Problems and Purpose
The lockdown period had left a lot of families, especially families that relied solely on wages that were low and informal settlements, in despair and in crisis. Many families were facing hunger and a shortage of food, and some couldn’t get proper healthcare, such as medication, because of the lockdown, which had limited the movement of the economy, forcing people not to go to work. Due to this issue, people in the communities, such as healthcare workers, teachers, and other community members, such as church members, decided to volunteer to help their local communities, and that is when the Community Action Networks (CANs) were started. Their main purpose was to help people who were struggling in their communities, whether it be through the aid of healthcare or food. According to Van Ryneveld, Schneider, Brady, and Whyle, “The Covid-19 pandemic unfolded against the backdrop of Cape Town’s deep socio-economic inequality. Lasting legacies of spatial apartheid have kept the city’s neighbourhoods segregated along racial and class lines, imposing high transport costs on workers and low-income residents who mostly live in the peripheries of the city.” (M. van Ryneveld et al., 2020, p.3)
Background History and Context
The outbreak of the Coronavirus, also known as COVID-19, had hit the world like an atomic bomb. Just like every country that was affected by the virus, to protect most citizens from getting infected and to prevent the virus from spreading like a viral phenomenon, the South African government had to put the entire country under lockdown. This meant that people could no longer live their normal lives; for example, people could not go to work, and children could not go to school. Because of all of this, it meant that the country’s economic movement was limited, and so were the livelihoods and the hustle of people who were working. The country having to go under lockdown had exposed the inequalities and the struggles that South Africa’s middle-class workers were facing that were hidden by minimum wages; their having to rely on their wages has shown how much the middle-class workers are not middle-class. Looking at this problem, community members in local communities in Cape Town had decided that they would be of aid to their communities during the lockdown. They had decided to start a social movement known as the Community Action Networks (CANs) that would aid the community members in their local communities. According to Johnson, Community Action Networks, or CANS, began in Cape Town in March 2020, during a surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. By identifying resources, strengths, challenges, and needs in the communities in and surrounding Cape Town, these groups aim to become resilient and to thrive together. This social movement began on WhatsApp when people started to volunteer to be part of the group that would be of aid to their local communities. This online toolkit has influenced more people to be part of the initiative. According to Van Ryneveld, Schneider, Brady, and Whyle, “The group began by putting together an online toolkit encouraging people to organise into a network of autonomous, self-organised, neighbourhood-level CANs.” (M. van Ryneveld et al., 2020, p.6). Because of the online platforms that were used to mobilise this social movement, the CANs were joined by members from the upper class, where donations were made and distributed to the communities that needed help, such as the informal settlements.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
When the CANs began in 2020 during the lockdown, their first initiative was to respond to food, water and health crises. It was formed by a group of community members, such as healthcare workers, church members, community leaders, and other members of the community. To be part of the social movement, people volunteered and were added to the WhatsApp groups. This means that people who were part of this initiative were people from different backgrounds and ethnicities who came together with the aim of helping the people in their local communities, seeing how the lockdown was influencing them. Because people from the communities were willing to become volunteers, many groups of CANs were established within a few months. There were about 150-170 CANs that had emerged across the city, especially in communities that are dominated by informal settlements. According to Hamann, Surmeier, and Drimie (2020, p.3), “There are over 2,000 volunteers registered in about 150 such Community Action Networks in the Cape Town metropole, and there are about 20 pairings between CANs. They are connected in an overarching network called Cape Town Together, which emphasises that we act locally, while also drawing on our collective experience and energy to share lessons and resources across the city.”. It is said that the members of the community action networks used online platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and radio stations to communicate with community members and raise awareness. According to Odendaal (2020, p.394), “The aim is to enable community assistance at a neighbourhood scale through WhatsApp groups. The Facebook page reflects a diverse array of actions that range from food delivery, care for the elderly, local advocacy, and information dissemination.” Furthermore, the members of the CAN used other platforms such as the radios and television for mobilisation. According to Odendaal (2020, p.394), “Through Facebook pages and groups, WhatsApp groups and use of Zoom and local TV and radio, a collective multimedia platform for communication and mobilisation has emerged, signalling that: . . . during the lockdown and period of uncertainty, we are in this together”. Since there were different kinds of CANs groups in different communities, such as Philippi, Kenilworth, and Langa, this meant that the CANs in those communities did not do the same things in terms of getting donations and distribution. For example, according to Van Ryneveld, Schneider, Brady, and Whyle (2024, p.4), “In Kenilworth, CAN we meet in the local church, walking distance from all our homes. In Langa CAN, we used bicycles to deliver food and medicine …”.
Furthermore, there were ways that the CANs saved the funds that they received from donations. They used an NPO that helped them track the funds that they received through donations and helped them see exactly how much they make weekly. According to Walters (2022, p. 2), “One of the ways that helped us to work towards relationships of solidarity rather than charity (a key principle of CTT) was when we began to use an online platform, Common Change, for managing and distributing funds. This is an NPO [non-profit organization] that helps communities and groups to give collaboratively and manage democratically”.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The community action network’s creation was also to make sure that community members work together during the lockdown. Everyone who wanted to join the initiative or be one of the donors could join through a group, because there were WhatsApp and Facebook groups that were created so that people could join. Furthermore, to make sure that the initiative is not biased, the groups were open to everyone; no specific people were chosen to be part of them. This initiative was not only joined by the people of the lower class, but people of the upper class also joined and volunteered to be part of the CANs. According to Walters, “On the Common Change platform, we were six women: three black and three white; they ranged in age from early twenties to early seventies; their education levels varied greatly as did their experience in community organising. The white members were from a middle-class suburb and the black members from poor and working-class communities.” (Walters, 2022, p.1). Furthermore, there were WhatsApp group chats that were created, and these group chats allowed people to interact with one another since it was during the lockdown. According to Johnson, “CANs, such as Cape Town Together, sprang up from WhatsApp messaging groups, creating dozens of informal, non-hierarchical, and adaptable networks of locals collecting urgent resources and delivering them to their communities.” (S Johnson, 2023, p5). Since this initiative is a self-organized neighborhood network that was created by members of the community to help other people in their community, they were not paid because it was not under the government. They were not even funded by the government; they had to take out money from their pockets to help with donations. For instance, according to Van Ryneveld, Schneider, Brady, and Whyle, “People would send as little as R40 to buy a few loaves of bread, uhm, we had pensioners reaching out to us. “I would like to help, but I can’t go to the shops, can I send you money for bread?” And that is essentially how it all snowballed, you know.” (M. van Ryneveld et al., 2024, p.4). Furthermore, because there were a lot of groups for different communities, each group had a coordinator who would make sure that everything was smooth, and the members of the group came to a decision when they were deliberating about something. According to Walters, “Each CAN had a system of reporting to its own membership base. In Newlands, we had a WhatsApp group of between 80–100 members. Two, three, or four coordinators (this varied at different times) were the conduit for decision-making and communications – these were people who stepped up to volunteer.” (S Walters, 2022, p.1). Furthermore, some people chose to participate in this network by donating. This means that they did not volunteer to be part of the social movement but rather helped the movement by donating as little as they could.
Methods and Tools Used
The community action networks used plenty of tools to make sure that this initiative works. For instance, in terms of communication, deliberation, and participation, they used online platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Zoom, TV, and radio stations. These platforms were mainly used because the community action network began during lockdown, which did not allow people to mobilise or be near one another, especially if they do not live in the same house. No face-to-face meetings were allowed, and no visiting other people was allowed during that time. Only people with permits were allowed to move around. These methods allowed them to be able to deliberate, discuss issues, and have public interactions with community members without having to break some of the strict lockdown rules. According to Walters, “The first thing most members had to do, to participate, was to learn to use WhatsApp more effectively and to use Zoom for virtual meetings and for teaching/learning. As data is expensive, ways were worked out early on to ensure funding for data was available for those who needed it.” (S Walters, 2022, p.15). Although the CANs have used online methods a lot to make sure that they be able to deliberate, engage with the community or socialize with one another, they had faced was when they had faced disagreements when they were supposed to reach a decision. This was simply because the group was made up of people who came from different walks of life, which means that they will have different views on certain things. Furthermore, they also faced online harassment by trolls who were mainly discriminatory towards the people who live in informal settlements. However, all these difficulties that they were facing did not discourage them; they found ways to work through them to move forward.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The social media platforms that the CANs used as a way of communicating and interacting with the public (community members) enabled community members to participate and become aware of the initiative. These tools also helped the CAN members to be aware when they have a new donor or someone who wants to join their initiative. For instance, the interviews helped people who were watching at home know that they can reach out for help when they need it, especially if there are CAN members in their area. All these tools helped everyone to play a huge role in participating. For instance, it made community members want to make donations, especially business owners. They took part in donating some of the things they were selling if they did not have money. Others would buy loaves of bread and hand them out. For instance, according to Van Ryneveld, Schneider, Brady, and Whyle, “We started, the first time we bought bread, we bought forty loaves of bread. And we handed that out … Again, it so happened that we went from 40 breads to 80, to 100, and eventually we stopped at 400 loaves of bread every single day.” (M. van Ryneveld et al., 2024, p.4). This shows that the methods that the initiative was using were working because they made people want to donate. After all, they were made aware of what is going on in their local communities. This shows huge forms of participation among community members. Furthermore, the members of the CANs had reached their goals with the help of the community members. They were able to provide aid as they intended. According to Walters, “The first emergency actions by the CANs were to respond to water, food, and health crises. They mobilised food parcels and community kitchens on a wide scale. They were able to respond more quickly and with more agility than the government. They also provided hygiene products like hand sanitisers and masks to help protect communities.” (S Walters, 2022, p. 8).
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
By looking at the scholarly work that has been written about the community action networks, one can say that, to a greater extent, they have managed to get their intended results, which are being able to provide aid to local communities that were in need. It can also be seen that they have done way more because they have managed to enforce participation among community members. They managed to not only instil unity in diversity among the community but also among themselves because they managed to work together, although they come from different walks of life, and they were able to work with other structures. For instance, according to Johnson, “CANS worked together with other social and religious groups in their communities to gather their own resources, and without the need for bureaucratic documentation, they were able to move quickly and rapidly to adapt to their own neighbours’ needs at a specific moment.” (S Johnson, 2023, p4). This also shows that to a great extent; the community action networks have managed to bring about change by staying firm to their goal regardless of the problems they faced along the way.
The initiative had a lot of influence when it came to the societal fabric of the community, individual attitudes, and the participation of the community members. This is because it managed to bring society together by working together. They also showed that individually they were keen and really wanted to help community members because, regardless of what they faced, they never gave up; instead, they found solutions to the problems that they were facing. When it comes to the participation of community members, they played a huge role in influencing members to participate because they used their forms of communication, which were online platforms, to advertise their movement. According to Johnson, “By identifying resources, strengths, challenges, and needs in the communities in and surrounding Cape Town, these groups aim to become resilient and to thrive together. Examples include soup kitchens, community theatre, care packs for the homeless, mask making, blanket and winter clothes drives, and so much more.” (S Johnson, 2023, p. 3- 4).
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Looking at the information above and the scholarly work that was written about the community action networks, although it was created during lockdown to help people in local communities, it managed to fulfil that goal. It managed to work through the hard times of the strict lockdown rules and through the difficult times when the economy of country was limited. They managed to spot an economic issue that was affecting people in their community, and they took it head-on without the help of the government and big sponsors. They saw that relying on the government for help and waiting for service delivery will take time, and more and more people in local communities are going to suffer. So, they decided as community members to take matters into their own hands and provide aid for their people. They provided service delivery for their own people, for example, “community kitchens and other food distribution; GBV education and activism; provision of information and health products; and planning food gardens.” (S Walters, 2022, p.12)
Furthermore, by looking at all the information about the CANs, it is safe to say that they can be best understood and looked at through the lens of Participatory Democracy theory. This theory emphasises the direct involvement of citizens in political and social decision-making, and it also highlights that democracy should be extended beyond formal institutions, such as elections and government structures, to include ordinary people in everyday participation when it comes to shaping their community. Political theorists such as Carole Pateman argue that participatory democracy empowers ordinary citizens to become more active than passive, which creates a more inclusive and accountable form of governance. According to Carole Pateman, “the more individuals participate in decision making, the more likely it is that they will come to regard the decisions as their own and to accept responsibility for them” (Pateman, 1970, p.36). The community action networks reflect this theory in practice because the formation and functioning of it was driven by ordinary citizens with no help from politicians or state institutions. They, as citizens alone collectively identified problems that were within their communities, deliberated, and made decisions about how to respond to community needs. They made a plan of how to communicate, which was to use digital platforms such as WhatsApp, Zoom and Facebook, which allowed and created space for dialogue, collaboration and action that mirrored the democratic ideals of participation and equality. This allowed and welcomed everyone who wanted to volunteer, regardless of class or background; everyone had a voice in decision-making and equally contributed to the collective.
The CANs fostered inclusive participation, which transformed democracy from an abstract political ideal into a lived social experience. They were able to organise, deliberate and deliver essential services without the help of the government, which shows that participatory democracy can thrive in times of crisis. The way the CANs operated goes hand in hand with the participatory democracy theory’s emphasis on civic empowerment and the belief that participation that is active participation can strengthen both communities and democratic culture. According to Walters, “On the CTT Facebook page, there is a caveat that points to the deliberately evolving nature of the network and its emphasis on participatory democracy (which includes ‘direct’ democracy) and equality” (S. Walters, 2022, p.10). The CANs' activities, such as food distribution, show how participatory democracy operates at the grassroots level. Furthermore, they show that when people are given space, trust and autonomy to act, they can address economic and social challenges while building solidarity and accountability within their communities.
All in all, looking at how the CANs have worked and were formulated, one can say that they embody Participatory democracy theory in action. They have shown that democracy is not only about voting or the government representing citizens, but it is also about citizens collectively shaping their social realities. The Cape Town Community Action Networks have proved that meaningful change and resilience come when communities actively work together and participate in decision-making processes and take ownership of their future and state of living.
See Also
References
Hamann, R., Surmeier, A., Delichte, J. and Drimie, S. (2020). Local networks can help people in distress: South Africa’s COVID-19 response needs them. [online] Doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21981.64483.
Johnson, S. (2023). Community Action Networks in Cape Town, South Africa. [online] ArcGIS Story Maps. Available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/37325563a5f342e3ae53de769a60daa5.
Odendaal, N. (2020). Constructing an ‘infrastructure of care’ – understanding the institutional remnants and socio-technical practices that constitute South Africa’s Covid-19 response. Urban Geography, 42(3), pp.391–398. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1807166.
Odendaal, N. (2021). Recombining Place. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 10(2), pp.124–131. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.20210401.oa11.
van Ryneveld, M., Schneider, H., Brady, L., and Whyle, E. (2024). Every loaf of bread is political – Reflections on collective care responses to Covid-19 in Cape Town. Social Science & Medicine, [online] 349, p.116881. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116881.
van Ryneveld, M., Whyle, E. and Brady, L. (2020). What Is COVID-19 Teaching Us About Community Health Systems? A Reflection from a Rapid Community-Led Mutual Aid Response in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Health Policy and Management. [online] Doi: https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.167.
Walters, S. (2022). Learning democracy in a social movement in times of COVID-19. [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361984153.
