Earlier this year, Jockin Arputham, President of the National Slum Dwellers Foundation of India (NSDF), and I were invited to Nairobi to speak at various forums on urban governance and security of tenure. Common to our presentations was the argument that an exclusively State-driven strategy to manage cities, tackle urban poverty and further social justice is no longer possible. The State, by itself, is unable to provide the resources or the managerial capacity to effect change. Also, the complexities of surviving in cities are creating different constituencies in society. Realizing the potential of cities as geographic, political, social, cultural and economic spaces conducive to individual development, the urban poor have begun to explore a range of associations through which they are able to have an impact on the decision-making processes of their cities.

UNCHS Photo

Communities of the poor are beginning to envisage for themselves a new role as part of the citizenry, as active agents participating in municipal agenda-setting and helping administrations solve the city's infrastructure problems. This is a far cry from the stereotypical image of the poor as anonymous and passive recipients of aid. Their ability to understand, anticipate and explore the needs and interests of other groups makes planned development more attractive to potential partners. No longer merely consumers of development, who show little understanding of the politics behind the choices cities make when adopting particular urban renewal strategies, the poor have become more politically astute and aware of the larger picture.

The slum community representatives realize that the coexistence of competing agendas allows them to negotiate more favourable terms for their constituencies. Of course, this sometimes means agreeing to compromise on some of their own priorities for the sake of working together with outside partners and participating in larger programmes. This new-found confidence of the poor in building relationships is the result of unanticipated dividends from these partnerships. For instance, working with cities on sanitation has led to long-standing dialogue on issues of tenure, access to other basic amenities and services, and allocation of more resources to the upgrading of informal settlements. This continuing dialogue between the municipality and coalitions of the poor also gives the city a viable framework to interact and come to terms with a significant element of its population, ignored for so many years. When communities of the poor become proactive, they begin to organize and count themselves in an informal census. They formulate their own agendas and participate in providing solutions to infrastructure problems.

They help in upgrading and universalizing certain basic obligations that municipalities have with regard to sanitation and water supply. They become active agents proposing concrete solutions to sometimes long-standing urban issues that cities face.

More importantly, these federations of the urban poor provide a neutral and more inclusive form of association than the ethnic identities that community members traditionally rely on to bond or associate with each other. Communities migrating to cities often congregate on the traditional basis of ethnic language, kinship, religion or caste, among others. Sometimes evictions, displacements and relocations (formal or informal) modify this communal structure. However, these traditional ties usually remain the preferred means of linkage that form primary communities. This inevitably leads to types of authority based on caste, race, tribe, religion and ethnic identity. The leaders of such communities often have interests and priorities that differ from the needs and aspirations of their very poor constituencies. Therefore, the poor are often forced to participate in an agenda that does not necessarily benefit them. In many ways, the slum dweller federations empower the poor by giving them a more "modern" identity and they allow people to form associations other than those based on traditional ties.

A crucial aspect of modern citizenship is the right to multiple associations, which is often denied the poor in traditional communities. They are made to believe that only by constantly proving their allegiance to the leadership of their community will they receive patronage or protection. The poor depend on this kind of informal patronage to maintain a sense of security, because the authorities often do not recognize their rights as citizens. In fact, the greatest producers of insecurity and fear for the poor living in informal settlements are often the various arms of the State.

Patronage through these various ethnic, religious or caste identities provides de facto protection from police abuse or forced eviction. Ironically, the State often seems to have abdicated the social pact, failing to offer its citizens care and protection, and in doing so it makes these exclusive identities more powerful and their divisive influence more palpable.

If the municipality provided a space for dialogue, negotiation and association, thereby creating an institutional arrangement which recognizes that pavement and slum dwellers and squatters are also part of its primary constituency, it would be possible to fulfil the needs and aspirations of the urban poor. Instead of relying on religion and kinship alone, their need for association and community would find expression in these new voluntary arrangements. They would then not need to continue to seek protection from eviction or demolition through an informal allegiance to a communal identity. In many countries, this kind of divisive communalism is the main source of social tension and ethnic violence.

An important feature of our alliance's activities—and perhaps one of its greatest strengths—is that these differences among its members are acknowledged to be inherent to the association itself. We do not try to suppress any of these differences, but rather we encourage people to be proud of being involved in multiple associations. However, participation in our alliance ultimately means working towards fulfilling the needs and aspirations of those individuals, families and communities in the city who lack healthy water, sanitation, sewage and secure tenure, and who struggle for survival. This, we believe, is the first step towards a new identity for the urban residents or citizens who happen to be squatters. We believe that this can initiate a process by which diversity will come to be seen as an asset and not a liability for the city. Helping citizens learn to be tolerant of differences and diversity and to benefit from the complex, stimulating environments of cities is perhaps the greatest challenge of urban governance. Harnessing the energies of diversity, in turn, builds the peace and security needed for any city to thrive.