One of the most challenging moments with which I am confronted is that of determining whose appeal for assistance, usually of a financial nature, constitutes an authentic expression of need. Some of these I experience come forward with a sense of urgency that does not allow room for even a moment’s reflection on my part — or the opportunity to investigate the authenticity of the nature of the crisis situation being presented. It has been my experience that there is often deception in some requests for assistance.

Clearly, it is impossible for me to respond to all the needs that are presented and, therefore, I find that I have to make some judgement regarding the genuineness of the person and the need being presented, recognising that I may be wrong in my assessment of some situations.

The issue of squatting is one that raises this dilemma for me. My perspective is shaped, in part, by an experience I had with a political figure in relation to one of the oldest and most notoriously significant squatter communities a few years ago. We were attending a function at which a service institution, operated by the church, was being dedicated and officially opened. At one point in my conversation with a Member of Parliament, he turned and pointed at a squatter community located behind us and told me that many of those people living in that community have a home elsewhere but choose to live here for the benefits that go with this kind of living.

In more recent years I was travelling along the north coast when, on reaching a squatter community that was taking on an upscale look, given the multi-level dwellings that were mushrooming, I was directed to one such dwelling and informed that the “owner” moves from squatter community to squatter community as he lays claim to a site for each of his children and then moves on to the other.

The dilemma which I am here highlighting raises the reality of poverty, which is the daily lot of many in our society. Poverty constitutes one of the scandals of humanity. Poverty, at a cursory glance, may appear to be about matters of economics and material resources, nevertheless it raises profound questions of justice and human rights.

In addressing the issue of poverty, UNESCO speaks of it as having social, political and cultural dimensions. It is seen to undermine human rights which are identified as:

• economic — the right to work and have an adequate income;

• social — access to health care and education;

• political — freedom of thought, expression and association; and

• cultural — the right to maintain one’s cultural identity and be involved in a community’s cultural life.

And, while in this statement on poverty it does not speak to shelter, I believe that a basic human right is shelter. This I suggest is the starting point of some of the confusion, acrimony, and divisiveness which arise in relation to the issue of squatting.

The right to shelter is not the same as the right to land. Land is part of a nation’s identity and corporate resource which has to be managed accordingly. It is for this reason that the fact that one owns a large parcel of agricultural land does not give the individual the right to cut it up into residential lots as he or she sees fit. It is for the same reason that those living or conducting business along major roadways in Kingston that are currently subject to road improvements cannot refuse to sell portions or all of the same to the Government, if it is required to facilitate the project.

Given our history of slavery and colonialism, in which people’s lives revolved around agriculture and later subsistence living on small plots of land, there has lingered the notion that each person or family unit is somehow entitled to a piece of land. The post-Emancipation development of free villages is part of the story of the right of the landless to land.

The reality, however, is that life in today’s Jamaica is far more complicated than what subsistence farming conjures up. The demographics of our society show a movement towards urban living — where employment and business opportunities exist. Urban living requires a reorientation of thinking in relation to the issue of land. What is needed is shelter for those who are a part of this movement, whereas what has happened is that the nation has not been able to find a way to provide adequate housing for citizens. The National Housing Trust has had a significant impact, but it takes much more than the initiative of a single agency to address this situation.

In this vacuum, a number of things have developed. For example, some individuals and churches have been approached, usually by an elderly member or person in the community, to allow them a “house spot” as they have nowhere to turn. Having acted out of a sense of compassion, with the passage of time the children and grandchildren begin to lay claim to the property. In some cases others are invited to share some space — without the knowledge of the owner — and before long there is a community that is staking claim to a section of the property. So what begins as a legitimate arrangement with one individual becomes a community problem — even of national import.

In other cases, people with large land holdings, and who may be living away from their property, are unaware of an initial trespasser who has built up a shack at the back of the property, far from public view. By the time the landowner is aware of what is happening his/her life may be threatened if there is any assertiveness regarding ownership. The experience of most who have encountered squatting on their property is that they can get no assistance from the institutions of the State to address the situation. So notices to quit, or the threat of eviction, are disregarded. Recourse to the legal route usually takes so long that by the time there is any action the number of residents has doubled or tripled.

Enters, then, partisan political figures into the situation.

It is no secret that some politicians see these communities as a way to change the voting pattern of a constituency. The Electoral Commission of Jamaica, having removed the instrument of gerrymandering, the squatting community becomes an alternative. Usually the Opposition party of the day finds patronage of the squatting community an attractive option and begins to advocate for the rights of the people of the squatter community and the need for social services that are currently absent, and will make a national spectacle of the situation in order to embarrass the Government to gain political mileage. It goes without saying that by this time the community has multiplied several-fold. It should not surprise us then that there is usually loyalty to a particular political party among residents of a squatter community.

A recent exchange with a political figure concerning squatting on church lands tells a story. A few people were allowed leases on plots of land for farming many years ago. Most paid their leases, at least for a time. Soon unauthorised occupants arrived in large numbers and over time substantial housing units emerged. The unauthorised occupants made it clear that they would not recognise any claim of control by the owners.

Enters a political hopeful who becomes the advocate for the people and who begins to make all kinds of promises for the residents, and to assume authority as a representative of a political party with access to State support systems. Realising that he/she did not have authority to pursue a certain course of action, he/she approaches the owner. He was informed that permission to proceed would be granted, if he worked with those squatting to regularise their status with the owners. The comment forthcoming was most telling; namely, that he did not know that the property belonged to the church. He thought it belonged to the Government — a response which did not throw any positive light on his approach to squatting.

The point of which we cannot lose sight is the fact that the issue of squatting is complex and should not be used to simply pit one set of people against another — or merely for personal or partisan gain. Squatting has been part of our national life because of a lack of adequate housing, including affordable units and public housing which can be made available to those who are in genuine need. We have, as a nation, contributed to the misguided notion that everyone has a right to a piece of land.

Squatting, once established, becomes a battleground for those who have a legitimate stake, or make a claim to such, the outcome of which can be costly in terms of human life, social discord, and cynicism among the population. By the time squatter communities have come to public attention they have been around for years, even decades, during which time there have been changes in Government. If our politicians are to be credible when coming to the support of those living on what by then are designated “informal communities”, then the thing to do is to seek to have the Government purchase the property, as was done with magnanimity in the case of Outameni, and then deliver the just due to the residents which the private landowners are being urged to offer to occupants of their land.

The role played by politicians and partisan interests in squatter communities has been far from altruistic and has only served to create obfuscation surrounding the issue, and when they begin to question the ruling of the courts on such matters, as we have seen in recent weeks, we are left to wonder to what authority are they pointing us to lend credence as we address this issue as Jamaicans.

Right Reverend Howard Gregory is the Anglican Bishop of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands.