This post explores enclosure mentalities. That is, the mental constructs we erect to enclose ourselves and nature.

It is a continuation of three previous posts from 2018. At that juncture I was engaging the ward committee and the neighbourhood watch regarding the violation of people’s rights through stop-and-frisk. Our different viewpoints got me thinking about the contradictory world views that we hold. These frame the way we understand events. And influence our reaction.

Then the lockdown intervened before I published this.

Since commencing again with posts, I have elicited strong criticism from some Onderpapegaaiberg residents of ‘speaking shit’, and being reckless with safety and security issues. They also criticised me for being dogmatic, bigoted, one-sided and a coward. Strong words indeed!

I think that underlying these ad hominem attack is a worldview (weltanshauung) diametrically opposed to mine. Accordingly, I publish my 2018 reflections about differing worldviews ……

Enclosure mentalities

In this post I reflect on different security mentalities. But first, let’s consider deeper-level assumptions. I reflect on what I call enclosure mentalities. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines enclosure, inter alia, as “a space fenced off”, “a barrier”.

I also reflect on what I call release mentalities. The dictionary defines release, inter alia, as “setting free”, “liberation”, and “giving up of a claim”.

Gated communities reflect security based enclosure mentalities. There are many private gated estates in Stellenbosch Welgevonden Estate, De Salze Golf Estate, Longlands Country Estate, Koelenbosch Estate, DevonVale Golf and Wine Estate, and Le Clemence (retirement village) are quintessential private, gated communities. These areas are surrounded by walls and fences. There are limited access points. Usually two gates, but more often only one. These gates are closed with a boom. And watched over by guards in a guardhouse.

A ward committee member explained that the law prohibits turning a public space suburb into a fully gated area. Further research confirmed that it is not possible to have complete access control to a suburb. This was attempted in Gauteng. But the use of booms and stops on pedestrians was challenged. The challenge was based on new patterns of class exclusion and segregation.

It appears to be very difficult to meet stringent conditions for boom gates. And even more difficult – if not impossible – for guards to frisk pedestrians and check their identity documents at suburban access points. The City of Johannesburg cracked down heavily on illegal access controls. This tension between local government and suburbanites reflects a deeper contradiction. That between enclosure mentalities and legal principles regarding citizens’ right to public space.

Enclosure mentalities and ‘right to the city’

Enclosure mentalities and the “right to the city”, are the underlying themes of this post.

Currently, Onderpapegaaiberg is one of those suburbs with open access. (But for how long?) This attracted us to buying here in the first place. But there has been a crime problem. Few of us dare to walk alone or even in pairs, on the Papegaaiberg. Which is a shame because of the magnificent views. And because of the fact that it is a proclaimed nature reserve. With one of the few remaining indigenous Rhenosterveld vegetation in the Western Cape.

I want to share my reflections on the committee’s responses. And also a different security mentality. I describe the mindset that responds to crime by barricading. And stopping-and-frisking. This might seem like a common sense reaction to feelings of insecurity.

However, one’s feelings are very closely related to one’s ideas. The barricade is as much an idea as a response to a feeling. Stop-and-frisk is a strategic construct. Barricading and apprehension are based on the idea that there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. An inside space and an out-there space. And the way to secure these spaces is to enclose them. Hence, my use of the term enclosure mentalities.

Alternatively, we could hold the idea that all of us are part of ‘us’. If so, we could have a different security mentality. One based on the opening up of space. And the public occupation of that space.

I advocate a mentality that values openness. This means opening up access to the physical space where we live. And opening up access to information. I reflect on the possibility of an open, democratic and secure society.

Non racial barricading enclosure mentalities

On 17 August (2018) my friend and colleague Leanne Seeliger and I met with a member of the ward committee. We discussed the Vuya (Endaweni, an NGO freferred to in an earlier post) plan for managing the Papegaaiberg. It was an authentic engagement of different viewpoints. I heard that enclosure of the Papegaaiberg also drives the Fence. In other words the Fence is just the start of a total enclosure of the nature reserve. So when I speak of enclosure I am also referring to a mentality to protect nature from damage and dumping.

Economic segregation and policing enclosure mentalities

I accept the committee’s sincerity in identifying as South Africans and Africans. Rather than first as Whites, or White Afrikaners. I have no reason to think that they would object to a black person buying in Onderpapegaaiberg. Especially if said sale would increase property values….

Let’s not forget that we have travelled a long distance in South Africa since 1994.

But 85 per cent of households cannot afford housing markets, like in Onderpapegaaiberg. (I know this from my consulting to governments on housing strategy). ‘Diversity’ refers to the extent of black presence in a company or neighbourhood. I am unaware of many black households living here. Yet the Ward committee referred to Onderpapegaaiberg as a very diverse suburb. I think they might have confused Ward 11 with the suburb. (Ward 11 stretches deep into farmland. It is significantly larger than Onderpapegaaiberg suburb. The Municipal Report ‘Ward 11 in a Nutshell’ shows the following demographics: ‘Coloured’ [42,1%]; ‘Black Africans’ [11,9%]; ‘White’ [43,8%]; ‘Indian/Asian’ [0,8%]).

So I question their contention that Onderpapegaaiberg is a diverse suburb. The fact is that most poor Stellenbosch households are black. A poor person does not fit the profile of our area. So stop-and-frisk will tend to target poorer black people. This has nothing to do with racists in Onderpapegaaiberg. It has everything to do with the structure of our economy and stop-and-frisk as a police strategy.

(One resident who is also critical of the Fence, contacted me. This person takes a different view of this. This resident opines that the Fence reflects an underlying racist intention to keep black people far away from us).

Two impressions and a question

I have two impressions, and a question.

One impression is that the subliminal reasons for the Fence are enclosure mentalities. The ward committee, councillor, security specialists and some residents drive this. These residents are the opposite of apathetic. They serve their community. They are dynamic, active. And they are in a minority. But they are well organised. And they get things done.

My question is whether there are other assumptions we could make about security, without enclosure, a fortress?

The second impression is the lack of transparency about the barricading process. The Executive Mayoral Commitee sent me a shoddy response one day after the meeting. They avoided 10 of the questions. Seven of the nine questions answered were non-answers. They gave my detailed questions short shrift. I reflect what this means for local democracy.

Fortress enclosure mentalities

They will have to chop these down to prevent intruders abseiling over the Fence. The fence itself has spikes on top and is no higher than three meters. A determined team of intruders, using a carpet and thick gloves could still scale it. To prevent this requires electrification. To complete this fortification requires the entire gating of our suburb. With electrification. Interesting, the committee did not deny this intention. They said that at present it was legally not possible. This situation could change. There are many gated estates in other parts of Stellenbosch. The committee’s attitude towards civil rights reinforces this impression. It is OK to stop and frisk those not fitting our suburb’s profile.

Ward plans reflecting enclosure mentalities

The Ward Plan 2017/2018 further reinforces my view that we are moving incrementally towards a gated suburb. And that stop-and-frisk will persist here.

The Plan identifies “no access control to Onderpapegaaiberg” as a Weakness. The Plan’s strategic goals for 2022 include the following: “Access control to Papegaaiberg”. “Control measures against loiters (sic) in residential area”. The 10 year Vision (for 2027) includes the following: “Access control to residential area”. “Control and manage Onderpapegaaiberg after Proclamation”.

The word “proclamation” is interesting. In order to close off access a suburb is first proclaimed as a Special Rates Area. This requires a majority of residents at a meeting with a high quorum (75%). Then, they establish a residential association to manage the area. This could be a Home Owners Association (HOA). The HOA would be responsible for managing and maintaining the gating and security services. (See page 45 of Sosibo Phila, MA Thesis 2016). The association could raise levies from residents to cover its expenses for its expanded services.

To meet the Ward Plan’s access controls requires a proclaimed Special Rates Area in the near future. (Our earlier insights indicate that initially there would be no boom and searching and checking of pedestrians’ identity. But there could be access points with a guard[s] in a guard box. Further whittling away of the ‘right to commons’ could see creeping militarisation of security).

Beyond fortress enclosure mentalities?

Mitigating crime risk through enclosure mentalities

Has the risk of crime in Onderpapegaaiberg reached a tipping point? I think that while crime is a real threat, it is exagerated by those emotionally and financially invested in fortress security.

Overall, house burglaries in middle income suburbs is still affecting only a minute proportion of households. Although specific suburbs might experience heightened crime incidents. And, as we have seen, Onderpapegaaiberg is one of those. Do the majority of our residents perceive the fortress as the route to security? Those residents engaged with this issue have already made up their minds. We may never know what the silent majority (of ‘apathetic’ residents) think. But at a certain point the fortress approach will become the common sense way to do things. This blog is a plea to consider a different way.

Which brings me back to the ‘self’. The first self above is the one that wants to be free from fear, and resorts to barricading. There is another self, that Hillel and his followers speak of. I understand that this self looks at the immediate situation objectively. This means that this self is disinterested. It does not proritise its rights over those of other citizens. Even when it feels that its right to safety and security is threatened. My view is that we (including criminals) are products of our circumstances. To change criminal behaviour we should change circumstances under which people live.

‘Seeing’ crime reflecting social circumstances

Criminologist Don Pinnock traces the circumstances that predispose unemployed youngsters becoming gangsters.

He showed how apartheid destroyed familial structures through removals to the Cape Flats. In so doing it destroyed established rites of passage. The same analysis applies in Stellenbosch. Unemployed youth in Kayamandi, Cloetesville and Idas Valley look to drug lords as role models. Gangster rights of passage have occupied the vacuum created by apartheid. And post-apartheid unemployment reinforced the power of gansgters and their rights of passage. The current war on drugs is useless against this deep socialisation. To say nothing of the corruption of some police personnel. Jails have become universities of gang-led crime.

My point is that we need to address crime by altering social circumstances. Walling ourselves into our own fortresses detracts our attention from this important task. And this is my main concern about the Fence. What it is doing to our collective consciousness. As our town sinks deeper into a crisis of unemployment and hopelessness for many of its citizens. With Vuya Endaweni we proposed a model for security and positive social development. The Council ignored us. In the same way the committee made it clear that this is not the way they want to go.

Social solidarity and freedom of information

The Stellenbosch Council’s non-response to my reasonable questions is unacceptable. The ward councillor did not respond to further requests. There could be several reasons for this. First, they did not follow the required Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) protocol, and are covering up. Second they did comply but their information retrieval systems are sub-optimal. Third, their systems are optimal, but red tape is a bottleneck on information flows. Fourth, they withhold information to stop truth seekers (‘troublemakers’ in their eyes). The reason might be some combination of the above. Either way I am concerned about the lack of access to information.

Information enclosure mentalities

But I am not surprised. Stellenbosch Transparency conducted research on some critical issues in the town. Like the illegal removal of the traders from outside the Rhenisch Church (2013). The construction of the Tourism Corridor and Kayamandi Stadium (2006/2007). The eviction of people from the Kreefgat informal settlement (2016). In each case we uncovered that the municipality/council had violated a law. Or a legal regulation. And that in the process ordinary people suffered tremendously.

Is it trite to ask whether they spent the budget after the start of the 2018 IDP or before that juncture? Especially if they had approval of this budgeted item in May 2018. Does it matter whether they complied with Environmental Impact Analysis? Especially when our security is at stake? Yes it does. This attitude undermines the Rule of Law. This creates an environment tolerant of further violations of the law. You are then on a slide away of standards of civil and human rights.

It is possible that it is too late to prevent the complete gating of our community.

Maybe a model of security that includes development of marginalised areas is doomed in Stellenbosch. Partly because we in privileged areas will not tolerate it in our backyards.

But the truth value of this approach still stands.

Regardless, we should continue to speak truth to power.

Regardless, a luta continua.

Paul Hendler, Onderpapegaaiberg, 26 August 2018.