The Urban Foundation closed its doors on Tuesday=20 18 years after it was founded in response to the=20 Soweto uprising. It was a controversial organisation=20 but, writes chief executive Sam van Coller, it=20 changed the way we think — and work
SHUTTING down the Urban Foundation, emptying the=20 offices, watching the staff disperse to other posts in=20 industry, academia and non-governmental organisations=20 is a sad task — but the UF has proven a valuable point=20 that augurs well for our new nation. At a time when the=20 country is involved in nation building, the UF’s record=20 shows that it is possible for different interests to=20 work together for the common good.
The UF was founded in 1977 by Harry Oppenheimer, Anton=20 Rupert, other key businessmen and those community=20 leaders bold enough to work with business. Established=20 more out of anger and frustration with government and=20 the deteriorating situation than any great vision of=20 the future, it has had an impact on South Africa far=20 beyond what could have been imagined at the time.
From=20the start it walked a tightrope between government=20 antagonism and community suspicion — based partly on=20 its willingness to engage with the apartheid government=20 when liberation organisations opposed such contact. It=20 had to live off grant income raised each year in=20 response to its performance. The UF did not operate off=20 a conventional representative power base — its=20 instruments were its values and commitment.
One of its major achievements might have been foreseen=20 from the beginning: In the apartheid years, it=20 pioneered a political role for business, not simply by=20 opposing apartheid legislation but also by persuading=20 both political and business leadership that it was=20 politically possible to remove key apartheid=20
The Urban Foundation will, however, probably be best=20 remembered for its contribution to low-income housing. =20 Not that the UF built thousands of houses, but it=20 evolved a sustainable strategy that enabled poor people=20 to enter the housing process on an ownership basis.=20 Though some would object to this claim, the housing=20 strategy now being put into operation in South Africa=20 is based on what the UF has been both propagating and=20 demonstrating on the ground.
In one sense, the key factor motivating the=20 establishment of the UF was the clear need to respond=20 to the urbanisation process that was taking place=20 despite influx control. In its focus on urbanisation=20 and the cities, the UF changed the paradigm. It=20 convinced leaders that cities do not have to be=20 disaster areas but in fact represent the best=20 opportunity for improving the lives of poor people –=20 and with the right strategies can become the engine of=20 economic growth.
At an early stage, the UF realised that successful=20 development requires both good policy and effective=20 institutional capacity. Over its lifetime the UF=20 established a substantial number of NGOs, particularly=20 in the fields of teacher development, early childhood=20 educare, adult education, school building, housing=20 delivery and housing finance. The UF leaves behind it=20 substantial NGO institutional capacity for delivery in=20 these critical areas.
In line with its commitment to a partnership between=20 business and communities, the UF pioneered the concept=20 of civil society partnerships in development. The many=20 NGOs it established are jointly governed by business=20 and community leaders and are examples of what can be=20 achieved by different interest groups working together.
More recently it has led the thinking on how to turn=20 around the decline in the country’s educational system.=20 These thoughts are increasingly being absorbed into=20
In essence, the UF, a relatively small donations-based=20 organisation, changed the way people think and the way=20 things are done. Three ingredients seem to have made=20 that possible:
* The Urban Foundation was able to combine policy=20 advocacy with practical development activity in a way=20 that heightened its credibility and impact.
* It never sought the popular solution; it was more=20 concerned with practical solutions that addressed the=20 realities of the situation. Pragmatism was in many ways=20 its ideology.
* It brought together paid employees and voluntary=20 participants from all walks of civil society who were=20 able to rise above sectional interests and believed=20 positive change in South Africa was possible.
It must not be imagined that the UF got it all right –=20 it didn’t. It made mistakes — too numerous to list. At=20 times it took risks that were too great, at times it=20 lacked humility and antagonised its potential friends. =20 But it also achieved many positive results because it=20 brought together individual South Africans who were=20 prepared to get out there and make things happen –=20 people who believed that it was possible to bring about=20 positive change despite what often seemed to be=20 enormous obstacles.
The record shows that when business acts collectively=20 through funding a value-based organisation, it is=20 possible to influence the wider environment for the=20 benefit of all South Africans. This says two things –=20 that there is good reason for business to go on funding=20 collectively, and that South Africa is amenable to=20 this sort of positive influence. The open approach=20 adopted by the new government suggests that this will=20 be even more true in the future than in the past.