Take back your dignity . . .

The poor do not matter, this is so regardless of all else that you may have read or heard. In fact, it would suit most of us just fine to not see another poor person. The first line of defence when it comes to the poor, is to look the other way, to convince ourselves of all manner of reasons that they are there. We never pause to think that maybe they are there because we (those who are not poor) are here.

One only has to visit any of our urban areas' public facilities to really appreciate what Desmond Tutu meant when he said that the worst form of violence you can subject people to, is poverty. Whether it is the train station, the hospitals or the schools; those that are meant for use by the poor have similar characters in common. They are dirty, over-crowded, unsafe and downright undignified.

I don't know what it is about poverty that attracts or rather that brings out the worst in human beings. The poor areas of our country are marked by all manner of social ills; from chronic alcoholism to drug addiction, from child and spouse abuse to what seem to be wanton and random murder. In and among these human dumping sites, there are invariably shiny examples of human dignity. There are tidy homes with modest but immaculate gardens and an air of respectability. No rubbish lying around, no family violence, no alcohol or drug abuse.

The government will not and in my view cannot look after the interests of the poor. The interests of the poor are by nature anathema to those of capital, which most if not all governments need more than they need the poor. The present model of wealth creation is such that there will be the top which is very exclusive, the middle which is marginally bigger and then the rest made up of the poor. This is not some Young Communist League rhetoric, it is simply the way this and many societies work. I beg your indulgence for a few more lines:

Senior government officials and practically all politicians do not by and large live in and among the poor. Not that they should, I am merely making the point that they do not as a general rule live in the poor areas or among the poor. I also concede that poor is a relative term but I trust that most readers will have a fairly good picture of what poor looks like as they read this piece. To do otherwise is to split hairs.

In the unlikely event that senior government officials and politicians' children attend a public school, they will be attending a well-run public school that is located "not in a poor area". As a general rule (of which I am yet to learn of an exception) children of senior government officials and politicians do not go to the township schools let alone poor township schools. Neither do my children for the record, but that is hardly the point. Similarly, children and families of the senior government officials and politicians do not as a general rule make use of public hospitals. Almost all government employees are on medical aid of one sort or another and therefore have the benefit of private health care. So the government spends twice; first on medical aid that will go into the coffers of private health care providers and secondly on the public hospitals, the very hospitals that are administered and managed by government officials on medical aid.

At the risk of stating the obvious (incidentally, my dearest wife tells me this morning that there is nothing wrong with stating the obivious, for what may be obvious to one person may not be so to another) people who are not poor do not send their children to poor schools. Where there are medical needs, these are met by the very best of private health care.

You may ask what is wrong with all of this and I may just take your point. This is the way things are whether wrong or right. I do not here sit in judgement of senior government officials and politicians; I am merely observing what is a fairly accurate if not common a trend. Most importantly I ask myself what the impact on society does this trend have. This trend is the reason I conclude that the government (anywhere in the world) will not and cannot meet the needs of the poor. The poor do not matter.

Those who live in the poor areas are working hard to get out of there or at the least to make sure that their children get out. Nobody wants to be poor because to be poor is to be faced with a form of violence that is not matched by any other. If you are poor, you do not count and you know it.

On the other hand, if the senior government officials and the politicians lived in the poor areas, used public transport and public schools and public hospitals; then they would have a vested interest in these areas and facilities. They will have a vested interest all the time and not only every 5 years or so. At present they do not and for that reason, the poor will continue to be ignored.

Given that the government will not and cannot give the poor their dignity back, the only alternative for the poor is for them to take their dignity back. To take their dignity back as they did in the 1980's when townships used to have competitions such as the cleanest school etc. The poor can take back their dignity by treating their own environment with dignity, even when they are forced to use the undignified portable toilets. The one thing that the poor have always managed to do through the ages, is to be resourceful and to make a lot ouf of very little.

The schools, the streets, the homes and most importantly the communities are the source of dignity for the poor. Dignity will stop littering and all that goes with it. Dignity will stop wanton drunkeness and drug abuse. Dignity will not allow anyone to resign themselves to being a basket case. When the poor resolve to treat themselves with dignity, the government will have no choice but to treat them with dignity.

These are my thoughts and I stick by them.