Rural developmental initiatives in the post-apartheid South Africa : a case study on poverty alleviation in Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni

Abstract

This study paints an unambiguous reflection of contemporary South African rural communities. That which depicts a rhetoric epitomised by abject poverty, underdevelopment, inequality and marginalisation. Such an awful depiction is synonymous with the communities of Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni, which are yet to benefit fully from the transformation of the post-apartheid era. As an agendum to alleviating poverty amongst these poverty-stricken and under-developed communities, the government instituted rural developmental initiatives such as the RDP, GEAR, ACGISA and CRDP, amongst a host of other interventionist initiatives. Despite enormous investments and intermeshed developmental interventions, the current poverty trends amongst these communities are analogous to their pitiable condition prior to the initiation of these governmental interventions. In consonance, the focus of this study was to examine the extent to which the major rural development initiatives of the post-apartheid South Africa has contributed to poverty alleviation. It also provided a critical analysis of rural developmental initiatives implemented in the post-apartheid era of South Africa; it evaluated the capacity of local government to implement rural development initiatives; and it identified factors contributing to the successful implementation of rural developmental initiatives and the achievement of desired outcomes for rural development. Furthermore, the study also identified the weaknesses and challenges undermining rural developmental initiatives in Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni, whilst also designing a theoretical model in consonance with the rural development requirements of the aforementioned communities. The novelty of this study lies in its ability to synchronize and aggregate the expertise, insight, knowledge and lived-experiences of prominent rural development stakeholders as well as beneficiaries into one study. Thus, to actualise the aim and objectives, a mixed method was used as a primary study design, while a multiple-case study sufficed as the actual data collection method. While structured interviews were conducted amongst 31 prominent rural development stakeholders, questionnaires were also administered to 533 community members within the Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni communities. More so, a total of 41 individuals participated in focus group interviews. Further to this research design, a wide range of government documents ranging from White Papers to Green Papers, legislation; statistical reports; government gazettes and reports were also reviewed. In referrence to deductions from the qualitative and quantitative enquiry, literature and a host of other audited governmental sources, it could be deduced that rural inhabitants are not passive beneficiaries of rural developmental initiatives that are ostensibly designed to better their livelihood. A repertoire of sources points to a centralised planning of these developmental initiatives, which tends towards a top-bottom approach. Such an approach has often excluded rural inhabitants from been engaged in the planning process of their livelihood. Rather, this has been placed in the hands of state actors who may not fully grasp the grassroots and fundamental dynamics of rural spaces. This approach is adjudged not suitable for either agricultural or rural development, as typified by the Hlaleneni Landscape project in Gunjaneni. Moreover, a number of rural developmental trajectories lack crucial acumen into the fundamental needs of these poor communities. This laxity can be attributed to the habitual side-lining or exclusion of these rural inhabitants. Nevertheless, based on the repertoire of intensive literature and empirical assertions, rural development initiatives have marginally contributed to poverty alleviation amongst the communities of Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni. Regardless of this truism, it may be rather premature for rural development stakeholders to breathe a sigh of relief over the feats recorded over the past two decades as communities such as Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini, Gunjaneni and a host of other rural communities still wallow in a state of under-development and poverty. The time of realism has set in for rural development stakeholders to make more proactive interventions in addressing the awful spectre of under-development and poverty epitomised amongst these rural communities. The study further reveals that the communities of Mgobodzi, Lusikisiki Mcobothini and Gunjaneni are yet to optimize the resources and potentials within their domain. Such optimization may be orchestrated through the reinvigoration of rural municipalities; institutional partnership with rural municipalities; upscaling of subsistence farming to commercial farming; capitalising on the strategic location of South Africa‘s coast for the exportation of agricultural produce alongside other pragmatic interventionist approaches to alleviate poverty amongst these poverty-stricken communities.