At first glance, a mansion with a sea view in Camps Bay may be an unlikely setting for South Africa’s fractious ‘land politics’ to play themselves out. But over the past two weeks, that is exactly what has happened.
At the centre of this is the Queer Radical Feminist Activist Collective, which describes itself as a group of ‘queer, black and coloured artivists united from the working and middle class’. On Friday 18 September, they checked into a luxury six-bedroom house – quite palatial, by all accounts, and by the evidence of photo and video footage published – which they had booked via Airbnb. When their weekend was up, they informed the agents that they would not in fact be leaving.
Their occupation of the property was meant to highlight a number of issues, including the lack of ‘safe spaces’ for LBGTQI people, women and children and the high levels of gender-based violence. But the overarching issue for them was inequality and how this manifested itself in property ownership.
‘We know South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world,’ said Kelly-Eve Koopman, one of the collective, ‘but what that means is that there is a ridiculously small percentage of people that have multi-millions to spare, so this home is used as a property investment and used to generate income but for a lot of the time it is vacant.’
Their action was not targeted at anyone in particular. The property ‘is an asset of someone who owns many other spaces like this that can be appropriated for what we’re trying to use it for now, which is a safe space for queer people who have been displaced and removed and unable to find housing and support during this time.’
It has been reported that the group was trying to contact the owner to discuss repurposing it along these lines.
No intention of going anywhere
They had planned this for several months, and raised a considerable sum of money – reportedly around R15 000 – to make the initial booking. For the moment, they had no intention of going anywhere.
The management company responsible for the property, Turnkey365, protested that while it could sympathise with the cause of the ‘artivists’, what they were doing was outside the law. They were occupying the property illegally; in so doing the occupiers were denying the owner the income from the property (the owner was not, they said, a property mogul, but relied on the income it generated), as well as hurting the management company and its employees – who included a number of domestic workers whose wages supported families.
The action had also unsettled the rental industry –almost certainly the intention of the ‘artivists’ – which had already been hard hit by the drought, by loadshedding and by the lockdown.
Turnkey365 added that ‘we have instituted both legal and civil proceedings to achieve an eviction and recoup all costs incurred.’
A police spokesperson confirmed that charges had been laid. ‘The investigation is ongoing,’ she said. (It was reported yesterday that the occupiers would be appearing in court today.)
Mink-and-manure setting
Probably because of the flamboyancy of this action and the mink-and-manure setting, it has attracted widespread attention, with perhaps a tinge of amusement and a dose of sympathy from observers. Yet in its elements, it is a familiar story.
Land occupations or land invasions are frequently an urban phenomenon. This is neither unique to South Africa, nor is it surprising in a rapidly urbanising society. They are carefully planned and executed; the strategy is to establish a presence, change the realities on the ground and dare the owners or the authorities to stop them. And while courts of law may play an important role in defending their actions, arguably more important is an appeal to the court of public opinion.
For this reason, the narrative is crucial – to emphasise the injustices and desperation that have brought things to this point. This is effective because it typically involves elements of truth. The spatial development of South Africa was marked by great injustices. For a state that is (nominally) committed to rectifying these, and has over the past decade loudly proclaimed its intention comprehensively to restructure ‘property relations’, such an argument pushes it into an invidious choice.
It must either enforce the law, and be seen to act against those whose interests it claims to champion. Or it hesitates and prevaricates, accepts invasions and the undermining of property rights and accepts the damage that comes with doing so. It’s fair to say that there is considerable pressure on the government to move decisively towards the latter. The Presidential Advisory Panel on Land Reform and Agriculture, for example, called for an ‘end to the criminalisation of unlawful occupations by the poor’.
Ambivalent
But the position of the government is ambivalent. Certainly, there are those within it who – perhaps on ideological grounds – have no sympathy with ‘landowners’. On the other hand, land invasions represent a challenge to the authority of the state, and show up a lack of resolve or capacity to respond. This in turn sends out a fatal signal to prospective investors that the state cannot or will not protect their investments – something of concern to all but the most fervent of ideologues.
And so, government leaders have repeatedly affirmed that illegal seizures will not be permitted. ‘The one thing that I’ve always said, that will never be allowed,’ said President Cyril Ramaphosa, ‘is to have land grabs.’ His deputy, David Mabuza remarked: ‘The government will protect land and not allow people to invade land and grab land; we will be tough on that. Any failure to work together will be a costly thing in our effort to build a united and prosperous nation.’
Former minister Nomvula Mokonyane put it like this: ‘On the land grabs‚ government will never allow and tolerate any form of land grabs in our country. There are already laws in place. We call upon land owners‚ local government and law enforcement agencies to act in a manner that will demonstrate that this is not in line with the implementation of land expropriation without compensation. Those that act in that way are actually breaking the law. We should not wait for a crisis where there are many people on site.’
Yet this belies reality. Land grabs may not be tolerated, but they are occurring.
Particularly acute challenge
And the current case represents a particularly acute challenge. The Queer Radical Feminist Activist Collective’s actions are explicitly ideological, and meant to challenge the legitimacy of private property and the capacity of property owners and the state to protect it. How this is handled could have far-reaching consequences. Not the least of these is whether properly thought-out and effective redistribution programmes can in fact be made to succeed.
Those who might dismiss this as the just ‘appropriation’ of a luxury holiday home in the context of extreme inequalities should bear in mind that inequalities are a matter of perspective. There are any number of assets on which social justice claims could be made.
This is a case that will – and should – be watched closely.
If you like what you have just read, subscribe to the Daily Friend