Many of South Africa’s lockdown measures have been a combination of the bizarre and the misguided, albeit with evident reasons. Then there are others that must fall into the ‘show who is in charge’ category.
The bizarre includes the restriction of T-shirt sales for purposes of winter warmth only and the initial restrictions on e-commerce. Both of these were rescinded.
There might have been an argument for the ban on cigarette and alcohol sales in the first few weeks of the lockdown to give people fewer reasons to move about and, in the case of drink, to curb domestic violence. But now with most stores open and people able to move about more freely, does this really make sense?
The ban on these sales has lost the government massive amounts of sin tax revenue, thrown many out of jobs, and simply annoyed vast numbers of people. And these measures have proved the laws of economics as black market suppliers instantly filled the gap. Alcohol sales on a restricted basis will be allowed in Level 3, but tobacco sales continued to be banned. These are examples of misguided policies.
Then there are rules which clearly fall into the ‘show them who is in charge’ category. Draft regulations drawn up last month by the Social Development Minister, Lindiwe Zulu, were aimed at making it very difficult, if not impossible, for any group except an official body to distribute food parcels and run soup kitchens. This is an example of a yearning for central control and immense distrust of private sector initiative.
While the rules were in draft form, they were already being implemented. These stipulated that an organisation had to register with a government body whenever it had plans to distribute food. Government responses tend not to be prompt. This would have made it almost impossible for many charities to do their work, and even to do the work that government already helps them to do by subsidies. The draft regulations came with the offer by the Government to do the distribution on behalf of the charities. With reports of parcel food theft by some councillors, charities have baulked at this offer.
Last week the courts and the Human Rights Commission stepped in to stop what could potentially have paved the way to corruption and the use of food handouts as a means to gain support or to use as a political weapon. The Western Cape High Court ruled, pending a full hearing of the case brought by the Democratic Alliance (DA), that the Social Development Department should halt its implementation of the draft rules. And the Human Rights Commission upheld a DA complaint that the draft rules were unconstitutional.
The Social Development Minister’s argument was that there was no intention of stopping charities from distributing food, but rather to ensure coordination. She was reported by News24 as telling a Parliamentary Portfolio Committee that the aim was to prevent the spread of Covid-19 virus and the “chaos and congestion” seen at some food distribution points. Government wanted a ‘knock and drop’ system to distribute food.
The Emalahleni Municipality, formerly Witbank, issued a ‘Notice on Distribution of Food Parcels by Private Persons/Organisations’ on 25th April 2020. This required that each time food was to be distributed, ‘that all cooked/uncooked food parcels are assessed by the Environmental Health Inspectors prior to being distributed.’
Then the organisation wanting to distribution food must obtain a permit from the municipality. And as if to kill off all chances of distribution by private organisations, the ‘convening of crowds at a common space for distribution will not be allowed.’
One of the organisations supported by the Johannesburg Child Welfare is the Masibambisane day care centre in Eldorado Park. The centre helps feed many child-headed as well as other needy households. Under the Social Development Department’s rules charities were ordered to stop preparing cooked meals for collection and only food parcels could be delivered.
The type of ‘knock and drop’ delivery the department wants is not regarded by Johannesburg Child Welfare as a safe exercise as there is a risk that their vehicles could be swamped by crowds in the street. In addition, delivery to homes significantly raises the charity’s costs at a time when many donors are feeling constrained. Johannesburg Child Welfare insists that the food queues at Masibambisane were orderly and social distancing was observed.
The department wanted desperate people to receive ‘knock and drop’ food. Yet, the suburban shopper is allowed to line up in supermarket queues, and indeed go out and buy pizza, without permission being required on each occasion.
Last month TimesLive reported on a three km food queue in the informal settlements at Mooiplaas and Spruit in the Centurion area. From the video the queue might have been tight in places, but people generally seemed well spaced out and orderly and police and marshals were present.
The initiative of the Tshwane Muslim Community and the Sutherland Ridge, Ikon Park, and Westhills business communities was done under the draft rules. That they were able to do so does not demonstrate a case for rules that make it very difficult to ensure rapid responses to desperation.
With the economic catastrophe from the lockdown and a decade of poor economic policy, there is likely to be a growing underclass of desperate people who slip through the country’s social safety nets. Not all facing tough times can claim social grants or are eligible for Unemployment Insurance Fund payments. There are people who are simply not registered for various reasons, and others face delays or bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining payments.
The Minister’s assertion that coordination is needed under government is simply not the case. The Salvation Army, Gift of the Givers, Afrika Tikkun, and many others do not need government coordination. Government helps many charities with financial support. This is justified as charities are providing a public good more effectively than the government is able to do.
South Africa has an effective network of private charities that can manage to feed many who might otherwise slip through the safety net. They are on the whole responsive to needs, have an ability to scale up operations, and provide an example to the government of how to run services. Many have been doing an effective job for a long time and have a good understanding of how to manage such situations. Through on-the-ground networks that might include churches and other groups they are able to obtain good information of what is required.
The Western Cape High Court and the Human Rights Commission have spared the desperate from government overreach.
Photo by Ben White on Unsplash
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend