Community dialogues in Frankfort
felt free to do so as they were often in the majority in these sessions. As Martha says: “Abuse is there, it is happening. But people are now not scared to talk — the issue has been put on the table and people feel open to talk about it.”
A particular strength of the dialogue sessions is that it draws together a range of different stakeholders. In the case of police, members of the force were present to respond to criticism from the community and inform them about the structures that were in place to work with the community as well as the processes to be followed in reporting crime. Other government departments were also able to share information about the programmes and services they offer and the presence of local councillors at these sessions meant that local government was also kept abreast of the developments in the community.
Building on this strength, the approach to the community dialogues involves the recruitment of ambassadors from different groups within the community. These ambassadors work, without pay, as the mouthpiece of the programme, broadcasting the information shared at the sessions as well as assisting in recruiting people for further dialogues. As a result, the dialogue sessions have been attended by both young and old, male and female and representatives of various stakeholder groups and initiatives. As ambassador Elias Motsoeneng says, the dialogue sessions were “like we were in a mini-parliament”. Mamonaheng believes that the dialogue sessions have “empowered the community by engaging different stakeholders”. This is backed up by Motaung, who feels that the “diversity of the audience raised so many issues that we were not aware of”.
The presence of a Correctional Services facility in the town of Frankfort offered an unexpected opportunity to the dialogue process. At an initial dialogue, a group of prisoners were invited to provide some entertainment at particular breaks in the session. However, during the opening discussions and information-sharing, the prisoners seized the opportunity to become involved.
Motaung l auds their involvement, arguing that their experiences lend a particular value to the dialogue. They were able to reflect on why people become involved in crime, especially gender-based violence, and provide i nsights into the “minds of those involved in crime” that those at the session would not have been exposed to. For example, they noted how “potentially vulnerable individuals” are identified through observing the unkempt state of a house’s garden or yard, which often reflects the absence of a male figure in that household.
By the time the dialogue session moved on to the group work, the prisoners were thoroughly immersed in the process and ended up scattered throughout the various groups. This intimate contact between members of the community and the prisoners proved invaluable to both groups. The prisoners were able to hear from the community about the heartache and pain some members experienced because of crime. They were able to express their remorse to the community for what they had done. As one prisoner commented: “I would have remained angry with myself if I did not cough out what was in my heart.”
The prisoners were also able to share information about particular “payback to the community” initiatives that they were involved in ranging from renovating houses, tidying gardens to organising clothes and food parcels for the particularly needy. According to one of the offenders, through these payback initiatives more and more prisoners are “motivated to participate in the development and transformation of the community”.
As a result of this dialogue session, NICDAM and the community facilitators were requested to run a session within the prison for a larger number of prisoners. The positive effects of these dialogue sessions continue to be felt in Frankfort to this day. The prisoners now have their own committee, which, according to Motaung, very much wants to become a part of the Isidingo Community Forum and the activities that it plans.