Ramaphosa's plan on gender-based violence criticized for weak prevention measures and unclear accountability
Read more
IOL
iol.co.za

Ramaphosa's plan on gender-based violence criticized for weak prevention measures and unclear accountability

Activists welcomed some aspects of President Cyril Ramaphosa's response to the issue of gender-based violence (GBV), but they noted the lack of a sufficiently detailed prevention strategy, ambiguities regarding accountability, and no guarantees that funding will reach local communities.

Ramaphosa addressed the nation recently, following the murder of eleven women in Ekurhuleni since July. Experts emphasized that a stronger focus on grassroots prevention was expected.

GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

Brandon Pillay, a former Member of Parliament and chairman of the Ubuntu Community Centre in Beyview, stated that Ramaphosa called for the identification of dangerous areas, but noted that some of the most serious hotspots of violence are within the homes of women or children themselves.

Pillay, who is also the chairman of the Beyview Community Policing Forum (CPF), believes that the traditional perception of GBV hotspots needs revision. He explained that people usually picture hotspots as dark streets, abandoned buildings, or specific geographical zones, whereas a significant portion of cases occurs inside a residence, where the aggressor is often someone known to the victim—a partner, relative, or trusted acquaintance.

He added that hotspot mapping should cover not only locations but also risky environments. The government is allocating resources to combat GBV, including additional allocations of 43 million rand in 2026/27, 45 million in 2027/28, and 47.3 million in 2028/29 for the functioning of the National Council on GBV, as well as 143.8 million rand for the national coordination programme.

However, Pillay questioned what portion of these funds actually reaches the streets where women live. He stressed that the national GBV budget does not guarantee the repair of street lighting near vulnerable homes. Clear responsibility must be established between national, provincial, and municipal governments so that there is an accountable body, budget, timeline, and monitoring mechanism for communities when carrying out tasks such as repairing lighting, clearing vegetation, or maintaining roads.

Pastor Anita Ramdhani, Deputy Chairperson of the Chatswood CPF, expressed disappointment that Ramaphosa did not present a stronger prevention strategy. Ramaphosa acknowledged that GBV originates much earlier—in attitudes controlling behaviour, disrespect, sense of entitlement, and the belief in the acceptability of violence or coercion.

Ramdhani insists that prevention must start in families, schools, religious organizations, and communities. Men and boys need to be taught respect, consent, responsibility, and healthy relationships, while simultaneously helping women and children recognize violence and seek help before the situation escalates. She cited research showing that over 60% of women killed in 2021 and 2022 were murdered by an intimate partner, meaning the strategy should not be limited only to improving street safety.

Dr. Keresha Govender, a psychologist from DSK Group, a non-profit organization dealing with GBV in northern Durban, stated that the country reflects inadequate systems that have not been properly regulated, resulting in women and children bearing the burden of these atrocities once again. She considered Ramaphosa's reaction insufficiently decisive to address current GBV issues, noting that more stakeholders must be involved in the strategy for visible change.

Vanessa Chetty, founder of The Hope Foundation, an organization fighting GBV in southern Durban, noted that the steps announced by Ramaphosa should have been a priority years ago. Although streets were named as GBV hotspots, the root cause of violence is the breakdown of families, which Ramaphosa mentioned but did not offer an adequate plan to solve.

Chetty welcomed the emphasis on involving men and boys in eradicating GBV, as well as the target timelines of 60 and 90 days for implementing action plans, but expressed doubt about their execution given hundreds of unsolved cases, delays in forensic examinations, and cases that were not investigated by investigators. She added that the practical implementation of Ramaphosa's priorities is expected, but this is not a new call to action against GBV.

Ramaphosa's Action Plan Includes:

Within 60 days, the government must identify unsolved cases, cases awaiting forensic evidence, identified suspects who have not yet been arrested, and cases facing unjustified delays in investigation or trial. Recovery plans for priority and suspended cases are expected within 90 days.

A 60-day plan is also provided to address forensic examination backlogs, and municipalities are instructed to conduct safety audits to determine where women are vulnerable, including areas with poor lighting, unsafe public spaces, and infrastructure failures. Authorities must review unsolved murders, attempted murders, rapes, and serious sexual offenses affecting women and children.

By day 90, priority and stalled cases must have recovery plans specifying necessary further actions, responsible parties, and completion deadlines. Police and forensic bodies must submit a funded plan within 60 days to reduce examination backlogs, as well as specify shortages of personnel, equipment, and necessary resources. Analyzing forensic samples related to the rape or murder of women and children must be a priority. Every municipality is obliged to conduct a safety audit for women. Within 60 days, municipalities must identify hazards such as broken streetlights, overgrown or abandoned areas, unsafe transport routes, and poorly guarded parks and facilities. Within 90 days, urgent threats must either be eliminated or included in a funded plan with set deadlines.

Similar stories

Research indicates that shelter beds are not a long-term solution to homelessness
Read more
iol.co.za

Research indicates that shelter beds are not a long-term solution to homelessness

Malixole Sikhungo, an independent researcher from Cape Town whose work is based on both personal experience living on the streets and professional practice in non-profit and corporate law sectors, conducts research combining deep constitutional analysis with the dynamics of street survival. His goal is to advocate for systemic housing reforms.

Ahead of upcoming local government elections, the public discourse fails to address a critically important question: why do existing funding models inevitably perpetuate the cycle of homelessness? A natural question arises as to whether service providers themselves are caught in the same system trap as the homeless individuals.

The author shares his experience staying in Cape Town shelters, using substance abuse as a coping mechanism. Due to the lack of formal rehabilitation, he managed to overcome these habits, return to his studies, and earn an LL.B. degree with high marks. This experience, supported by his work in legal fields, allows him to analyze the crisis from a unique perspective.

The Funding System Trap

Despite frontline workers providing vital assistance, the financial system in which they operate has fundamental flaws. When government departments tie funding directly to the number of nights spent in beds, human trauma is unintentionally commodified. Over-reliance on such funding forces non-profit organizations to prioritize metric-based indicators rather than genuine human empowerment.

If a service provider completely eliminates homelessness in its area of responsibility, its operational metrics drop to zero, leading to the cessation of institutional funding. Consequently, the homeless resident becomes raw material necessary to justify the budget for the following year. This creates a perverse economic incentive where the institution's survival depends on the persistence of the problem. As a result, service providers become just as dependent on the system as the homeless residents themselves.

Skewed Power Structure

It is often observed that service providers occupy an intermediary position between donors and residents. Formally, they are accountable to both parties, but in practice, this situation deprives homeless residents of the ability to negotiate. Power follows aid: donors hold absolute influence over non-profit organizations, which in turn have unchecked dominance over the homeless. The author compares this scheme to a scientific pH scale: service providers are in a neutral position (7), while donors and residents are at opposite poles. The donor and the resident never sit at the same table.

The homeless community lacks bargaining power. Accountability flows exclusively upwards, to the board of directors' ledgers, while people on the streets remain passive recipients of aid.

Rights Versus Commodities

This approach, which treats housing as a commodity, violates the socio-economic foundation of South Africa. The Constitution guarantees the right to adequate housing under Section 26(1), and Section 26(2) obligates the state to take reasonable measures for its progressive realization. The Constitutional Court has made it clear that this obligation cannot be met through short-term outsourced management. In the case of Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom, the court ruled that housing programs must cater to those in desperate need.

Furthermore, as established in City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties, the state cannot cite budgetary constraints or outsourcing core constitutional duties to evade its obligations. Transferring emergency housing to a market governed by metrics effectively absolves the state of these responsibilities. This approach views temporary beds as a substitute for permanent housing, turning a constitutional right into a competitive line item.

Cape Town Mayor Geordie Hill-Lewis recently renewed a loud campaign promise, pledging to increase the release of urban land for social housing if re-elected. This is commendable. However, the critical question remains unanswered: when will authorities realize that current grant models supporting multi-million rand 'safe spaces,' alongside inherently flawed shelter funding systems, are inadvertently sustaining a vicious cycle of homelessness?

Accountability on the Sidewalk

To break this vicious cycle, accountability must flow downwards, to the sidewalk itself. As World Homeless Day approaches on October 10th, South Africa must move beyond symbolic awareness and undertake a complete system reorganization. On behalf of homeless communities, the author calls upon President Cyril Ramaphosa and municipal leadership to immediately implement three structural changes:

  1. Results-Based Funding: The 'per bed, per night' system must be abolished. Funds should be redistributed to encourage long-term exit from homelessness, tracking placement in permanent housing and sustained independent income over several years.
  2. Mandatory Democratic Representation: Supported service providers must be required to reserve at least 20% of board seats for residents who are currently or have previously been homeless, granting them voting rights. No strategy should be developed without considering their input.
  3. Joint National Homelessness Strategy: An immediate, mandatory interdepartmental strategy must be introduced between the Departments of Social Development and Settlements. This structure must consolidate budgets, shifting fiscal priorities from managing temporary shelters to pathways to permanent housing, specifically promoting scalable, community-controlled models such as Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and micro-rental subsidies.

True security begins with a key to the front door, not an outsourced mattress. True accountability should be measured not by how many beds are occupied today, but by how many people have permanently left the sidewalk. Only such a structural shift can dissolve the impasse of homelessness. It is time to act decisively and de-commodify homelessness forever.

How to set boundaries when relatives compare your home, finances, or children
Read more
iol.co.za

How to set boundaries when relatives compare your home, finances, or children

Avoiding comparisons in family life can be difficult, especially when close relatives unconsciously sow seeds of doubt. Sometimes tension can arise during a family gathering, even if no one raises their voice.

The situation might look like this: someone asks about a recent home renovation, and then adds that the woman's husband achieved great success and bought a new car. At first glance, such remarks might seem harmless. However, if similar comparisons are repeated, especially by the spouse's parent, it can create a feeling that one's life is constantly being judged against another son-in-law or daughter-in-law.

In South African families, where relatives are often deeply involved in each other's lives, comparisons can penetrate all areas: housing, career, children, salaries, cars, vacations, and schools. Sometimes these comparisons are obvious, and sometimes they are masked as helpful advice, such as: 'Why don't you ask your brother how he managed to buy a house in this area?' or 'You should talk to your husband's sister. She manages work and childcare so well.'

Constant comparisons negatively affect self-confidence. A person may start questioning previously made decisions or view their home, career, and finances through someone else's eyes. Family visits can become a source of stress because there is anxiety about what will be criticized next. Over time, this can lead to irritation and tension between spouses. One partner may feel unsupported, while the other gets caught between defending their spouse and avoiding conflict with a parent.

In such cases, couples need to be cautious. A problem related to relatives can easily turn into a marital problem if spouses start fighting each other instead of addressing the behavior issue.

Firstly, it must be remembered that households cannot be compared fairly. One family might have two high incomes, while another might be paying a mortgage, supporting elderly parents, covering university education, or helping an extended family. One couple might prioritize travel, while another prioritizes debt repayment. Different choices do not automatically make one household more successful than another.

When comparisons become obsessive, long explanations should be avoided. There is no need to justify why you haven't renovated the kitchen, changed cars, or advanced in your career. Often, a calm response is enough: 'We are happy for them, but our circumstances and priorities are different,' or a more direct one: 'I know you probably don't mean any harm, but constant comparisons cause discomfort. I would prefer it if we were allowed to make our own choices.'

The key is to maintain respect without becoming apologetic. The spouse whose parent makes comments must also play their part. Instead of saying, 'My wife is upset because of you,' he can say, 'Mom, I don't think it's fair to constantly compare our life to theirs. Please stop doing it.' This demonstrates that the couple is united.

It is equally important not to respond with aggression. If another son-in-law or daughter-in-law is constantly praised, criticizing that person will only escalate the conflict. The goal is not to prove superiority but to stop participating in the competition.

If comparisons continue despite respectful conversations, stronger boundaries may be necessary. You should share less information about salaries, purchases, career decisions, or parenting methods. Not every detail of your life needs to be open for family discussion.

However, the most important boundary is the decision of what impact these comparisons will have on you. If you have politely discussed the issue and the comparisons continue, stop trying to convince the person of the validity of your choice. You have already stated your position. From this point on, focus on what you can control. At the next comparison, respond briefly: 'We have different circumstances, and we are happy with our choice,' and then change the subject.

If the situation repeats, the spouse must reinforce the established boundary with the parent. If family gatherings regularly cause you anxiety, anger, or self-doubt, consider sharing less personal information and limiting conversations that constantly devolve into criticism.

Most importantly—do not bring these comparisons home. The fact that someone else has a bigger house, a higher salary, a different career, or children in a different school does not make your family less successful. Discuss with your spouse what is truly important in your home: financial stability, time with children, peaceful living, debt repayment, business development, or simply enjoying the life you have built together. A relative may have their opinion about your life, but they do not have the right to set its standards.

You can remain respectful without constantly defending yourself. You can be happy for another family's achievements without competing with them. And you can set a boundary without causing unnecessary conflict. The goal is not to make the relative agree with every decision you make, but to reach a point where you no longer need their approval.

Popular