A Glimpse into Township Life: Stories and Experiences of the Local Residents

 

 

As I walked through the streets of a South African township, I was overwhelmed by the sights, sounds, and smells that surrounded me. The bustling streets were filled with people of all ages, from young children playing games to elderly men and women chatting on street corners.

The brightly colored houses stood side by side, with corrugated metal roofs glinting in the hot sun. Laundry hung from lines strung across the streets, adding splashes of vibrant color to the already bright scene.

As I walked, I heard music coming from several different sources. The rhythmic beat of African drums echoed through the air, while gospel music floated out of several churches. Children were singing and dancing, and people laughed and chatted in a range of languages.

But as much as I was enjoying the vibrant energy of the township, I couldn't help but feel a sense of sadness as well. The poverty that plagued the area was obvious, with many of the houses appearing run down and in need of repair. The streets were littered with trash, and the smell of sewage was strong in some areas.

But despite these hardships, the people of the township were welcoming and friendly. I was invited into several homes and offered food and drink by those who had very little to give.

As I left the township, I felt both humbled and inspired. The resilience and strength of the people who lived there was truly remarkable, and I felt grateful to have had the opportunity to experience their community. 

Israel-Palestine conflict divides South African politicians – what their responses reveal about historical alliances

 

Hamas’ brazen and deadly attack on Israel on October 7 elicited varied responses within the South African political scene. These diverse reactions reflect the long history, since before democracy in 1994, of South African engagement with the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The conflict holds symbolic significance for many in the country.

As with the war in Ukraine, taking sides on the issue also allows the different parties to highlight their position on the struggle for or against global western dominance

The South African government, led by the African National Congress (ANC), characterised the recent events as a “devastating escalation”. However, it primarily attributed the situation to Israeli policies, including “the continued illegal occupation of Palestine land, continued settlement expansion, desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque and Christian holy sites, and ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people”.

It called for

the immediate cessation of violence, restraint, and peace between Israel and Palestine.

It also urged Israel to embrace the two-state solution as a means of resolving the conflict. The two-state solution suggests the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

For its part, the ANC put out its own statement in the name of the party. This gave even bolder support for Hamas. The party’s national spokesperson, Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri, defended Hamas’ actions, invoking the enduring solidarity between the ANC and the Palestinian cause.

It can no longer be disputed that South Africa’s apartheid history is occupied Palestine’s reality… the decision by Palestinians to respond to the brutality of the settler Israeli apartheid regime is unsurprising.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), a far-left pan-Africanist party which was formed after a split from the ANC, and is now the third largest party in parliament, endorsed Hamas’ use of violence. Drawing parallels with the anti-apartheid struggle, the party’s spokesperson squarely placed the blame on Israel.

Conversely, several movements offered their solidarity with Israel. The liberal Democratic Alliance, the main opposition party, vehemently condemned the “unprovoked attack” by Hamas. It decried the

senseless violence and all acts of terror against innocent civilians, women and children.

Some centrist or traditionalist parties, such as the Patriotic Alliance and the Inkatha Freedom Party, also voiced their criticism of the attacks. South Africa’s principal Jewish organisations also extended their support for Israel.

Historical roots

Unwavering support for Palestinian nationhood has remained a steadfast element of South African foreign policy since the ANC came into power in 1994. This stance has seen the country become one of the most prominent voices critical of Israel globally.

The ANC has thrown its support behind the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, a movement aiming to replicate the iconic anti-apartheid boycott campaign. South African officials have consistently accused Israel of practising apartheid. The country’s parliament recently voted to formally downgrade the country’s relations with Israel from embassy to a liaison office.

I have been researching the history of the relationship between South Africa and Israel for nearly a decade. My research has found that both the ANC and some pan-Africanist formations once held more complex perspectives on Israel and Zionism.

They generally expressed support for Jewish statehood from the 1940s to the 1960s. For instance, in the early 1960s, both the ANC and its primary rival in the anti-apartheid struggle, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC), considered Israel as a potential ally in their battle against apartheid. The PAC also received substantial financial assistance from Israel until 1970.

However, the ANC’s resentment towards Israel for its collaboration with white minority rule during the 1970s and 1980s, coupled with the perception of Palestinians suffering an apartheid-like oppression, has come to shape the party’s perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since the late 1960s, the ANC has cultivated strong ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). By the 1980s, these ties had evolved into a strategic and operational alliance between the two movements. In recent years, with the weakening of the PLO, the ANC has shifted its support towards the PLO’s erstwhile rival, Hamas. The Muslim constituency in South Africa, many of whom are ANC supporters and activists, further contributes to the party’s pro-Palestinian stance.

The DA’s support of Israel also has historical roots. Historically, liberal or so-called “moderate” parties and individuals in South Africa have been the most consistent pro-Israeli political voice in the country.

Unlike the post-1970s ANC, many liberals have regarded Israel as a democracy with a decent record in treating minorities. In the Western Cape, which is the only province governed by the DA, there has been a greater willingness to explore collaboration with Israel.

In addition, in recent decades, various Christian and traditionalist forces have also strongly tended towards pro-Israeli views.

South Africa last asked people for their religious affiliation in a household survey in 2013. The figures at the time showed there were just over 1 million Muslims and just over 101,500 people of the Jewish faith. More recent data indicates that the Jewish population in the country was dropped to about 50,000 people. The latest census puts the entire population at 62 million.

Long legacy of international alliances

The diverse perspectives of South Africa’s political parties on Israel/Palestine also mirror their distinct international allegiances. Having valued the assistance of the Soviet Union and China in their struggle against apartheid, and nurturing deep-seated grievances against the western role in supporting apartheid, the ANC and more radical movements have tended to stand beside actors that challenge the US on the global stage.

This policy has been particularly evident in South Africa’s sympathetic stance towards Russia, even amid Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Conversely, the opposition DA has aligned itself with pro-western stances.

However, it’s uncertain whether most South Africans support the ANC’s approach to contemporary foreign relations issues. A poll from November 2022 found that 74.3% of citizens condemned Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

It is likely that the Palestinian cause enjoys higher levels of popular support. But, there are indications that views on Israel/Palestine are far from clear-cut. A study from 2017, for instance, found that there was similar support in South Africa for both Israelis’ and Palestinians’ “rights to a homeland” (54% and 53%, respectively). But the study also concluded that actual knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was limited, with only 29% having “heard of” the conflict.

South Africa’s official stance on Israel-Palestine is one of the most critical in Africa, particularly compared to other states south of the Sahara. Over the past decade, Israel has seen increasing bilateral relations with various African states. Several opinion polls indicate that public perception of Israel in sub-Saharan Africa is among the most favourable worldwide.

Lingering divide

South African politicians have framed the recent escalation between Hamas and Israel within the broader context of their perspectives on global dynamics. As with the war in Ukraine, the governing ANC and more radical elements unequivocally support the Palestinians – their longstanding allies. They view Hamas as representing the Palestinian cause, and perceive Israel as an apartheid state.

The liberal DA’s support for Israel is also shaped by historical and contemporary factors. It mirrors the enduring liberal backing of Israel in South Africa. It also allows the party to align itself with western governments that have recently expressed support for Israel.

Asher Lubotzky, Scholar in Residence, University of Houston

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

SOUTH AFRICA - ESKOM - LOADSHEDDING

 

As the SUN RISES over South Africa, one thing is certain: the country's power grid is powered by one entity and one entity alone - Eskom. With power plants spread throughout the nation, this state-owned entity is responsible for providing the electricity that powers homes, businesses, and the infrastructure that makes South Africa thrive.

But Eskom is not without its challenges. Years of under-investment and corruption have left the utility struggling to keep up with the demands of a growing nation. Power outages are common, and load shedding has become a way of life for many South Africans.

Despite these challenges, Eskom soldiers on. Engineers and workers tirelessly work to keep the power on, no matter what. It's not an easy job, but it's a crucial one. Without Eskom, South Africa would be plunged into darkness.

The future of Eskom is uncertain. There are calls to privatize the utility, to inject much-needed investment and modernization. But many worry about the impact on workers, and whether a profit-driven model would put the needs of the people second to the needs of shareholders.

One thing is for sure - Eskom is woven into the fabric of South African life. It powers the lights, the schools, the hospitals, and the businesses that make the country what it is. And no matter what the future holds, one thing is certain: Eskom will keep on powering South Africa, come rain or shine, load shedding or not.

 

 

AND DO NOT FORGET THAT as the SUN SETS in South Africa, so does the mood of its citizens. For they know that with every passing hour, their access to electricity will soon be diminished. 

Welcome to the world of Eskom's Load-shedding.

 The darkness engulfs the city like a blanket of fear. The only sources of light now are the flickering candles and the occasional generator that sputters to life. It is during these moments of absolute darkness that one realizes the importance of electricity in modern society.

 For the people of South Africa, this is not just an inconvenience; it's a way of life. Load-shedding, which is the controlled reduction of power to prevent a complete blackout, is a necessary evil that everyone must endure.

 But despite this, the resilience of the people is something to be admired. They make the most out of every situation and find a way to survive, even in the toughest of times.

 In a strange way, Eskom Load-shedding has brought the people of South Africa together. It's a common struggle that they all face, and it has united them in a way that nothing else could.

 So, as the people of South Africa go to bed with the faint light of their candles guiding their way, they do so with the knowledge that they are not alone in their struggle. They are part of a nation that refuses to be defeated, even in the face of darkness.

 

Why the earth quakes – a closer look at what’s going on under the ground

 

A man works his way through the rubble of buildings in Marrakesh, Morocco, after a magnitude 6.8 earthquake on Sept. 8, 2023. Fadel Senna/AFP via Getty Images

Earthquakes, large and small, happen every single day along zones that wrap around the world like seams on a baseball. Most don’t bother anybody, so they don’t make the news. But every now and then a catastrophic earthquake hits people somewhere in the world with horrific destruction and immense suffering.

On Sept. 8, 2023, a magnitude 6.8 earthquake in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco shook ancient villages apart, leaving thousands of people dead in the rubble. In February 2023, a large area of Turkey and Syria was devastated by two major earthquakes that hit in close succession.

As a geologist, I study the forces that cause earthquakes. Here’s why some seismic zones are very active while others may be quiet for generations before the stress builds into a catastrophic event.

Earth’s crust crashes into itself and pulls apart

Earthquakes are part of the normal behavior of the Earth. They occur with the movement of the tectonic plates that form the outer layer of the planet.

You can think of the plates as a more or less rigid outer shell that has to shift to allow the Earth to give off its internal heat.

A map of all earthquakes greater than magnitude 5 from 1960 to 2023 clearly shows the outlines of the tectonic plates. USGS/GMRT

These plates carry the continents and the oceans, and they are continuously in slow-motion crashes with one another. The cold and dense oceanic plates dive under continental plates and back into Earth’s mantle in a process known as subduction. As an oceanic plate sinks, it drags everything behind it and opens a rift somewhere else that is filled by rising hot material from the mantle that then cools. These rifts are long chains of underwater volcanoes, known as mid-ocean ridges.

Earthquakes accompany both subduction and rifting. In fact, that is how the plate boundaries were first discovered.

In the 1950s, when a global seismic network was established to monitor nuclear tests, geophysicists noticed that most earthquakes occur along relatively narrow bands that either fringe the edges of ocean basins, as in the Pacific, or cut right down the middle of basins, as in the Atlantic.

They also noticed that earthquakes along subduction zones are shallow on the oceanic side but get deeper under the continent. If you plot the earthquakes in 3D, they define slablike features that trace the plates sinking into the mantle.

Ten thousand earthquake locations from 1980 to 2009 trace the Pacific Plate as it subducts under northern Japan. The top image is a side view showing the depth of the earthquakes beneath the rectangle on the map. Jaime Toro, CC BY-ND

An experiment: How an earthquake works

To understand what happens during an earthquake, put the palms of your hands together and press with some force. You are modeling a plate boundary fault. Each hand is one plate, and the surface of your hands is the fault. Your muscles are the plate tectonic system.

Now, add some forward force to your right hand. You will find that it will eventually jerk forward when the forward force overcomes the friction between your palms. That sudden forward jerk is the earthquake.

A Google Earth image of creeks offset by movement along the San Andreas fault in southern California as the Pacific Plate moves to the northwest with respect to North America. Jaime Toro

Scientists explain earthquakes using what’s known as the elastic rebound theory.

Fast plates move at up to 8 inches (20 centimeters) per year, driven mostly by the oceanic slabs sinking at subduction zones. Over time, they become stuck to each other by friction at the plate boundary. The attempted motion deforms the plate boundary zone elastically, like a loaded spring. At some point, the accumulated elastic energy overcomes the friction and the plate jerks forward, causing an earthquake.

But the plate-driving forces do not stop, so the plate boundary starts to accumulate elastic energy again, which will cause another earthquake – perhaps soon or perhaps far in the future.

In the oceans, plate boundaries are narrow and well defined because the underlying rocks are very stiff. But within the continents, plate boundaries are often broad zones of deformed mountainous terrain crisscrossed by many faults. Those faults may persist for eons, even if the plate boundary becomes inactive. That is why sometimes earthquakes occur far from plate boundaries.

Earthquakes, fast and slow

The cyclic behavior of faults allows seismologists to estimate earthquake risks statistically. Plate boundaries with fast motions, such as the ones along the Pacific rim, accumulate elastic energy rapidly and have the potential for frequent large-magnitude earthquakes.

Slow-moving plate boundary faults take longer to reach a critical state. Along some faults, hundreds or even thousands of years can pass between large earthquakes. This allows time for towns to grow and for people to lose ancestral memory of past earthquakes.

A magnitude 7.8 earthquake that hit Syria and Turkey on Feb. 9, 2023, destroyed buildings and killed more than 50,000 people. Mehmet Kacmaz/Getty Images

The earthquake in Morocco is an example. Morocco is located on the boundary between the African and the Eurasian plates, which are slowly crashing into each other.

The huge belt of mountains that extends from the Atlas of North Africa to the Pyrenees, Alps and most of the mountains across southern Europe and the Middle East is the product of this plate collision. Yet because these plate motions are slow near Morocco, large earthquakes are not so frequent.

Preparing for the big one

An important fact about catastrophic earthquakes is that, in most cases, the earthquakes don’t kill people – falling buildings do.

Most Americans have heard of California’s San Andreas Fault and the seismic risk to San Francisco and Los Angeles. The last major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault hit at Loma Prieta, in the San Francisco Bay area, in 1989. Its magnitude, 6.9, was comparable to that of the earthquake in Morocco, yet 63 people died compared with thousands. That’s largely because building codes in these earthquake-prone U.S. cities are now designed to keep structures standing when the Earth shakes.

The exceptions are tsunamis, the huge waves generated when an earthquake shifts the seafloor, displacing the water above it. A tsunami that hit Japan in 2011 had horrific consequences, regardless of the quality of engineering in coastal towns.

Unfortunately, earthquake scientists can’t predict exactly when an earthquake might occur; they can only estimate the hazard.

Jaime Toro, Professor of Geology, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Why humans can’t trust AI: You don’t know how it works, what it’s going to do or whether it’ll serve your interests

 

Do you trust AI systems, like this driverless taxi, to behave the way you expect them to? AP Photo/Terry Chea

There are alien minds among us. Not the little green men of science fiction, but the alien minds that power the facial recognition in your smartphone, determine your creditworthiness and write poetry and computer code. These alien minds are artificial intelligence systems, the ghost in the machine that you encounter daily.

But AI systems have a significant limitation: Many of their inner workings are impenetrable, making them fundamentally unexplainable and unpredictable. Furthermore, constructing AI systems that behave in ways that people expect is a significant challenge.

If you fundamentally don’t understand something as unpredictable as AI, how can you trust it?

Why AI is unpredictable

Trust is grounded in predictability. It depends on your ability to anticipate the behavior of others. If you trust someone and they don’t do what you expect, then your perception of their trustworthiness diminishes.

In neural networks, the strength of the connections between ‘neurons’ changes as data passes from the input layer through hidden layers to the output layer, enabling the network to ‘learn’ patterns. Wiso via Wikimedia Commons

Many AI systems are built on deep learning neural networks, which in some ways emulate the human brain. These networks contain interconnected “neurons” with variables or “parameters” that affect the strength of connections between the neurons. As a naïve network is presented with training data, it “learns” how to classify the data by adjusting these parameters. In this way, the AI system learns to classify data it hasn’t seen before. It doesn’t memorize what each data point is, but instead predicts what a data point might be.

Many of the most powerful AI systems contain trillions of parameters. Because of this, the reasons AI systems make the decisions that they do are often opaque. This is the AI explainability problem – the impenetrable black box of AI decision-making.

Consider a variation of the “Trolley Problem.” Imagine that you are a passenger in a self-driving vehicle, controlled by an AI. A small child runs into the road, and the AI must now decide: run over the child or swerve and crash, potentially injuring its passengers. This choice would be difficult for a human to make, but a human has the benefit of being able to explain their decision. Their rationalization – shaped by ethical norms, the perceptions of others and expected behavior – supports trust.

In contrast, an AI can’t rationalize its decision-making. You can’t look under the hood of the self-driving vehicle at its trillions of parameters to explain why it made the decision that it did. AI fails the predictive requirement for trust.

AI behavior and human expectations

Trust relies not only on predictability, but also on normative or ethical motivations. You typically expect people to act not only as you assume they will, but also as they should. Human values are influenced by common experience, and moral reasoning is a dynamic process, shaped by ethical standards and others’ perceptions.

Unlike humans, AI doesn’t adjust its behavior based on how it is perceived by others or by adhering to ethical norms. AI’s internal representation of the world is largely static, set by its training data. Its decision-making process is grounded in an unchanging model of the world, unfazed by the dynamic, nuanced social interactions constantly influencing human behavior. Researchers are working on programming AI to include ethics, but that’s proving challenging.

The self-driving car scenario illustrates this issue. How can you ensure that the car’s AI makes decisions that align with human expectations? For example, the car could decide that hitting the child is the optimal course of action, something most human drivers would instinctively avoid. This issue is the AI alignment problem, and it’s another source of uncertainty that erects barriers to trust.

AI expert Stuart Russell explains the AI alignment problem.

Critical systems and trusting AI

One way to reduce uncertainty and boost trust is to ensure people are in on the decisions AI systems make. This is the approach taken by the U.S. Department of Defense, which requires that for all AI decision-making, a human must be either in the loop or on the loop. In the loop means the AI system makes a recommendation but a human is required to initiate an action. On the loop means that while an AI system can initiate an action on its own, a human monitor can interrupt or alter it.

While keeping humans involved is a great first step, I am not convinced that this will be sustainable long term. As companies and governments continue to adopt AI, the future will likely include nested AI systems, where rapid decision-making limits the opportunities for people to intervene. It is important to resolve the explainability and alignment issues before the critical point is reached where human intervention becomes impossible. At that point, there will be no option other than to trust AI.

Avoiding that threshold is especially important because AI is increasingly being integrated into critical systems, which include things such as electric grids, the internet and military systems. In critical systems, trust is paramount, and undesirable behavior could have deadly consequences. As AI integration becomes more complex, it becomes even more important to resolve issues that limit trustworthiness.

Can people ever trust AI?

AI is alien – an intelligent system into which people have little insight. Humans are largely predictable to other humans because we share the same human experience, but this doesn’t extend to artificial intelligence, even though humans created it.

If trustworthiness has inherently predictable and normative elements, AI fundamentally lacks the qualities that would make it worthy of trust. More research in this area will hopefully shed light on this issue, ensuring that AI systems of the future are worthy of our trust.

Mark Bailey, Faculty Member and Chair, Cyber Intelligence and Data Science, National Intelligence University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

The family home in South African townships is contested – why occupation, inheritance and history are clashing with laws

 

During apartheid, black South Africans could not own land – and therefore their homes – in what were classified as “white” cities. In racially segregated townships, living in “family houses” and passing them on depended officially on a range of permits. These were usually to rent from state authorities, but in some cases confusingly to build or buy a house without owning the plot underneath it, which was owned by the state.

A crucial measure in undoing apartheid was transferring ownership of township houses to their long-term residents. In 1986, a few years before apartheid’s end, the law changed to enable outright ownership for black people in urban areas. Subsequently, processes for transfer on a large scale were established.

This massive redistribution of public housing stock, alongside legal change, involved hundreds of thousands of homes. Township houses were now assets. The promise was improved security, rights, and inclusion in the property market.

But change did not necessarily give families greater security. Some family members benefited while others were left vulnerable. That is because the transfers – and the legal definitions of property and inheritance – do not account for how many people understand their homes: collective and cross-generational, available to an extended lineage.

This has led to confusion and heartache for hundreds of thousands of people. That confusion, I showed in a paper in 2021, extended to encounters with state administration, which can become the stage on which family disputes are played out.

As I argued in another paper, with Tshenolo Masha, these understandings of home and kinship warrant legal recognition – indeed, constitutional recognition – as urban custom. Various state officials have taken seriously the collective ownership of family houses, as a matter of customary norms and practice, through administration and court judgments. But they face the rigid limits of existing law.

The family house is central but effectively legally invisible, leaving many people uncertain about what it even means to own or inherit.

Collective home but individual property

For many residents, family houses belong collectively to multi-generational lineages. Often, a group of siblings is at the core – the children of an earlier, typically male, household head. Family members might build extra structures on the site to live in. Or they might come and go, but the home is a place to return to. The family house is defended as customary, drawing parallels with the rural homestead.

By the end of apartheid in 1994, regulation was patchy at best, but the occupancy permits were understood to affirm group entitlement because they listed family members, not just the householder.

In statutory law, at stake is an asset with one or more named owners – an indivisible plot or “erf” of land that includes its built structures. Owners can sell, or they can evict; other occupants have no legal right to stop them. When family houses were transferred, one person was generally registered as owner.

In some cases, the allocation to the registered householder was automatic. In others, there were hearings, but even here residents found their ideas of home and ownership marginalised. A family member would come forward as family “representative” and “custodian” of the collective home. But that representative would typically become the sole titleholder.

In many cases, relatives were unaware that this had happened, or even that an application for title had been made.

Inheritance: an added layer of complexity

Inheritance has added another layer to the problem.

Under apartheid there were separate inheritance rules for black people without wills. These were finally struck down by the Constitutional Court in 2000 and 2004. Magistrates’ courts were replaced by the dedicated inheritance office, the Master of the High Court. Inheritance by the eldest son was replaced by rules for all South Africans, prioritising spouses and children in nuclear families.

Once again, essential redress had the effect of narrowing which relationships would be recognised. When a custodian died, wider family members first discovered that they were not collective owners; then they realised they would not even inherit.

The family house is not a static idea in fights over the home. Warring parties may draw on both customary and legal concepts, sometimes at the same time. Among families that approach the state – and many do not – some subsequently drop out of official process.

There is no simple consensus about who gets what or about how this should be decided.

Efforts to resolve the issue

The family house is contested, yet it is key to arguments about what is fair – based not just on who owns, but on the nature of ownership.

State officials have repeatedly tried to make the system more responsive. In Gauteng province, where Johannesburg is located, housing tribunals were set up in the late 1990s to decide ownership and to broker family house rights agreements. They were intended to prevent custodians from selling houses or evicting relatives. But it turned out that they held no legal water: from the point of view of deeds registration, custodians’ ownership was unrestricted.

In the Master’s Office, where inheritance is administered, kin complain that their family home somehow became the property of one relative. In Johannesburg, officials try to explain the law, while where appropriate querying how title came to be acquired.

What they cannot do, though, is change the rules.

The courts, too, have highlighted problems with rigid law and procedure. In a 2004 Constitutional Court decision on inheritance, a dissenting judge warned that customary understandings of home and custodianship risked being sidelined by standardisation.

More recently in 2018, automatically upgrading householders to owners was declared unconstitutional. Men were usually documented as householders under apartheid, and gender discrimination was extended by giving them exclusive property rights.

Other judgments recognise the spirit of collective belonging and access, and they stop individuals from taking the house out of the families’ hands by inheritance or sale. But they cannot make legislation, so they send the question of who owns the house back to a tribunal.

Once again, solutions are restricted to workarounds.

Towards legal recognition

In 2022, the Shomang judgment in the North Gauteng High Court called for legally recognising the family house.

A sufficiently flexible notion of family title would be challenging to work out, and doubtless the basis for countless disputes. Surviving spouses need as much protection as the siblings in a lineage. But it would enable administrators and judges to mediate disputes in terms recognisable to the families involved. And to offer more than ad hoc workarounds.

Maxim Bolt, Associate Professor of Development Studies, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.