The Moving Line Between State Benevolence and Control: Municipal Indigent Programmes in South Africa

Abstract

‘Municipal indigents’ are a category of poor citizens who qualify to receive certain municipal services for free in South Africa. Having registered as municipal indigents, the poor not only gain access to free basic services but also embark upon a voyage into a bureaucratic underworld where policies are changed and eligibility criteria and sanctions are unevenly applied. Various preconditions and limits on services, as well as social surveillance of indigent households, has turned indigency programmes into a ‘regime’. The policy has swung from hard cost recovery (mass disconnections) during the period 1994–2000 to ‘free’ basic services and, more recently, to social-shaming and criminalisation. This paper provides a thematic account of recent municipal indigent processes in order to explore the ‘moving boundary’ between benevolence and control regarding this crucial citizen–state interface. Based on recent interviews with government officials, a review of relevant government documents, and describing the administrative complexities, the paper reveals aspects of what the poor confront in day-to-day experiences of the state. It is argued that there are lessons for all municipalities seeking a more sustainable and democratic path to citizenship rather than an ongoing low-level war with poor citizens.

Pension Policy Dimension to Ghanaian Workers’ Housing Needs Provision

“…The former brings to the fore the fact that in the Ghanaian context, it is poor workers who do not have any clearly delineated free service and/or resource qualification and access, even from the viewpoint of housing. By contrast, Ruiters (2018) demonstrates that there are municipal indigents in South Africa, a category of poor citizens who qualify to receive certain municipal services for free.…”

“…Inherently, the government plays the role of a facilitator by virtue of providing the required resources, institute a general framework while ensuring the enforcement and protection of contracts. This stance of the government's downplays the 'moving boundary' between benevolence and control regarding this critical worker-state provision interface (Ruiters, 2018). There are key issues that are worth mentioning with respect to low-income workers.…”

Day Zero and The Infrastructures of Climate Change: Water Governance, Inequality, and Infrastructural Politics in Cape Town's Water Crisis

“…As a result, they have created mechanisms for managing FBW allocations that include the deployment of technologically mediated forms of water management linked to debt recovery. Ruiters (2016) explains these apparently contradictory tendencies by arguing that the FBW policy was developed to be integral to cost recovery, and remains a feature of commercialization (Ruiters, 2016; see also Dugard, 2010; Dugard et al ., 2017; Yates and Harris, 2018). 6 Until recently, the City of Cape Town's response to this policy and the constitutional guarantee of access to sufficient water had been through the universal provision of 6 kl of FBW per household per month, and 10.5 kl to registered indigent households per month (Kaiser and Macleod, 2018: 10).…”

Non-Racialism: The New Form of Racial Inequality in a Neo-Apartheid South Africa

“…3 In 2007, in his State of the Nation address, 4 Mbeki reminded South Africans they must 'continuously focus on the task to ensure that as many of our people as possible graduate out of dependence on social grants and enter the labour market' (https:// www.iol.co.za/news/politics/full-text-of-mbekis-state-of-nation-speech-314525). Mbeki, the mainly Black civil servants and local government leaders have embraced their own 'market-civilizing mission' as the structure and language of the commodity and the logic of capital became deeply embedded in policy statements (Ruiters, 2018). As Clarke (2004: 31) argues, neo-liberalism 'has disintegrated conceptions of the public as a collective identity, attempting to substitute individualised and economised identities as taxpayers and consumers'.…”