‘Violent protests’ in South Africa: understanding service delivery protests

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Kenny Chiwarawara
{"title":"‘Violent protests’ in South Africa: understanding service delivery protests","authors":"Kenny Chiwarawara","doi":"10.1080/02589346.2023.2257502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTViolence is a crucial feature associated with service delivery protests in South Africa. The media and scholars have often referred to the rising violence trend in service delivery protests. However, the definition of violent protests is too broad; it fails to paint a correct picture of the violence. Previously, the general tendency was to classify these protests as either peaceful or violent – a simple dichotomy. Therefore, scholars have developed the 3-way formulation of protests as ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘violent’. Although the three-way formulation is the best so far, it conflates damage to property and injury to people as ‘violent protests’. Damage to property, however bad, should not be bracketed together with injury to people. Drawing on qualitative data from low-income communities in Cape Town, South Africa, I consider deliberately vandalising property as ‘vandalistic’ protests and attacks on persons as ‘violent’ protests. Building on the three-fold formulation of service delivery protests, I introduce a new category – the vandalistic protests. I, therefore, argue for a fourfold formulation of protests as ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’, vandalistic and ‘violent’, which is often the normal order protests evolve. This analysis highlights the need for authorities to swiftly address communities’ grievances to avoid more radical protest tactics. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).","PeriodicalId":45047,"journal":{"name":"Politikon","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politikon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2023.2257502","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTViolence is a crucial feature associated with service delivery protests in South Africa. The media and scholars have often referred to the rising violence trend in service delivery protests. However, the definition of violent protests is too broad; it fails to paint a correct picture of the violence. Previously, the general tendency was to classify these protests as either peaceful or violent – a simple dichotomy. Therefore, scholars have developed the 3-way formulation of protests as ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’ and ‘violent’. Although the three-way formulation is the best so far, it conflates damage to property and injury to people as ‘violent protests’. Damage to property, however bad, should not be bracketed together with injury to people. Drawing on qualitative data from low-income communities in Cape Town, South Africa, I consider deliberately vandalising property as ‘vandalistic’ protests and attacks on persons as ‘violent’ protests. Building on the three-fold formulation of service delivery protests, I introduce a new category – the vandalistic protests. I, therefore, argue for a fourfold formulation of protests as ‘orderly’, ‘disruptive’, vandalistic and ‘violent’, which is often the normal order protests evolve. This analysis highlights the need for authorities to swiftly address communities’ grievances to avoid more radical protest tactics. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
南非的“暴力抗议”:理解服务提供抗议
摘要暴力是南非服务抗议活动的一个重要特征。媒体和学者们经常提到,在提供服务的抗议活动中,暴力倾向不断上升。然而,暴力抗议的定义过于宽泛;它没有描绘出暴力的正确图景。以前,一般倾向于将这些抗议活动分为和平抗议和暴力抗议两类——一种简单的二分法。因此,学者们将抗议活动分为“有序”、“破坏性”和“暴力”三种形式。虽然“三方”的表述是迄今为止最好的,但它将财产损失和人身伤害混为一谈,称之为“暴力抗议”。财产损失无论多么严重,都不应与人身伤害相提并论。根据来自南非开普敦低收入社区的定性数据,我认为故意破坏财产是“故意破坏”抗议,对人的攻击是“暴力”抗议。在服务提供抗议的三种形式的基础上,我引入了一个新的类别——破坏抗议。因此,我主张将抗议活动分为“有序的”、“破坏性的”、“破坏的”和“暴力的”四种形式,这通常是抗议活动演变的正常秩序。这一分析强调,当局需要迅速解决社区的不满,以避免更激进的抗议策略。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Politikon
Politikon POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: Politikon focuses primarily on South African politics, but not exclusively so. Over the years the journal has published articles by some of the world" leading political scientists, including Arend Lijphart, Samuel Huntingdon, and Philippe Schmitter. It has also featured important contributions from South Africa"s leading political philosophers, political scientists and international relations experts. It has proved an influential journal, particularly in debates over the merits of South Africa"s constitutional reforms (in 1983 and 1994). In the last few years special issues have focused on women and politics in South Africa, and the South African election of 1999.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信