Squatting in the media is always framed in contentious terms. Mainly, the topic comes up when those residing on lands that were not titled to them, are being forced out by the government or private citizens. This one narrative has created a culture of intolerance and yes, even hate towards those who do not have access to their own titled lands.
People will often paint those who squat on land as having nefarious intent, but it really speaks to societal collapse and the State’s failure in the face of poverty. The State has an obligation to deal with its citizens fairly and the entire process has been marred by a clear imbalance of power as it relates to State responses. Dictating that they move and give up their livelihoods or else face demolition is not a just process, especially since many have been living there for almost two decades now and have solidified themselves in the community.
There is a certain privilege inherent in believing that the actions taken by the government to destroy the homes of citizens they were still supposed to be in discussions with, was a right and just move. It is indicative of the way in which the struggles of those who are poor are seen as a hindrance to society, when they are quite literally society. Them being landless and unhoused is a systemic failure rather than a solely individual one as is the common argument. The question has been asked though about why such a response to these persons who are not a barrier to the building of the road. The common belief is that it is likely related to the skyrocketing value the lands are sure to have once the road is completed. This is a fair assessment, because if these persons are not in the path of the road, why are they being asked to move? If it is due to rising costs of their lands in the coming years, are they as citizens not entitled to benefit from this too?
Many persons are unable to acquire lands needed, and instead of remaining unhoused, they erect structures to protect themself and family from the elements. It is very easy to say that the government is steadily distributing lands and as such, there is no need for people to squat. The reality is often much different from the picture that is painted. For many, acquiring land is not a possibility. There are those who have made requests over two decades ago and still remain landless, and even if they do acquire land, they have no access to building loans.
Caroline Shenaz Hossein in a study conducted in Guyana titled, “The Exclusion of Afro-Guyanese Hucksters in Micro-Banking,” explored the systemic reasons behind the difficulties Afro-Guyanese face in getting home loans through conventional banking and other financial services. In the paper, she argues, “micro-banking managers and staff hold onto historically-rooted prejudices which interfere with the allocation of loans.” Race, she found, was one of the main issues that stymied the progress of many Afro-Guyanese from getting building loans. “Issues of race, class and gender bias intertwined in the lending process that deny poor Afro-Guyanese women loans,” she wrote. It is the common rhetoric that this matter of the squatters is not a racial one, but rather one of pro-development vs. anti-development. Land issues and struggles have long been racialized in Guyana. From the way in which lands have historically been distributed to squatters who received land titles, it is an issue that has long had ethnic considerations tied to it. The way in which residents of Mocha, particularly Black women were treated, is not something that you see occurring with any other ethnicity in Guyana. One thing that unifies both the PPP/C and the APNU coalition is the way in which persons deemed as illegal squatters in predominantly Black communities are treated, especially in the face of “developmental” projects.
I want us to think about what development really means. There seems to be an illusion that development is primarily infrastructural. Yes, we need roads, bridges, and housing schemes, but these are just one small part in a country’s developmental needs. Development has to be comprehensive. It is actually quite anti-developmental to build roads that result in the destruction of people’s homes and livelihoods, or to move ahead with a bridge without assessing the environmental damage that will be caused or even to create new housing schemes that lack basic access to water, electricity, schools and health centres. What does development mean in such a context, and for whom does it work?
Squatting is an inherently political process (and no I am not referring primarily to governmental politics). Land and property come with power, and historically squatting has been a means for those who are historically underprivileged to gain access to basic needs. The UN estimates that over 10% of the world’s population are squatters, which equates to almost 900 million persons. These are not people who are trying to get one over on the State and other well to do citizens. These are people who face extreme socio-economic challenges and are simply trying to meet their needs.