SA: National Survey Report on Human Rights Awareness

National Survey Report
on
Human Rights Awareness

Published by: NIPILAR
(National Institute for Public Interest Law and
Research)

January 2001

Address: Private Bag X 06,
Arcadia,
0007

Telephone: +27 (12) 328 5901/4

Fax: +27 (12) 328 7434

Mobile: +27 ( 83) 510 5981

E-mail: [email protected]

© National Institute for Public Interest Law and Research
NIPILAR holds all copy rights to this publication. Any publication of information
contained herein, although not forbidden, NIPILAR insist on full
acknowledgement.

Research conducted by : CASE

ISBN : 0-620-27271-6

Acknowledgements:

NIPILAR would like to thank all those who contributed in ensuring that this project was a success.

We thank Sury Pillay for her technical support at conceptualisation stage and during editing, CASE researchers Mr. Piers Piqou and Dr. Ran Greenstein for compiling the results report, Matshabe Nthubu for providing project management support, USAID for providing finance, without which we would not have been able to conduct the survey and HSRC for allowing CASE to use their research system of information gathering on the ground.

“Ningadzinwa Nangemuso”

Foreword

The latest bi-annual human rights awareness survey comes out at a very critical time in history of our young democracy.

In August/September 2001, South Africa will be host to the International Community when it gathers for the World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and other forms of Intolerance.

It was for this reason that, included in the survey was racism experienced by members of society from all walks of life.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to USAID for its financial support, Sury Pillay for her technical input during the editing and CASE for their good work in conducting the survey.

On looking at the results of this survey, we come to the conclusion that awareness campaigns on human rights and that of institutions supporting constitutional democracy have to be intensified.

NIPILAR hopes you will indeed find these findings thought provoking and intriguing. I hope these results will inject a sense of urgency in tackling social difficulties that are invariably informed by lack of human rights respect and protection in our communities.

Enjoy reading these findings.

Musa Madonsela
Chief Executive Officer
NIPILAR
Pretoria

Background

In 1997, NIPILAR started a project, which specifically looked at civil society’s awareness of their human rights and constitutional instruments and Institutions that promote democratic practice. The instruments looked at were mainly those that operate at international level, like the Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), etc.

This approach drew a lot of criticism from various sectors of the human rights movement. One of the criticisms levelled at this approach was that, the International Instruments would not make an effective impact on the ordinary person, unless it is directly linked to our own national instruments and institutions.

It was then decided that, in order for us to establish baseline information, CASE would be instructed to mainly look at our local system and establish how people knew of these and their functions.

Emphasis was on awareness of the South African Constitution’s Chapter Nine (9) Institutions. This survey exercise is undertaken with the purpose of identifying areas that human rights raising campaigns should be concentrated on, so as to help build a vibrant society that respects and promotes the culture of human rights.

As a human rights awareness raising organisation, which mainly targets vulnerable members of our society, a survey of this nature is indeed vital. As once we know where and how human rights abuses take place, we are, as a member of a collective human rights movement, in a position to campaign for intervention, so as to effectively address such.

There is no doubt that our organisation, working in collaboration with some of the Institutions mentioned in the report and many others can make valuable contribution in promoting and protecting the human rights culture in our country.

Although International and regional instruments were not our focal point for this year’s survey, we will continue to include them in future surveys, as they are vital to the measurement of human rights awareness and respect in our new democracy.

Methodology
Sampling
The sampling frame was based on the 1996 Census data. The country was divided into Enumerator Areas (EAs), each comprising on average 100-125 households and each with an equal chance of being included in the survey. The selection was done to reflect stratification of the sample by province and by area (urban, informal, rural, etc.), to ensure that all segments of the population are represented in the sample. In each of the selected EAs, eight interviews were conducted with household members who were 18 years old and above.

To identify a visiting point, all stands were numerically labelled on the EA maps. Where possible non-residential stands (shops, churches, etc.) were excluded beforehand. The total number of stands within the EA was divided by eight, giving both the starting point (first visiting point) and the interval used to select additional visiting points. By adding the interval to the first visiting point, subsequent stands were identified until the quota was met. Some maps did not indicate non-residential stands, and the fieldworkers substitute these if they were selected.

If the selected stand had more than one independent household, they were labelled numerically in a clockwise direction, starting with the main household. A household was then randomly chosen using the random number grid. At every selected household, members were listed in a chronological order of age, from the oldest to the youngest. A random number grid was used to select a qualifying respondent from the members of the household.

On certain EA maps stands were marked as ‘flats’ or ‘hostels’. If there were several blocks of flats or hostels in the area, the random number grid was used to choose a particular block. For blocks of flats, a floor was randomly chosen and a questionnaire administered at every nth apartment (depending on the size of the interval). The same procedure was used in hostels. For hostels that did not clearly demarcate rooms, beds were counted as households for the purpose of the survey.

If there were several farms or rural settlements within the boundaries of the EA, the random number grid was used to select a farm. The number of households on the farm was established and the total divided by eight to obtain the sampling interval.

Fieldwork
The fieldwork was supervised by the fieldwork manager at C A S E, using a network of provincial supervisors and fieldworkers. Each province had a supervisor responsible for co-ordinating all fieldwork activities in the province and checking back on 10% of the sample. Most of the fieldworkers who worked on the survey were drawn from a database of experienced supervisors and interviewers, many of whom with extensive data collection experience. Fieldworkers were mainly recruited around targeted areas to ensure they shared the same language and cultural orientation with local respondents as much as possible.

Training took place in provincial centres, covering sampling and selection procedures, completion of the questionnaire, content of the questions with particular attention to technical terms and their translation, and interviewing methods. To measure the effectiveness of the training role playing and written exercises were undertaken. Issues regarding translation were discussed in detail to ensure that all interviewers in the provinces understand the language used in the questionnaire and agree on how to translate particular terms into the vernacular.

Once the questionnaires were completed and returned from the provinces, the responses were coded, the data were punched and the results were analysed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Abbreviations/Acronyms

· GP- Gauteng Province
· EC/ECP- Eastern Cape Province
· NWP- North West Province
· WC/WCP- Western Cape Province
· MP- Mpumalanga Province
· NC/NCP- Northern Cape Province
· KZN- Kwazulu Natal Province
· FS/FSP- Free State Province
· NP- Northern Province

Note: The difference between percentage of those who Know and do not know how to answer is those who would neither agree, nor disagree with statement, as expressed.

NIPILAR acknowledges the weakness of the survey, in failing to lower the age limit, so as to accommodate the whole youth age group (14 years up-wards). This made it impossible to establish how much was the level of human rights awareness at that age level of 14 to 17 years, which is a vital age group.

This weakness will be corrected in the survey, that should take place in 2002.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BI-ANNUAL HUMAN RIGHTS SURVEY – 2000

This survey is a follow up on the past few years surveys, which looked at many human rights instruments, especially those of International standing.

This (2000) survey concentrated mainly on national instruments and institutions.

The Instruments looked at were:

1. The bill of Rights

We began with the Bill of Rights, as this is the Corner Stone of the South African democratic System. It affirms democratic Values of Human Dignity, Equality and Freedom. The state is tasked with the duty to protect, promote and fulfil the rights, as enshrined in this bill of rights. We asked respondents to give their views on the main purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Our findings were that, only a third of respondents could provide an answer, with 36% of them saying they had never heard of the bill of Rights, an additional 29% saying they had heard about it, but did not know of its purpose. This means that two thirds of respondents could not provide an answer to the question asked.

Lack of knowledge was particularly observed in Northern Province (77%), Eastern Cape (76%), Northern Cape (73%) and KZN (70%).

Provinces that scored higher in this area were western Cape, 47% of overall, of whom 33% specified that it applied to all residents and 14% only mentioned South African citizen, followed by 38% in Gauteng, where 25% specified that it applied to all residents and 13% said it only applied to South Africans. The lowest was KZN and Northern Province, where only 18% could give correct answers, followed by Northern Eastern Cape at 22% each.

The main purpose of the Bill of Rights

The different age groups concurred on one thing, which was that they had not heard of the bill of rights (36%). The don’t know category was also high (29%) and those who answered correct were at 20%.

On gender comparison a greater percentage of women either did not know of purpose (31%) or had never heard of it (39%), compared to their male counterparts (28% and 32% respectively).

2. Human Rights Violations

Respondents were asked, in which context and/or circumstances were their human rights violated in South Africa. 39% of respondents could not answer the question.

The most Common response was the workplace (18%), followed by relations between black and white (14%), dealing with government (7%), rural areas (7%), dealing with police (5%) and in schools (3%).

Respondents from Gauteng and Western Cape were likely to mention workplace, where most human rights violations take place (24% respectively).

We found that respondents in other provinces would mention different areas, where human right violations took place. These were: Mpumalanga dealing with police (9%), Northern Cape and Eastern Cape dealing with government (11% and 9% respectively), Free State and Western Cape, in dealing with rural areas and Gauteng also mentioned school (5%).

No significant age based variations were found in response to this question, though, the younger the respondents, the more they were likely to mention race as the context in which violations take place. Only 11% of those aged 51 years and over mentioned relations compared to 16% in age group of 18-50.

Women respondents were the most to say they did not know answer (42%) against males (35%). Both gender groups are in agreement, in line with total respondent’s results, that most human rights violations take place at work (21% male and 16% female). Women registered the same percentage of violations at dealing with police and home (5% each) as their male counterparts. White and black violations registered the second highest percentage, after work (13% male and 14% female).

3. Human Rights Institutions

3.1 Awareness

Respondents were asked to list the four main human rights promoting Institutions provided for in the South African Constitution. Here, respondents were asked to list the institutions, rather than answer whether they had heard of a particular institution. It appears though, that some interviewers, particularly in Mpumalanga and the North West, field workers read out a list of existing institutions and marked responses accordingly.

Of the four Institutions, 46% of respondents mentioned the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), 34% mentioned the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), 31% mentioned the Constitutional Court and 25 mentioned the Public Protector.

The levels of knowledge varied between different race groups, with Indians and whites respondents showing a higher level of knowledge.

The age group of less than 50 showed a high level of knowledge than the age group of 51 and above.

Women would prefer to go direct to institutions (11%), a community leader (9%), Advice Centres (7%), a church (4%) and/or a lawyer (3%) whereas, their male counterparts would most likely go direct to institution (15%), community based advice centre office (7%), community leader (8%), other community based organisation and political parties (4%).

60% of women respondents said they would not know where to go, against 58% of their male counterparts.

3.2 Performance of various institutions

Here, respondents were asked whether the various institutions were successful in their work.

The results were:

SAHRC - 34% Said it was successful and 7% it was not
46% and said they did not know.

CGE - 26% Said it was successful and 7% said it was not, whereas 54% said they did not know.

Public Protector - 15% Said it was successful and 8% said it was
not with 65% saying they did not know.

Constitutional Court - 20% said if was successful, whereas 8% said it
was not, with 59% saying they did not know.

4. Other Institutions

The study also looked at other democracy promoting Institutions, to establish the public knowledge thereof.

These were IEC, which scored high in the urbanised provinces, particularly Gauteng (72%) and Western Cape (66%) and above 50% in all other provinces.

When respondents were asked if there was a need for a Commission to promote the respect of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities, 43% of respondents agreed that there was a need for such an institution. Provinces, where such Commission’s support came from were NP (54%) WC (53%) MP (48%) and KZN (47%).

When respondents were asked about the government’s National Action Plan (NAP) for the promotion and protection of Human Rights only 9% said they had heard of it and knew what it was. The majority (75%) had not heard of it, and a further 15% said they had heard of it, but did not know what it was. Whites and coloured’s level of knowledge was higher at 14%, compared to African (8%) and Indian (7%).

Out the women respondents, a large number (78%) said they were not
aware of plan to promote and protect human rights, whereas only 8% were
aware. On the other side 72% of men were not aware and 12% new of the
plan.

5. Access to human rights institutions

94% of respondents said they had never directly approached a human rights promoting Institution. Only 7% of African, 3% of Coloureds and 2% of Whites and Indians said they had directly approached one or more of the Institutions.

When asked, how they would make Contact with them, if they needed to, 59% said they would not know where to go and 13% said they would go to relevant Institutions. The rest would go to an advice centre office, a community leader or organisation, a church, political party or a lawyer. Indian and Africans, in particular, said they would not know where to go (69% and 62% respectively), compared to coloureds (55%) and whites (47%).

High responses of lack of knowledge of where to go were evident in provinces with large rural population (71% in KZN and NP and 62% in EC and NC). Conversely, respondents who said they would go direct to the institutions were most common in the central and urbanised provinces, Gauteng (20%) and Western Cape (26%).

The Human Rights promoting Institutions scored very low as sources of information, where only 6% of respondents listed them as such. The most common sources listed were radio (26%), television (20%) and newspapers and magazines (7%). Over a third (34%) of respondents said they had no source of information on human rights issues and institutions.

Different provinces used and scored differently on the different sources of human rights information, radio being the most relied upon source, especially In rural based provinces. Television was also mentioned as a source in some provinces e.g. W.C. (42%), N.C. (30%), G.P. (29%) and NWP (21%). Newspapers and magazines were also featured In WCP (12%) GP, (11%) and N.W.P (9%) as sources of such information.

The Age group of 51 and above were more likely to say they did not have sources of information (43% of respondents), whereas among the younger age of 50 and below only 31% said they did not have. Similarly, women were more likely to say that they had no source of information (38%), compared to men (30%).

OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES

We then moved to look at respondent’s opinions regarding various rights related issues. Here, respondents were asked to indicate whether they agreed with a particular read statement or disagreed with it.

6. Racism

Respondents were asked if they viewed racism as the one of the most problems in the country.

The response was White and Indian people were the most likely to disagree that racism was one of the most problems in the country at 24% and 19%, respectively. On the other hand, most respondents from all race groups agreed with the statement (64% whites, 63% Indians, 76% coloureds and (71%) Africans.

Gauteng and Mpumalanga viewed racism as one of the most important problems in South Africa at 79% each followed by NCP (76%), NP (71%) and ECP (55%). Within the different age groups/categories, the highest (36%) age group to agree with statement was 18 to 34 (youth). The age group of 35 and above was the highest to say they disagreed (18%) and did not know (7%).

When comparing results between different gender groups, men scored higher in agreeing with statement (36%) against their Women counterparts (34%). Women were the most to disagree (9%) or the did not know how to answer (6%) whereas men registered a lower disagreement (7%) or did not know (4%).

7. Socio-economic rights

The percentage of white people who disagreed with the statement that socio-economic rights (access to water, housing, education, health and social security) were basic rights that should be guaranteed to all, was found to be more than double the national average (7%). Only 3% of African People and coloureds and Indians disagreed with the statement. Agreement with the statement was highest with coloureds, at 96% followed by Africans (87%) and Indians (82%).

Support for socio-economic rights was particularly strong in Western Cape (96%), Eastern Cape (95%) and Northern Cape (89%). Those who agreed (44%) within different age categories were the youth group of 18-34 years, whereas the age group of 35 upwards registered lower results at 43% in agreement with.

On gender both men and women respondents equally agreed with the statement (44%). Men scored higher in disagreeing with it (2%) against women (1%).

8. Constitutional protection for criminals/convicts

Respondents were asked if they felt that the constitution provided too much protection for criminals/convicts

Most provincially based respondents were In agreement that criminals and crime suspects were afforded too many rights. The highest scoring province was Western Cape (79%), with lower figures in other provinces highest among them being Northern Province at 56%.

Disagreement with the statement was highest In Gauteng, at 14%, followed by NW (12%) and Free State (11%).

When different age group’s results were compared, it was found that there was equal agreement between all age groups (27%) with the statement. However, the older age group (35 and older) was higher on answering the did not know (25%) against the youth group (18to34), which registered 20%.

Men agreed with statement (29%) and 16% of them did not know how to answer against women, agreeing (25%) and not knowing how to answer (28%).

9. Land Reform -Government to speed up land reform and distribution

Respondents were asked about land reform and distribution, the majority, across all groups agreed that it should be speeded up to prevent potential violence and disruption. It is however not clear what would have been the response if respondents were not faced with the prospect of violence and disruption.

The age group of 18-34 registered a high result in agreeing with statement (34%) and the group of 35 and higher registered a slightly lower result of 33%. On the other the group of 35 and above were highest not to know how to answer at 12% against 10% of the youth group.

Men ranked higher in agreeing with statement at 35% against women (33%). Both male and female respondents equally disagreed with statement at a rate of 4%. 12% of women respondents did not know the answer against their male counterparts 10%.

The highest scoring race group that supported the statements was coloureds at 71%, followed by Africans and Indian respondents (68% each) and whites were last at 57%. White people were the most likely to disagree with the statement that land reform and distribution should be speeded up (24%) compared to 5% of respondents In all other race groups.

The support for this statement was strong In ECP (70%), WCP (76%) and KZN (71%), where as opposition to the statement was most common In the NWP (14%) and ECP (11%).

10. Inequality and democracy

Here we found that a majority of 54% fully agreed that socio-economic inequalities undermine democracy In South Africa and that the state should take steps to address it.

It was however surprising that African respondents were the least likely to agree with the statement (51%), compared with coloureds (65%), Indians (62%) and whites (60%). Whites were the most likely to disagree with the statement (14%) and Africans were the most likely to say that they did not know (27%). Strong agreement with the statement was expressed In WC (69%) and EC (66%), whereas the strongest disagreement was In the NW (17%) and the FS (13%).

Of the respondents, men were the most likely to agree to the statement (27%) compared to that of women (21%), whereas on the other hand, men were also the most to disagree with the statement (+4%) compared to women (+3%). Women were the most to say that they did not know how to answer (21%) compared to men (19%).

11. Media Control

When the respondents were asked whether they thought that there should be external control over the content of the print media (newspapers and magazines), especially on issues that may involve racial bias, 30% agreed, 20% disagreed and 14% said they did not know.
Africans and Coloureds were rated highest In agreeing with the statement, whereas Indians and Whites scored higher In disagreeing with the statement. 47% of Africans, 43% of Indians, 37% of Coloureds and only 13% of Whites said they did not know. 59% of Whites said they did not agree with the statement.

NP scored the highest (54%) In agreeing with the statement, whereas other provinces registered less than a third. The strongest opposition to the statement was In WC (41%), Gauteng (39%) and EC (36%). In other provinces, a high percentage of respondents said they did not know, particularly In the FS (57%), Mpumalanga (54%) and KZN (52%).

Gender ration was male scored 31% In favour, 30% not In favour and 38% not knowing whereas women scored 29% In favour of and 27% not In favour of and 44% said they did not know.

ORDER FORM

For the full report at a price of R30-00 each, please fill in your details as follows:

Name of Your organisation:……………………………………………….

Name :…………………………………………………..Position:……………………

Address:………………………………………………

…………………………………….. Code:…………..

and send it to:

NIPILAR
(National Institute for Public Interest Law and
Research)

Address: Private Bag X 06,
Arcadia,
0007

Telephone: +27 (12) 328 5901/4

Fax: +27 (12) 328 7434

E-mail: [email protected]

Number of copies required (10% discount for ten copies or more)………………