Cllr Marga Haywood addressed residents at last night's AGM with reference to her own journey through a few linked events, namely the announcement by the Mayor re house subsidiaries, an email stalker, an European trip with tourists from welfare orientated countries, the London riots and the gunman of Norway. She referred to the latest newsletter from Mayor Patricia de Lille, and confirmed her commitment to serving this community, as any other.
Cape Town This Week: A weekly newsletter by the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Alderman Patricia de Lille
With opportunity comes responsibility
12 AUGUST 2011
Many of us have been watching the events in London and other parts of the United Kingdom over the past week with great interest and some dismay. It is not usual to see scenes of sustained riots and violence in one of the world’s great metropolises.
Furthermore, when one is in city government, there is a particular interest in understanding the dynamics of urban violence and alleged protests, wherever they may occur.
Because of their unusual nature, many of us have been left asking questions about the London riots. What caused them to occur? What motivated the mostly young people to take to the streets? What lessons should other cities learn from London?
These are all cogent questions which cities must ask themselves, especially in the light of the fact that, in global relative terms, London is very wealthy. It is well-serviced with community and social resources, thus lacking many of the more obvious triggers for social violence that are present in largely developing cities.
Some commentators have postulated that the protests speak to greater forces of social marginalisation; that the supposedly disaffected poor were finding a means to express themselves in a society that had supposedly forgotten them.
I disagree with this analysis. There is a sociological force at work here but it is not the theory of activating for social justice, a theory which, when superficially applied, fundamentally misunderstands deeper social trajectories in action.
I believe that the protests in London are the consequence of an over-saturation of state assistance without responsibility. Furthermore, of opportunities lost by individuals who chose not to use them.
Let us consider certain realities of the protestors. First, they were mostly young people, indeed, some of whom were professionals and had tertiary-level qualifications. Second, these young people engaged in looting of certain high-end goods. Third, they engaged in wanton destruction that did not discriminate large businesses from smaller ones, some of which were owned by poorer immigrants looking for a better life. Fourth, they had no leadership or plan of action. Fifth, they had no agenda or set of demands.
Before people quickly start to make comparisons to the large youthful contingents that overthrew dictators in places like Tunisia and Egypt, let us consider some other social realities.
The United Kingdom constructed one of the largest social welfare states after the Second World War, which increased and became more complex over several decades. That system still remains relatively large and comprehensive even when you factor in the recent economic recession and social spending cuts.
To be poor in Britain means: having access to council housing; having access to welfare; fully subsidised healthcare; subsidised education; social grants; having access to democratic processes and the law; and a range of other social protections.
In relative terms, these are not the conditions facing the disaffected poor in most other locales.
At its core, what the state in the United Kingdom provides is a saturated environment of opportunities.
But the provision of opportunities works two ways: an individual gets a range of mechanisms to help them realise their full potential. The onus is then on the individual to make full use of those opportunities.
Anything else is passive reception of the goods of the state, a maximal dependency that suggests an individual cannot do anything for themselves. More worryingly, when their criminal actions are explained away by ill-examined social platitudes, there is the suggestion that an individual should not do anything for themselves.
This speaks to the heart of the kind of compact we are trying to forge in Cape Town, where this administration is working to build the open, opportunity society for all.
Given our resource constraints, we can only dream of providing such a safety net, but we do much already to assist those most in need of help.
We are doing that by focusing our resources and governance on five key pillars of delivery: the safe city; the opportunity city; the caring city; the inclusive city, and the efficient city.
What we aim to do is roll-back the frontiers of poverty by creating the economic enabling environment in which investment can grow and jobs can be created.
We are doing so through a range of interventions; not least in investing in infrastructure and services, providing resources to safety provision, and activating the Economic Development Agency (EDA) to facilitate the maximisation of our potential.
Furthermore, we will cross-subsidise the poor of this city as much as we can to give direct help to those who need it most.
Every day, this government, and those who work for it, work to make a great city even greater and deliver on our mandate to deliver to all the citizens of Cape Town and make this city one in which individuals can thrive and grow.
We are working to make Cape Town a city of individual opportunity.
But government cannot do everything. We cannot force people to take advantage of the opportunities provided to them. We cannot force them to be responsible actors that see opportunity and take it.
That requires a compact and the tacit understanding that, as government, we do what we can to provide and present individuals with a range of opportunities. It is up to the individuals then to use the tools of the environment created.
There is a moment when societies must decide how they move forward into the future. On the one hand, the road is travelled by government as the dominant actor, which leads a largely dependent citizenry.
On the other hand, there is the better option of moving forward as dynamic partners that realise that we make the future together.
When we fought the struggle for our democracy, we fought for human dignity. That dignity belongs to each individual and it should never be taken from them. But to maintain that dignity and advance it is ultimately the responsibility of each individual.
End
Issued by: Communication Department, City of Cape Town
Media enquiries: Solly Malatsi, Spokesperson for the Executive Mayor of Cape Town, Patricia de Lille, Tel: 021 400 1382 or Cell: 083 943 1449, E-mail: Solly.Malatsi@capetown.gov.za
No comments:
Post a Comment