{"title":"南非的“暴力抗议”:理解服务提供抗议","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":"{\"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}","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}
‘Violent protests’ in South Africa: understanding service delivery protests
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).
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.