There is a dangerous message being relayed to poor South Africans during this Local Government Election campaign. That if South Africans have received social benefits such as RDP houses or any social grant from government, then you somehow owe the African National Congress your vote.
This is far from the truth. South Africans must challenge this idea as it is misleading. It also undermines the civil liberties that extend dignity and equality to millions of South Africans.
A video circulating on social media recently shows the National Chairperson of the African National Congress, Gwede Mantashe, visiting a family that is living in an RDP house. In the video, the discussion between him and the family members creates the impression that the home is something that the family should be grateful to the ANC for as a political organisation.
The view expressed by Mantashe is that the women should be grateful for benefitting from the RDP as it was provided by the ANC. The logical conclusion of Mantashe is that residents should vote for the ANC as a result.
This is where we need to draw a distinct line between the party and the state. An RDP house is not an ANC house. It is a government housing programme that is funded by taxpayers as a social benefit to impoverished South Africans who cannot afford to buy homes themselves.
The programme emanates from recognising the legacy of dispossession and poverty by the Apartheid government. As a result, it becomes a cushion from the state to bring dignity to the lives of those who need government assistance. The money does not come from ANC coffers. It comes from the public purse.
The same applies to social grants. When an elderly person receives an old-age grant, or when a parent receives a child support or a foster care grant, or when a person receives a disability grant, that money is not a gift from the ANC. It is a government benefit funded from the tax of South Africans. This distinction matters.
For years, poor communities have been misinformed and told to remember who “gave” them houses and grants when it is time to vote. That creates a relationship of dependency between citizens and political parties that should never exist in a democracy. This dependency is what they weaponise against our people, terrorising them with an unending debt of guilt and gratitude. Government is supposed to serve citizens. Political parties are supposed to earn citizens’ votes instead of being entitled to blind loyalty.
Imagine telling a young mother who finally receives an RDP house after years of waiting that she must vote for a particular party because that party “gave” her the house. What happens to her right to ask why she waited so many years? What happens to her right to ask why there are still families living in shacks? What happens to her right to demand better schools, safer communities, reliable electricity, clean water and proper roads? Does she lose the right to complain because she received an RDP house?
An RDP house does not buy a citizen’s silence. A social grant does not buy a citizen’s vote. A government service does not create a political debt in perpetuity.
South Africans must be free to appreciate assistance from government while still holding government accountable. This is particularly important because millions of people in our country remain trapped in poverty and unemployment.
For many families, an RDP house represents more than bricks and mortar. It is safety and the dignity of a place to call home. A social grant represents the difference between a child eating and going hungry. The people who receive them deserve better than being reminded of their poverty every five years and being used as ANC voting cattle.
The Local Government Elections on 4 November should therefore be about much more than who built a house or who introduced a particular programme. They should be about basic services, lifting our communities out of abject poverty and creating opportunities that future generations can benefit from.
The real test of a caring and efficient government is where ordinary South Africans can attest to being beneficiaries of the 32 years of democracy that promised us dignity for all. The real test of a government that serves the people is a generation of upwardly mobile citizens in order to reduce the burden of social benefits from the state.
South Africans should not be afraid to question the neglected state of our communities because they are impoverished. All this does is keep the status quo of abuse of power and lack of accountability intact.
If the ANC believes it has served the people well, it should be confident enough to stand on its record and allow voters to exercise their will on who they want to vote for.
There is no need to suggest that an RDP house obligates residents to vote for the ANC.
Challenge The Notion That An RDP House Is A Gift From The ANC
There is a dangerous message being relayed to poor South Africans during this Local Government Election campaign. That if South Africans have received social benefits such as RDP houses or any social grant from government, then you somehow owe the African National Congress your vote.
This is far from the truth. South Africans must challenge this idea as it is misleading. It also undermines the civil liberties that extend dignity and equality to millions of South Africans.
A video circulating on social media recently shows the National Chairperson of the African National Congress, Gwede Mantashe, visiting a family that is living in an RDP house. In the video, the discussion between him and the family members creates the impression that the home is something that the family should be grateful to the ANC for as a political organisation.
The view expressed by Mantashe is that the women should be grateful for benefitting from the RDP as it was provided by the ANC. The logical conclusion of Mantashe is that residents should vote for the ANC as a result.
This is where we need to draw a distinct line between the party and the state. An RDP house is not an ANC house. It is a government housing programme that is funded by taxpayers as a social benefit to impoverished South Africans who cannot afford to buy homes themselves.
The programme emanates from recognising the legacy of dispossession and poverty by the Apartheid government. As a result, it becomes a cushion from the state to bring dignity to the lives of those who need government assistance. The money does not come from ANC coffers. It comes from the public purse.
The same applies to social grants. When an elderly person receives an old-age grant, or when a parent receives a child support or a foster care grant, or when a person receives a disability grant, that money is not a gift from the ANC. It is a government benefit funded from the tax of South Africans. This distinction matters.
For years, poor communities have been misinformed and told to remember who “gave” them houses and grants when it is time to vote. That creates a relationship of dependency between citizens and political parties that should never exist in a democracy. This dependency is what they weaponise against our people, terrorising them with an unending debt of guilt and gratitude. Government is supposed to serve citizens. Political parties are supposed to earn citizens’ votes instead of being entitled to blind loyalty.
Imagine telling a young mother who finally receives an RDP house after years of waiting that she must vote for a particular party because that party “gave” her the house. What happens to her right to ask why she waited so many years? What happens to her right to ask why there are still families living in shacks? What happens to her right to demand better schools, safer communities, reliable electricity, clean water and proper roads? Does she lose the right to complain because she received an RDP house?
An RDP house does not buy a citizen’s silence. A social grant does not buy a citizen’s vote. A government service does not create a political debt in perpetuity.
South Africans must be free to appreciate assistance from government while still holding government accountable. This is particularly important because millions of people in our country remain trapped in poverty and unemployment.
For many families, an RDP house represents more than bricks and mortar. It is safety and the dignity of a place to call home. A social grant represents the difference between a child eating and going hungry. The people who receive them deserve better than being reminded of their poverty every five years and being used as ANC voting cattle.
The Local Government Elections on 4 November should therefore be about much more than who built a house or who introduced a particular programme. They should be about basic services, lifting our communities out of abject poverty and creating opportunities that future generations can benefit from.
The real test of a caring and efficient government is where ordinary South Africans can attest to being beneficiaries of the 32 years of democracy that promised us dignity for all. The real test of a government that serves the people is a generation of upwardly mobile citizens in order to reduce the burden of social benefits from the state.
South Africans should not be afraid to question the neglected state of our communities because they are impoverished. All this does is keep the status quo of abuse of power and lack of accountability intact.
If the ANC believes it has served the people well, it should be confident enough to stand on its record and allow voters to exercise their will on who they want to vote for.
There is no need to suggest that an RDP house obligates residents to vote for the ANC.