d “Sobreinterpretación” de la Constitución

There was a common view that opportunities were not distributed equally and that those who have a solid capital base such as a house or a strong network of support are able to utilize them to cope with changing circumstances. When it comes to evaluating their own conditions, most people tend to think of their condition as ‘Medium Poor’ in comparison with other people in the community. Although some individuals are appar- ently living in a worse situation than the rest of the community, judging from their tenure arrangements and general household conditions, they saw themselves as ‘not doing so badly’. They also gave examples of those worse off than themselves. The principle issues that were seen to differentiate them and the poor are that they have their labour and they do not beg. Other issues included having something to eat that day; being able to repay their debts, not steeling money and not being afraid of the police because they are not involved in informal-sector activities. People also compared them- selves to those who are better-off. A typical statement would be ‘... they did less physi- cal work, yet they are more comfortable than us, and most of them are corrupt and cheats’. Those who saw themselves as been extremely poor were either mostly depend- ent upon others because of their poor health, their age or their physical disabilities. Old

people and people with contagious diseases saw themselves as the poorest in the community.

The only poor person is the old person who, when people see him walking down the road they would say: ‘oh you’re still alive’ instead of ‘good morning’ or ‘how are you’. You are too old and need help in doing everything, people avoid even greeting you in fear that you would ask for assistance. (Peter, a 72-year-old male from Mayo. Quote 1-M)

For both men and women who came from the main city, their relocation to the neighbourhood was seen as an indication of their poverty and they often labelled them- selves as tabaneen (Always Poor) regardless of how they were perceived by the community. Contrary to how members from poorer households view themselves, better- off households tend to water down their relative wealth and their presumed comfort. They often talked about how hard (physically) they work, their negative contacts with the outside world and their inability to be part of local or national networks of informa- tion and power.

These discussions have highlighted the way people in the community perceived differences and inequalities among them and the various levels of well-being that exist. Participants defined what they believe as shared socio-economic characteristics between different inhabitants or poverty categories. They have used these well-understood criteria to classify which households are poorer than others and which households are better off, taking into account the length of their poverty experience. These shared characteristics were based in the first place on the way people make their livelihoods and the security or vulnerability of their efforts.

The most important determinant in classifying a household into a certain category was the stability of their job such as regular workers, contract workers or casual workers. In this way, it could be said that the basic focus of such criteria is on their livelihood strategy. Other variables used to enhance such classification include housing and tenure security, household headship, external support (from family, government or NGO), physical conditions and old age, and having access to electricity (grid or power generator) for lighting. The participants identified four categories each with distinctive characteristics. They proposed the terminologies, definition and meaning of words that express poverty and well-being in the community. Two broad categories of well-being were initially identified: ‘The Poor’ and the ‘Non-Poor’. By enumerating the shared characteristics of ‘The Poor’ category, further categories emerged: the ‘Always Poor’ and the ‘Sometimes Poor’. Similarly, after detailing the shared characteristics of the ‘Non-Poor’, it emerged that the ‘Non-Poor’ is composed of the ‘Non-Poor’ (murtaheen) and the ‘Medium Poor’.

The ‘Always Poor’ (tabaneen)

The term tabaneen literally means those who became physically worn out due to their

long-term and unsuccessful efforts to maintain or improve their well-being. Although

tabaneen refers to being physically active it also applies to those who cannot work. The

tabaneen (Always Poor) us composed mainly of workers whose remuneration is extremely low, seasonal workers and workers with unstable jobs, those who work in the informal sector, those who are unable to work (i.e. with health problems, the elderly and disabled), women household heads with young children, households with few adult males, and those who just came from crisis zones such as Dar Fur and could not find

jobs. The tabaneen always lacks more than one important measure of security beside

not have dahar (strong networks of support). The tabaneen usually do not have adequate clothes, their houses are always dark at night and they cannot afford to buy clean drinking water.

The ‘Sometimes Poor’ (nus-nus)

The ‘Sometimes Poor’ are the most diverse and versatile households, with features of

both the ‘Medium Poor’ as well as the ‘Always Poor’households. Though they are able

to maintain an adequate livelihood at certain times, they are less able to sustain this over a longer period. This is mostly due to factors related to the nature of their livelihood

activities or tenure arrangement. The ‘Sometimes Poor’ categoryis composed of house-

holds whose main income earners are casual workers or are self-employed in the informal sector. These households become poorer due to seasonality or when their main income earners are imprisoned or merchandises are confiscated.

The ‘Sometimes Poor’ may have measures of security that are lacking among the ‘Always Poor’, such as tenure security or having, more income earners per households. For example, a casual labourer who was the main income earner but has no tenure security was classified as ‘Always Poor’. However a casual labourer, who was also the main income earner, with a legal title to the land she occupies was classified as ‘Sometimes Poor’. Another example is a widow working in the informal sector and with grown-up sons was classified as ‘Sometimes Poor’, while a widow in the informal sector with young dependents is classified as ‘Always Poor’.

The ‘Medium Poor’ (wasat)

People in the ‘Medium Poor’ category share several characteristics with the ‘Non-Poor’ or murtaheen, but they have certain elements of vulnerability that are not observed among the Non-Poor households.

These households depend for their livelihoods on formal employees (but in less profitable jobs compared to the Non-Poor), the self-employed in the formal or informal sector and pensioners who are found in both the formal and the informal sector. Busi- nesses of the ‘Medium Poor’ households in the informal sector are less vulnerable and more established compared to the ‘Always Poor’ and the ‘Sometimes Poor’. The ‘Medium Poor’ households in the informal sector always have some form of fall-back situation if their business is raided by the local authority. They are also able to avoid all or most of the local authorities’ measures such as confiscations of merchandise, forced removal, the demolition of structures, and arrest, fines and imprisonment through their strong network of support. These households are usually headed by males, they enjoy security of tenure and their houses are strong and can withstand bad weather conditions. Like the ‘Non-Poor’, their houses always have lighting at night and they always buy clean drinking water.

The ‘Non-Poor’ (murtaheen)

The term murtaheen literally means those who do not work physically too hard and get

rest whenever they need it. The murtaheen category is composed of households where

the main income earner is in either stable employment with a long-term contract or self- employed in a regulated business. They have well-constructed brick houses and can hire people in to work in their business. These households are always headed by males; have

for lighting, have electronics, the women do not have to work and they always buy clean drinking water.

In summary, people’s classifications of households into different categories of well- being basically reflect social differentiation and inequalities between people within their respective communities.