B) Pretensión de desconocimiento
1. La existencia del concubinato o matrimonio de hecho. Primero analizaremos lo que es el concubinato y los elementos de hecho que generan éste,
As described in the previous Chapter, AbM has been, from early on, accused of being manipulated by agitators trying to vilify the ANC government. In newspaper articles and speeches, government officials referred to AbM as a “third force” and accused it of not being a truly representative of shack dwellers (Bryant, 2007; Chance, 2011b;
Pithouse, 2006b).175
AbM’s close links with some external supporters, mostly academics and
representatives of NGOs, led to some criticism and claims that AbM members were being manipulated by these individuals and groups (Walsh, 2008). Interestingly, this assumption stands is in contrast to the initial resistance that academics and NGOs experienced when trying to develop links with AbM.176
173 Almost all non-‐youth interviewees and a few youth interviewees described they were struggling to get the youth from informal settlements to be involved, and they believed they were important because
“they are the future of the movement”. Some of the reasons for the lack of engagement of the youth, described by AbM members, were that they were too busy with their own personal issues, or social networking; individualism, and not understanding the potential of joining a social movement to achieve things collectively. This research, however, did not study the reasons behind youth non-‐engagement with AbM.
174 Since its creation, AbM have pushed for equality in a male dominant society. I have not studied in depth the specific development of gender equality within AbM – neither, I believed, is it shared by all male members. However, the incentive to create groups within AbM, such as the AbM Women’s League, created the on the 09 August 2008 (Abahlali baseMjondolo Women’s League, 2012), might have helped to strengthen women’s position within AbM.
175 See Chapter 5, section 5.1.3.
176 Curiously, claims and criticisms of this nature often originated from government officials, academics and NGOs which AbM chose not to work with. Further analysis including my findings on these claims of manipulation, is presented in section 6.4 and 6.5.
Individuals involved in the creation of AbM expressed suspicion towards external supporters – especially white people.177 One member described the mood at the time:
“At the beginning, when [AbM supporter 1] got involved, and he was very kind in offering help, he was also accused of being a spy. People had resentment to
‘external/white’ and there was a lot of pressure – with the arrested kids178 – and the mood was not good” (AbM member 12, 2010).
The lack of trust towards external supporters seemed to have been a general feature of relationships between shack dwellers and “external” people. An academic supporter, who has been involved in AbM since the Kennedy road blockade in 2005, described what the general view was at the time:
“When Abahlali started, there was an enormous distrust – massive! – of more powerful people, in material sense, saying that they were going to do things for the poor people. And, that was not out of a dissatisfaction with the left, but a
dissatisfaction with the ANC, the councillors and various NGOs; development kind of NGOs, People had experiences, since the end of apartheid… constantly people arriving and saying: right, we are going to do this!... and feeling excited. And then being ignored or being betrayed” (AbM supporter 1, 2010).
Through publications such as AbM’s Living Learning booklet179, some AbM members questioned the role of ‘experts’, and the intentions behind certain collaborations:
“From what we have seen, there are many at University who that think they are there to learn what to come and ‘teach the poor’ when they are finished studying. It is clear that they imagine they are our educators. They assume we are empty
enough and stupid enough for others to learn what they decide, and that they will come and think for those of us who are poor and cannot think. But now we are having our own living learning – and so there is a confrontation brewing about who’s teaching who” (Figlan et al., 2009, p. 19).
177 External supporters, who were not shack dwellers.
178 The interviewee refers to the youth arrested after the Kennedy road blockade in 2005 which initiated the movement. See Chapter 5, section 5.1.
179 In 2008, some members of AbM and the Rural Network participated in a course entitled “Certificate in Education (Participatory Development)” (CEPD), at the University of KZN. During this course, The Church Land Programme (CLP) ran parallel discussions on living politics, where members of ABM and the Rural Network described their views, and developed ideas, about life in the shacks, and how to change their realities (Butler, 2009). In 2009, CLP published a booklet entitled ‘Living Learning’ which contained the written record of the discussions held between these members, see Figlan et al. (2009).
However, frequency of face-‐to-‐face interactions – and the help offered by supporters – has supported the development of trust among some members and supporters. One member explained:
“But at some point, when they180 realise all the external supporting they were getting – [from AbM supporters and] students – they realised they were all together” (AbM member 12, 2010).
Collaboration with external individual supporters and some organisations benefited AbM and some of its members. For instance, academic supporters brought in their experiences for obtaining permissions for marches; explained the process of issuing press releases; and supported members to access and understand legal procedures.
Moreover, supporters broadened AbM’s networks by creating new links with policy makers and academics, which became a source of information, capabilities, and influence for the organisation (AbM supporter 1, 2010; AbM supporter 2, 2010).
Different from what is assumed by some critics (Sinwell, 2010), some AbM members stated that these collaborations were based on mutual learning, trust and support;
rather than control of experts exerted over “the uneducated”.181
Despite these positive exchanges, throughout the development of AbM there were also some unfavourable experiences that reinforced the sense of mistrust among AbM’s members. In one particular case – at the very beginning of the organisation’s existence – a research institute of the University of Kwazulu-‐Natal, was accused of raising funds (online) on behalf of AbM, and using it for its own ends (AbM member 15, 2010; AbM member 20, 2010; Sacks, 2014; Tolsi, 2006b).
At that time, this institute claimed on its own website to represent AbM, and was sending funding proposals by email to funders. AbM members had no knowledge about the ‘representation’ or fundraising activity on its behalf. Moreover, members
180 “They”, here, stands for the shack dwellers who were involved in the process of creating AbM.
181 Two academic supporters interviewed (AbM supporter 1, 2010; AbM supporter 2, 2010) and a number of other AbM supporters who I talked to and observed – e.g. (Chance, 2010a) –often mentioned the importance of their links with AbM for their own development and learning.
had little or no understanding of what the internet – and internet tools – were at the time. Some AbM members felt betrayed through means that they did not understand.
One member interviewed described this reaction:
“I was very very very unhappy with myself when we heard that [the research
institute] have sent emails and said Abahlali is this and that… and I don’t know what kind of animal is that that they call email” (AbM member 20, 2010).182
As a response, AbM collectively and publically decided to cut all ties with this particular organisation (Abahlali baseMjondolo; AbM executive meeting at AbM's office, 2010;
AbM member 15, 2010; AbM member 20, 2010). Some members stated that this particular incident created the necessity to have an AbM office, with access to a landline, and most important, access to computers and the internet.