2.2.3. Justice for a `Just City'.
In one of her conference papers on the search for the just
city that she sent to me by email in April 2006, Fainstein gives the
historical perspective of the just city, stating that «the
profession of planning was born of a vision of the good city» (Fainstein,
2005: 1). The idea of
`good city' came from the Ebenezer Howard and Baron
Haussman's conception of creative destruction, and from the American and
European technocrats' idea of urban progress, as a response to what
Fainstein calls «a revulsion at the chaotic and unhealthful character
of the industrial city». Their common purpose was to achieve efficiency,
order, and beauty in cities through reason; but, according to Fainstein,
today's feature of planning is «modesty».
Fainstein's just city approach emanates from «the
progressive leftist ideal of a revitalised, cosmopolitan, just and
democratic city», raised against the idea of «unjust
distributional
outcomes» and the failure to take into account the views of
affected citizens, including FMs,
in the public decision-making processes (Fainstein, 2005: 3).
In Cities and Diversity (2005), she defines the concept of the
`just cit y' in terms of democracy, equality, diversity, growth and
sustainability (Fainstein, 2005: 3). According to my understanding, Fainstein
believes that justice within cities should promote all those values. A
just cit y should, therefore, be democratic, promote equalit y, tolerate
diversity (including diversity resulting from migration), promote economic
growth where benefits are fairly distributed, and take into account
all issues regarding sustainability.
Fainstein's idea of a democratic city is based partly
on Fisher's populist idea of the participation of ordinary people in
the decision making processes. Both Fisher (1990) and Fainstein (2005)
condemn the exclusion of ordinary people (including FMs) from the
planning process and criticise the hegemony of `experts' (Fainstein,
1997). According to them, participation in the decision-making process is
part of the ideal of the just city, «both because it is a worthy goal in
itself and because benevolent authoritarism is unlikely» (ibid,
1997). Democracy, for Fainstein, consists of resolving
problems by endowing minorities with rights that cannot be transformed by the
majority (Fainstein, 1998). The success of a planning project then depends
on the level of participation or involvement of the marginalised,
including FMs, or those who are targeted. She, like Sandercock (1998), also
insists on the role
of the third-sector (or civil society) to challenge existing
structural inequalities among groups (Fainstein, 1998). This study will,
therefore, examine whether the Johannesburg's CSOs dealing with the FMs
are engaged in this political challenges.
With regards to equality, Fainstein is influenced by Rawls'
conception of equality in which equality is viewed as a rational approach to
organising a `well-ordered' city (Fainstein, 2005:
13). She is also influenced by Friedmann (1987) who considers
equality «as a necessary pre- condition to human fulfilment and
condemns the dehumanising effects of capitalism» (Fainstein,
1997). The notion of equality can be used in order to redress
disadvantage as it affects groups. And equality includes a range of
considerations that concern planners, namely,
the impact of environmentally degrading facilities on different
social groups, access to public space, public policies and the right to the
city (Fainstein, 2006: 17).
Young (1990), Healy (1996), and Sandercock (1998) have also
influenced Fainstein in her
difference' with ethical precepts regarding justice. She
«outlines a vision of the good city
within the framework of a group-identified society»
(Fainstein, 1997). According to Young, Healey, Sandercock, and Fainstein,
differences among groups are what characterise cities, while acceptance
of difference provides the moral basis for urban life. That is why, in cities,
diversity should be adopted as a guiding value. This is the concept
of multiculturalism or interculturalism which «requires respect for
the norms of others» (Fainstein, 1997 and Sandercock, 2005 and
2006), including the norms of FMs.
It is important to clarify the concepts of
`multiculturalism' and `interculturalism' used by Sandercock (2006).
According to Sandercock, multiculturalism is more that an idea; it is
a political philosophy and a great social project; and, at the same
time, «a way of imagining how we might manage to co-exist
peaceably in the increasingly culturally diverse shared spaces of streets
and neighbourhoods, cities and regions» (Sandercock, 2006: 1). In a
country where multiculturalism is a guiding idea, the government sets aside
funds for the preservation
of cultural heritage of each ethnic group. That is why, in a
country such as Canada (one of the countries which espoused a political
philosophy of multiculturalism), the state encourages individuals
voluntarily to affiliate with the culture and traditions of their
choice, through multicultural grants, «to support the maintenance
of various cultures and languages and to encourage diverse cultural
festivals in public places as well as the symbolic gesture of public
art works that recognize and celebrate the multiple
peoples who make up the nation» (Sandercock, 2005: 8). The philosophy
of multiculturalism led to the birth of `multicultural cities', in which the
cultural diversity of ethnic groups is promoted and celebrated, and the
respect of the norms of `others' is required and encouraged.
Sandercock supports the idea of the multicultural city
because of its emphasis on the celebration and respect of the cultural
diversity, but she suggests a shift from the multicultural city to an
intercultural one because, instead of building cities or neighbourhoods that
provide culturally specific services, it is better to help in building hybrid
cities that are home for all, in which no one culture is dominant, and each
culture learns from, contributes to, and adapts to others, to create something
entirely new (Sandercock, 2005: 10). She shares Rushdie's idea of «change
by fusion» and «change by conjoining». According to her, using
interculturalism as a guiding philosophy to build cities, means
building cities in which «strangers become
neighbours»; that is, building cities in which people
can transcend their ethnic and other
differences, and where places and programmes are designed
for everyone and not for any
specific ethno-cultural group. Rushie calls this process:
`Mongrelisation' (ibid, 2005).
Healey (1997) is concerned about planning practices and
privileges the post-structuralist values of diversity along with the
populist goal of participation that she considers as a guiding norm. Inspired
by Habermas' communicative theory, she favours consensus building in the
decision-making process. Accordingly, «right and bad actions are those we
can come to agree on, in particular times and places, across our diverse
differences» (Healy cited in Fainstein,
1997). Fainstein, however, criticises a consensus building
approach to planning by suggesting that «a negotiated consensus may
fail to produce the desired outcome» (Fainstein, 1997),
particularly for FMs who may not be part of the mainstream negotiation process.
That is why,
in this work, I will propose a role for CSOs that advocate on
behalf of FMs for the inclusion
of their rights in the public decision-making processes. This
proposed role will be discussed in later chapters of the report.
Through the value of growth, Fainstein refers to the just
distribution of economic benefits of
the social goods among social groups. Based on Harvey's (1996)
idea of economic justice in which social justice is regarded as something
that people must always fight for as `a key value', Fasinstein calls
for «an ethic of political solidarity built across different
places» (Fainstein, 1997). Talking about mechanisms of fair distribution,
she emphasises the necessit y
of targeting redistributional policies to attain social benefit
for the most disadvantaged.
In terms of sustainability for a just city, Fainstein
has founded her arguments on Harvey's (1997) conception of environmental
justice, which problematises «the tension between human comfort and
respect for the environment to a defence of environmental
justice» (Fainstein,
1996: 5). Sustainability in the context of the just
city is about building responsible cities where people use, in a
responsible manner, their environment for their own benefits, without ignoring
environmental benefits for future generations.
This section has tried to establish a link between
forced migration and urban planning theories, by showing how planning
theories and practices can respond to the challenges of forced migration
within cities. The promotion of interculturalism, equality, and social
justice
for all, particularly for FMs who are among the most
disadvantaged members of SA society,
can be a major planning response. To conclude this
section, it is important to note that
Fainstein does not ignore some of the possible negative
consequences of the just city. She
recognises that aspects of democracy, diversity, and
sustainability may be problematic, in the sense that they sometimes have
undesirable potentials or risks. Democracy, for instance, can compromise the
rights of minority groups (particularly for FMs), as the high cost of achieving
equality through redistribution creates resentment among those who must
sacrifice, resulting
in a legitimation crisis and even counter-revolution or
civil war. Diversity, in turn, can provoke a social breakdown; and
sustainability may diminish growth, thereby producing unemployment and
sacrificing desired consumption (Fainstein, 2005: 3).
The next section will define civil society and will establish
power relation between planning and politics.
| 
