to enter into and sustain a livelihood. The language of the ‘islands' is not the language of the ‘mainland', comprising a multiplicity of cultures and languages. These ‘islands' have become specialised services which in turn have become more and more unaffordable (inaccessible) to the everyday citizen. The problem however is that it has been these specialists that have introduced systems (managerial, governmental, etc.) that only they understand, as well as at the same time, claiming the almost sole right to determine what may or may not be acceptable.
The professions became prescriptive, ever supported by the volumes of rationalised outcomes from ever increasing internal and external (to the profession) data bases. Planning as an activity has followed the same path. Spatial planning as an activity, has for years prescribed the form and shape of development. At the core of these prescriptions are the fundamental modernistic values enshrined in law, brought about by those in a dominant culture or expert mind set. In this context the term ‘dominant' refers to those with the access to skills, resources and power. Within the context of local government, the planning environment evolved into a bureaucratic structure, and at its very heart, power and hence position was developed and maintained through, primarily the instruments of development control.
The Town Planning Scheme with its provisions regarding use, density, height, coverage, floor space index or ratio, building lines, together with a host of clauses dealing with an array of planning related issues is the real power base of spatial planning. All of this amounts to a packageof rights. Whilst these rights are attached to registered pieces of land, they are significant in that they offer some really tangible advantages, especially to the wealthy. This is hardly surprising as the concept of land use rights has its origins in the 1920's with the now famous Euclid vs. Amber judgement in the United States.
These rights were initially put in place to protect wealthy landowners from the intrusion of what they would consider undesirable development. After all, the basic aim was to protect investment. Spatial planning, or as it was known in those days town planning, over time latched onto this concept and developed an array of land use zones to be spatially arranged, it is claimed, in such a way as to promote and protect public interest, safety, health and welfare. Space became compartmentalised into a neat and sanitised array of configurations referred to as designs or layouts. Development was thus summarily controlled and for the most part, the ‘expert' professional (‘island') became the custodian and watchdog of what determined and hence constituted an appropriate development option/ response.
The ordinary privileged citizen in reality very much gave up interacting in the discourse concerning these development processes, and if he/ she did interact then it was predominantly to protect personal interest. This is not surprising! Modernity promoted individualism, private property and the free market system. The promotion of the Protestant work ethic added to the credibility of such an agenda. The planning project embraced and promoted these ideals. For the wealthy, such a state of affairs is predictably encouraged. In fact governance was expected to uphold and maintain the rights of the privileged. Anything short of this expectation was severely frowned upon.
This too speaks of the drive and influence of a particular culture: a modern culture, a northern culture. In the context of South Africa, for many decades: a ‘white' culture: a strange blend of for the most part, British, European and Afrikaaner, resident and migrant. In a sense a ‘monoculture' although in reality, this is perhaps a little too generous in its inclusionary context. Suffice to say that spatial planning as a discipline was, and perhaps still is, deeply immersed in values that had little or nothing in common with Africa and its rich and diverse array of indigenous culture and the central themes of humanity and interconnectedness. In the then prevailing apartheid ethos there was no need or compulsion for such attention.
Not only is spatial planning far removed from a specific culture, it has also become desensitised to the specific human connection, in that it has become more obsessed with the quantitative and less with the qualitative. At a National Planning Commission (NPC) sponsored workshop held in May 2011 in Johannesburg to embrace the topic of envisaging the South African city in 2025 the language used was predominantly quantitative. There was no, so to speak, ‘woman and child', it was simply one statistic after another! One technicality after another! It was for all intense and purposes the dialogue of modernism, devoid of the notion of interconnectedness, not to mention a sensitivity one would normally expect when one is ultimately dealing with humanity and its future as a collective.
Enter 1994 and with it, there emerges, a distinct and complete change of governance. 1996 witnessed the birth of a new Constitution in which all who are engaged in the affairs of state are required to promote first and second generation rights equally for all. There is a huge twist in the tail: the majority of the people (citizens) of this land, who spent centuries, under often time's brutal subjugation, are now in control, and secondly, what persists of their culture (it important to bear in mind the attempts of the colonial and apartheid periods where traditional culture was systematically vilified) provides the basis of a new rationality, an African rationality. Such rationality is encased and embedded in culture, context, experience and flowing both within and out of this, ubuntu. The transformation project that arises out of all of this remains high on the agenda.
The transformation of South African society is the challenge that faces spatial planning. There is no doubt that spatial planning contributed to the inequalities of the past and now it is left with a responsibility to assist in overcoming such. One key to overcoming this lies in the realisation of the fact that the apartheid agenda was the imposition of a privileged self-centred, exploitive monologue. Ubuntu requires a multi-layered, person centred dialogue, an engagement that resolutely listens with respect and fearlessly embraces the formulation of a genuine collective response. At its heart, is the need to identify, develop and seriously apply a set of values that embraces our collective embeddedness and hence dependency, for that must surely be what our common future demands.
It will not necessarily be what the city looks like, but rather what its citizens believe and perceive to be their realisable future; or will it be for so many, survival, and if so, is this acceptable? Either way, it must always be what people think and how they act on what they think. The cultural underpinning will play an important role. Is the form of the city shaping people or are people shaping the city form? Is the market shaping the city, bearing in mind that this market only satisfies those that can afford the limits set by the market? Put another way the market is exclusionary!
Does zoning shape the city or is it more of a question of design (layout) and zoning? Initially use and design must play a crucial role, but in the context of moving forward through time, it is suggested that use and design give way such that zoning plays the dominant role because zoning is bound in legalism. Zoning legitimises use: it entrenches it. Who's zoning and who's legal system? Just what segment of the population is able to identify with and claim ownership in this regard? What of the emerging concept of common pool resources (CPR), where land, water and air, to name a few, are the concern of everyone? How does this concern, not to mention the others mentioned, resonate with the poor who are the vast majority of our citizens? To continue on a growth path that unquestionably pursues the values of individualism, extravagant consumerism (need versus want) and with this environmental degradation on a scale never before experienced is tantamount to suicide. Yes the other victim of our insatiable thirst, brought
Suffice to say that spatial planning as a discipline was, and perhaps still is, deeply immersed in values that had little or nothing in common with Africa and its rich and diverse array of indigenous culture and the central themes of humanity and interconnectedness.
about by the modernistic ethos, is the very environment that underpins all of existence! Spatial planning underpinned by existing modernistic values has contributed to the potential demise we all face and also whilst wedded to a legal system that compounds the problem, there is little hope of reprieve. One cannot but wonder where the Constitution is in all of this: rights? Is it any wonder that the legitimacy of spatial planning as an activity is questioned, sometimes even avoided? The Eastern Cape is no stranger to such possibilities; informal activities?
Africa has had more than its fair share of turmoil and heartache and yet the silver lining, or perhaps the pot of gold that is supposedly at the end of the rainbow that is used to describe our nation, is Ubuntu. It is an historic fact that conflict has arisen in those instances where the development agenda has favoured the few (elite). Put another way, where development as well as the maintenance thereof is confined to the interests of a specific social domain or segment of the population, the threat of upheaval is compounded.
A rapidly becoming feature of the South African landscape is service delivery conflict: stones, rubber bullets, fire, house burning, infrastructure decimation etc. Are these not the outcomes of distortion stemming from amongst other things, spatial planning's preoccupation with the elite 10 - 20% of the population? The values attached to Ubuntu provide an alternative way of thinking for the planning profession; but not for the majority of the people that make up this country. For this same majority, ubuntu is the cornerstone of communication and hence stability. Ubuntu was a powerful instrument in overcoming the legacy of the past: can this same ethos not assist in a dynamic and powerful way to help us realise our future?
Reference
Adesamni Pius: You're not a country, Africa: Penguin Books: 2011
Anseeuw Ward & Chris Alden: The struggle over land in Africa: HSRC Press: 2010
Baker S.: Sustainable development: Routledge: 2006
Bekker J.C. et al: Introduction to legal pluralism in South Africa: Lexisnexis: 2007
Bennett T.W: Customary law in South Africa: Juta: 2004
Davids Ismail et al: Participatory development in South Africa: Van Schaik: 2009
Devenish G.E: The South African Constitution: Lexisnexis: 2005
Du Toit & Doxtader (Editors): In the balance: South Africans debate reconciliation: Jacana Media: 2010
Ellis S.: Seasons of rains: Africa in the world: Jacana Media: 2011
Grobler & Schenk: People centred facilitation: Process, theory & practice: Oxford University Press: 2009
Harrison et al: Planning and transformation: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2007
Healy P.: Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies: Palgrave Macmillan: 2010
Holland H.: African Magic: Traditional ideas that heal a continent: Penguin Books: 2005
Holomisa P. (Nkosi): According to tradition: a cultural perspective on current affairs: Essential Books: 2009
Holomisa P. (Nkosi): A double edged sword: a quest for a place in the African sun: Real African Publishers: 2011
Innes J. & Booher D.: Planning with complexity: Routledge: 2010
Keulder C: Traditional leaders and local government in Africa: Lessons for South Africa: HSRC: 1998
Krog A.: Begging to be black: Random House: 2009
Makgoba M. (Editor): African Renaissance: the new struggle: Mafube & Tafelberg Publishers: 1999
Mangcu X.: To the brink: the state of democracy in South Africa: University of Kwa Zulu Natal Press: 2008
Mashele P.: The death of our society: CPR Press:2011
Mbeki M.: Advocates for change: how to overcome Africa's challenges: Picador Africa: 2011
: Architects of poverty: Picador Africa: 2009
Mtuze P.: Introduction to Xhosa culture: Lovedale Press: 2004
Ntsebeza L.: Democracy compromised: Chiefs and the politics of land in SA: HSRC Press: 2002
Peires J.: The dead will arise: Nongqawuse and the great Xhosa cattle killing: Jonathan Ball: 2003
: The House of Phalo: a history of the Xhosa people in the days of their independence: Jonathan Ball: 1981
Reeder M.: A sangoma story: the calling of Elliot Ndlovu: Penguins Books: 2011
Sen A.: Development as freedom: Oxford University Press: 1999
Sparks A. & Tutu M.: Tutu the authorised portrait: PQ Blackwell Ltd.:2011
Stubbs A. (Editor): I write what I like (Biko): Picador Africa: 2004
Terreblanche S.: A history of inequality in SA 1652-2002: University of Natal Press: 2005
Van Donk, Swilling et al: Consolidating developmental local government: lessons from SA: UCT Press: 2008
Visser M: Contextualising community psychology in SA: Van Schaik: 2009
Webster A.: Introduction to the sociology development: Palgrave: 1990
Willis K.: Theories and practices of development: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2005
Africa, this huge continent of ours, has for centuries experienced a mass of violation and abuse. Its resources and its people are no strangers to devastation, deprivation, tension and all manner of strife and deep mischief. Slavery deprived this continent of an important resource: who could possibly calculate the potential of those countless souls that perished on the vast oceans and in strange lands. Colonialism imposed values that greedily manipulated existing social and economic systems in the name of progress and constructed new ones, primarily through the statute books, to plunder all potential that could be extracted from this land: an elitism that parasitically nurtured its own interest, even if this meant the demise of human life, or at the very least reduced or removed any and all dignity Families in varying states of disintegration as wave upon wave of brutal enforcement of foreign ideology found its mark on the resident human psyche. The intense betrayal of one's own government as liberty and rights gave way to imprisonment and torture in the vain attempt to hold on to power and with this perpetuate the insatiable lust and allure of consumerism and comfort. Africa, a land that is no
Ubuntu is a dynamic concept and sadly it is little understood, let alone appreciated, particularly by those whose view of life is immersed in the prescripts of the modernistic paradigm, which includes a reliance on a reality derived from claimed rationalisation and empiricism.
stranger to the taste of its own blood, its own tears and foreboding darkness, stemming from a calculated poverty of mind and body, that in turn becomes a virtual prison, an ideal and fertile ground for nurturing anger and resentment; the poison needed for the infection of not only a current generation, but new generations as well. Apartheid and its onslaught on human dignity, territory and life: whose consequences are both temporal and permanent: a constant state of tension that continues to exist to this day! Many of those living in Africa have paid a huge price for their existence and regrettably in many instances continue to do so. Yet despite this reality there is ‘something' very special and precious that originates out of Africa, in spite of all the tragedy embodied and deliberately alluded to in the narrative above. Perhaps because of it, the endearing quality takes on a new lustre. This ‘something' desperately needs to be recognised, systematically nurtured and preserved for all generations to come. The essence of African culture is that ‘something'! In the past it was vilified and portrayed as something inherently evil, and yet despite all these attempts through centuries of foreign and even domestic governance or even in the name of Christianity, it has not only survived, but also developed. At the very heart of African culture is the concept of ‘Ubuntu'. ‘I am because you are!'
Ubuntu recognises the intrinsic value of social connectedness and its multiple advantages. Our very existence hinges on relationship, not to exploit, but to nurture. ‘Motho ke motho ka batho' meaning 'a person is a person through other persons' is the basis of African communalism. Antjie Krog (2011) views Ubuntu as an ability to see every person as interconnected with you .
There is no doubt that spatial planning contributed to the inequalities of the past and now it is left with a responsibility to assist in overcoming such.
Humanity is a collective whole rather than a set of free individuals. In order for you to become fully humane, you need me, but I also need you for my full humanness. Relationship is mutually beneficial. Relationship is the essence of survival. Social relationship is the precursor to the economic. Social order, built on the premise of Ubuntu is the cornerstone of African civilisation. Ubuntu is a dynamic concept and sadly it is little understood, let alone appreciated, particularly by those whose view of life is immersed in the prescripts of the modernistic paradigm, which includes a reliance on a reality derived from claimed rationalisation and empiricism. The dominance of the individual prevails and persists in this same agenda. Selfishness is the antithesis of Ubuntu. Post modernism on the other hand, accepts the concept of multiple realities and it is in this context that Ubuntu finds a resonance, a comfortable acceptance and abode which enables it the potential to not only exist, but to also develop. Ubuntu embraces multiplicity and complexity which self-seeking individualistic pursuits can never fully understand, let alone achieve. Ubuntu embraces leadership. Ubuntu has an adaptive quality. As circumstances and people change, so do the issues and solutions. "Adaptive work consists of the learning required to address conflicts in the values that members of society hold and to use those conflicts both within self-criticism and being open to criticism by others. It requires accepting the bona fides and integrity of those who criticise you and at times questioning the comfortable assumptions and dogmas of your own history and of your own constituencies." (Xolela Mangcu: 2008: p133) ‘I am because you are'! Interconnectedness! My frame of reference is directly connected to yours and visa versa. Adaption can never be totally one sided. Where there is discord, interaction and consultation are essential in order to achieve a consensus, and that consensus is based on restoring both the collective and individual benefit. Collaboration is not only the cornerstone for consensus it is also a prerequisite for implementation and ultimately achieving enduring sustainability.
The potential stemming from the internalised use of the concept of Ubuntu is enormous, in fact staggering. If there is any doubt about the sincerity of the previous statement, then one need look no further than the Constitution and Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Ubuntu lies at the very heart of this country's constitution and was the basic premise for the TRC deliberations and processes. Some have claimed that the process of transition of this country from a fragmented, deeply divided and unequal society to one embracing a developmental democratic one has been nothing short of miraculous. Whilst there is a long way to go and many, many challenges to face, whatever progress there has been is in no small measure due to the application of African (Ubuntu) philosophy, a very special African concept which tangibly contributes to a life of quality. This quality is perhaps best encapsulated in the form of our very own past president, Nelson Mandela. Surely if the Ubuntu qualities are to be found within, or identified with this eminent person then one needs to take careful note: surely such attributes enabled and empowered this great man to deal with every agonising moment of his burden for the people of this land, both in captivity and freedom.
One may argue that the concept of Ubuntu, as well as the adherence to the principles arising from this, in no small measure contributed to the greatness and uniqueness of the man. Ubuntu therefore has considerable potential and yet it appears it is not widely broadcast as such. In everyday language it appears to be referred to in subdued tones, generating little excitement, sometimes even a faint measure of embarrassment is attached to its reference. Perhaps for some, this concept represents another order or reference point in time, a time that is passing. If this is in any way true, then a sad day is indeed dawning, for then Africa will be losing one of its most potentially dynamic and important attributes/ characteristics. This must never be allowed to happen. Africa, more especially South Africa, has something that it must be extremely jealous of, and that is this precious ‘commodity' referred to as Ubuntu. Over time this may prove to be the most significant export we will ever have!
Ubuntu and its focus on interconnectedness is the heart and pulse of genuine, unadulterated African culture. It is in most instances a far cry from the Eurocentric values that have shaped spatial planning theory and practice in this country. Yes, spatial planning has been influenced by culture, primarily the culture and values of the ‘north'. This Eurocentric or ‘northern' approach has embedded those values that stem from or are closely associated with the modernistic paradigm. At its very core is the concept of individualism and with this directly and indirectly, exclusivity. This in turn has a particular meaning/ interpretation in the context of rights! Protectionism becomes the new undercurrent, waiting to defend. Attached to this idea of modernity is the idea/concept of rationality and empiricism Reality can only be established in the context of rational deduction. There is and can only be one reality! In the South African context spatial planning was ‘rationalised' (manipulated and contrived) even further. It was used to give expression and shape to the grand apartheid strategy, the legacy of which raises huge challenges, not the least of which are overcoming social injustice and inequality.
Within the context of local government, the planning environment evolved into a bureaucratic structure, and at its very heart, power and hence position was developed and maintained through, primarily the instruments of development control.
The modernistic era also saw the spectacular rise of specialisation and with this the formulation of many new languages and processes, many of which became ‘islands' (professions) of knowledge far removed from the ordinary man/ woman trying to enter into and sustain a livelihood. The language of the ‘islands' is not the language of the ‘mainland', comprising a multiplicity of cultures and languages. These ‘islands' have become specialised services which in turn have become more and more unaffordable (inaccessible) to the everyday citizen. The problem however is that it has been these specialists that have introduced systems (managerial, governmental, etc.) that only they understand, as well as at the same time, claiming the almost sole right to determine what may or may not be acceptable.
The professions became prescriptive, ever supported by the volumes of rationalised outcomes from ever increasing internal and external (to the profession) data bases. Planning as an activity has followed the same path. Spatial planning as an activity, has for years prescribed the form and shape of development. At the core of these prescriptions are the fundamental modernistic values enshrined in law, brought about by those in a dominant culture or expert mind set. In this context the term ‘dominant' refers to those with the access to skills, resources and power. Within the context of local government, the planning environment evolved into a bureaucratic structure, and at its very heart, power and hence position was developed and maintained through, primarily the instruments of development control.
The Town Planning Scheme with its provisions regarding use, density, height, coverage, floor space index or ratio, building lines, together with a host of clauses dealing with an array of planning related issues is the real power base of spatial planning. All of this amounts to a packageof rights. Whilst these rights are attached to registered pieces of land, they are significant in that they offer some really tangible advantages, especially to the wealthy. This is hardly surprising as the concept of land use rights has its origins in the 1920's with the now famous Euclid vs. Amber judgement in the United States.
These rights were initially put in place to protect wealthy landowners from the intrusion of what they would consider undesirable development. After all, the basic aim was to protect investment. Spatial planning, or as it was known in those days town planning, over time latched onto this concept and developed an array of land use zones to be spatially arranged, it is claimed, in such a way as to promote and protect public interest, safety, health and welfare. Space became compartmentalised into a neat and sanitised array of configurations referred to as designs or layouts. Development was thus summarily controlled and for the most part, the ‘expert' professional (‘island') became the custodian and watchdog of what determined and hence constituted an appropriate development option/ response.
The ordinary privileged citizen in reality very much gave up interacting in the discourse concerning these development processes, and if he/ she did interact then it was predominantly to protect personal interest. This is not surprising! Modernity promoted individualism, private property and the free market system. The promotion of the Protestant work ethic added to the credibility of such an agenda. The planning project embraced and promoted these ideals. For the wealthy, such a state of affairs is predictably encouraged. In fact governance was expected to uphold and maintain the rights of the privileged. Anything short of this expectation was severely frowned upon.
This too speaks of the drive and influence of a particular culture: a modern culture, a northern culture. In the context of South Africa, for many decades: a ‘white' culture: a strange blend of for the most part, British, European and Afrikaaner, resident and migrant. In a sense a ‘monoculture' although in reality, this is perhaps a little too generous in its inclusionary context. Suffice to say that spatial planning as a discipline was, and perhaps still is, deeply immersed in values that had little or nothing in common with Africa and its rich and diverse array of indigenous culture and the central themes of humanity and interconnectedness. In the then prevailing apartheid ethos there was no need or compulsion for such attention.
Not only is spatial planning far removed from a specific culture, it has also become desensitised to the specific human connection, in that it has become more obsessed with the quantitative and less with the qualitative. At a National Planning Commission (NPC) sponsored workshop held in May 2011 in Johannesburg to embrace the topic of envisaging the South African city in 2025 the language used was predominantly quantitative. There was no, so to speak, ‘woman and child', it was simply one statistic after another! One technicality after another! It was for all intense and purposes the dialogue of modernism, devoid of the notion of interconnectedness, not to mention a sensitivity one would normally expect when one is ultimately dealing with humanity and its future as a collective.
Enter 1994 and with it, there emerges, a distinct and complete change of governance. 1996 witnessed the birth of a new Constitution in which all who are engaged in the affairs of state are required to promote first and second generation rights equally for all. There is a huge twist in the tail: the majority of the people (citizens) of this land, who spent centuries, under often time's brutal subjugation, are now in control, and secondly, what persists of their culture (it important to bear in mind the attempts of the colonial and apartheid periods where traditional culture was systematically vilified) provides the basis of a new rationality, an African rationality. Such rationality is encased and embedded in culture, context, experience and flowing both within and out of this, ubuntu. The transformation project that arises out of all of this remains high on the agenda.
The transformation of South African society is the challenge that faces spatial planning. There is no doubt that spatial planning contributed to the inequalities of the past and now it is left with a responsibility to assist in overcoming such. One key to overcoming this lies in the realisation of the fact that the apartheid agenda was the imposition of a privileged self-centred, exploitive monologue. Ubuntu requires a multi-layered, person centred dialogue, an engagement that resolutely listens with respect and fearlessly embraces the formulation of a genuine collective response. At its heart, is the need to identify, develop and seriously apply a set of values that embraces our collective embeddedness and hence dependency, for that must surely be what our common future demands.
It will not necessarily be what the city looks like, but rather what its citizens believe and perceive to be their realisable future; or will it be for so many, survival, and if so, is this acceptable? Either way, it must always be what people think and how they act on what they think. The cultural underpinning will play an important role. Is the form of the city shaping people or are people shaping the city form? Is the market shaping the city, bearing in mind that this market only satisfies those that can afford the limits set by the market? Put another way the market is exclusionary!
Does zoning shape the city or is it more of a question of design (layout) and zoning? Initially use and design must play a crucial role, but in the context of moving forward through time, it is suggested that use and design give way such that zoning plays the dominant role because zoning is bound in legalism. Zoning legitimises use: it entrenches it. Who's zoning and who's legal system? Just what segment of the population is able to identify with and claim ownership in this regard? What of the emerging concept of common pool resources (CPR), where land, water and air, to name a few, are the concern of everyone? How does this concern, not to mention the others mentioned, resonate with the poor who are the vast majority of our citizens? To continue on a growth path that unquestionably pursues the values of individualism, extravagant consumerism (need versus want) and with this environmental degradation on a scale never before experienced is tantamount to suicide. Yes the other victim of our insatiable thirst, brought
Suffice to say that spatial planning as a discipline was, and perhaps still is, deeply immersed in values that had little or nothing in common with Africa and its rich and diverse array of indigenous culture and the central themes of humanity and interconnectedness.
about by the modernistic ethos, is the very environment that underpins all of existence! Spatial planning underpinned by existing modernistic values has contributed to the potential demise we all face and also whilst wedded to a legal system that compounds the problem, there is little hope of reprieve. One cannot but wonder where the Constitution is in all of this: rights? Is it any wonder that the legitimacy of spatial planning as an activity is questioned, sometimes even avoided? The Eastern Cape is no stranger to such possibilities; informal activities?
Africa has had more than its fair share of turmoil and heartache and yet the silver lining, or perhaps the pot of gold that is supposedly at the end of the rainbow that is used to describe our nation, is Ubuntu. It is an historic fact that conflict has arisen in those instances where the development agenda has favoured the few (elite). Put another way, where development as well as the maintenance thereof is confined to the interests of a specific social domain or segment of the population, the threat of upheaval is compounded.
A rapidly becoming feature of the South African landscape is service delivery conflict: stones, rubber bullets, fire, house burning, infrastructure decimation etc. Are these not the outcomes of distortion stemming from amongst other things, spatial planning's preoccupation with the elite 10 - 20% of the population? The values attached to Ubuntu provide an alternative way of thinking for the planning profession; but not for the majority of the people that make up this country. For this same majority, ubuntu is the cornerstone of communication and hence stability. Ubuntu was a powerful instrument in overcoming the legacy of the past: can this same ethos not assist in a dynamic and powerful way to help us realise our future?
Reference
Adesamni Pius: You're not a country, Africa: Penguin Books: 2011
Anseeuw Ward & Chris Alden: The struggle over land in Africa: HSRC Press: 2010
Baker S.: Sustainable development: Routledge: 2006
Bekker J.C. et al: Introduction to legal pluralism in South Africa: Lexisnexis: 2007
Bennett T.W: Customary law in South Africa: Juta: 2004
Davids Ismail et al: Participatory development in South Africa: Van Schaik: 2009
Devenish G.E: The South African Constitution: Lexisnexis: 2005
Du Toit & Doxtader (Editors): In the balance: South Africans debate reconciliation: Jacana Media: 2010
Ellis S.: Seasons of rains: Africa in the world: Jacana Media: 2011
Grobler & Schenk: People centred facilitation: Process, theory & practice: Oxford University Press: 2009
Harrison et al: Planning and transformation: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2007
Healy P.: Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies: Palgrave Macmillan: 2010
Holland H.: African Magic: Traditional ideas that heal a continent: Penguin Books: 2005
Holomisa P. (Nkosi): According to tradition: a cultural perspective on current affairs: Essential Books: 2009
Holomisa P. (Nkosi): A double edged sword: a quest for a place in the African sun: Real African Publishers: 2011
Innes J. & Booher D.: Planning with complexity: Routledge: 2010
Keulder C: Traditional leaders and local government in Africa: Lessons for South Africa: HSRC: 1998
Krog A.: Begging to be black: Random House: 2009
Makgoba M. (Editor): African Renaissance: the new struggle: Mafube & Tafelberg Publishers: 1999
Mangcu X.: To the brink: the state of democracy in South Africa: University of Kwa Zulu Natal Press: 2008
Mashele P.: The death of our society: CPR Press:2011
Mbeki M.: Advocates for change: how to overcome Africa's challenges: Picador Africa: 2011
: Architects of poverty: Picador Africa: 2009
Mtuze P.: Introduction to Xhosa culture: Lovedale Press: 2004
Ntsebeza L.: Democracy compromised: Chiefs and the politics of land in SA: HSRC Press: 2002
Peires J.: The dead will arise: Nongqawuse and the great Xhosa cattle killing: Jonathan Ball: 2003
: The House of Phalo: a history of the Xhosa people in the days of their independence: Jonathan Ball: 1981
Reeder M.: A sangoma story: the calling of Elliot Ndlovu: Penguins Books: 2011
Sen A.: Development as freedom: Oxford University Press: 1999
Sparks A. & Tutu M.: Tutu the authorised portrait: PQ Blackwell Ltd.:2011
Stubbs A. (Editor): I write what I like (Biko): Picador Africa: 2004
Terreblanche S.: A history of inequality in SA 1652-2002: University of Natal Press: 2005
Van Donk, Swilling et al: Consolidating developmental local government: lessons from SA: UCT Press: 2008
Visser M: Contextualising community psychology in SA: Van Schaik: 2009
Webster A.: Introduction to the sociology development: Palgrave: 1990
Willis K.: Theories and practices of development: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2005
