There cannot be different lockdown rules for the poor

Something is not getting through to some sections of society about this lockdown.

On the surface, most know that a deadly virus is going across the whole world, wreaking untold havoc.

But there are sections of society that are not adhering to the requirements of the lockdown, which stipulate that people must stay in their homes and only leave in case of medical emergencies, to get to a police station or to replenish food supplies.

In the main, suburban areas are adhering to lockdown regulations, but reports indicate that most of the densely populated townships across the country are not observing social distancing as they should.

Activists and civil society organisations have advanced arguments on why social distancing is not possible in poor, overpopulated areas.

That has never been in question. In fact, even the president himself has acknowledged that people are being asked to be united in fighting a very difficult battle.

The burden on citizens was never going to be an equal one because of the structure of society. But the question has always been: should the lockdown exclude the poor and let the pandemic strike down those parts of society?

The burden of a lockdown on poor people is not unique to South Africa. Multiple societies across the world, from the slums of India to the favelas of Brazil, are being asked to take on the same burden that South African township residents and those that live in informal settlements are being asked to.

The concept of South African exceptionalism that has seen citizens view themselves as perhaps a little different from the rest of the world did this country wonders in ensuring societal cohesion during the transition to democracy. But that exceptionalism cannot be used now to claim privileged exclusion from doing what is necessary in the fight against the pandemic.

When the 1918 Spanish flu hit South Africa, social distancing was not enforced as strictly as it should have been. UCT emeritus professor of history Howard Phillips recounted in an article how two ships carrying 2,000 black troops coming back from serving in World War I docked for replenishments in Sierra Leone, where Spanish flu had already hit. During the stopover, the troops contracted the virus.

On their return to SA, the troops were allowed to go to their various homes across the country without being quarantined. The result: 300,000 people lost their lives to Spanish flu in SA, directly linked to those soldiers.

The lesson: exempting a single group of people from lockdown rules can have disastrous consequences for SA. That’s why there cannot be different rules for the poor.

The government has a constitutional and moral duty to provide full basic services for the poorest communities in SA during lockdown.

The only time communities must express dissatisfaction must be if they feel their living conditions unfairly expose them to Covid-19, or their lives are in danger from factors like hunger.

Besides that, there is no excuse. Everyone must toe the line, failing which the law must be enforced.

Here’s what those communities not fully obeying the rules and regulations of the breakdown must learn– and fast: the longer they disobey the conditions of the lockdown, the longer it is going to be necessary for government to keep extending the lockdown.

It is in the hands of those not fully obeying the lockdown rules to end the lockdown.

Sydney Majoko.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.