Transcript Slide 1
S.A context of local governance Local Government in SA main characteristics: Enshrined in constitution as autonomous sphere Redefining geographical and administrative boundaries to integrate the neglected areas Developmental government Cooperative government S.A context of local governance Developmental Government The White Paper identifies four inter-related characteristics of local government geared towards development: Exercising municipal powers and functions in a manner which maximises their impact on social development and economic growth Playing an integrating and co-ordinating role to ensure alignment between public and private investment within the municipal area democratising development, Empowering the poor, and redistributing income and opportunities in favour of the poor building social conditions favourable to development S.A context of local governance Furthermore, local government is urged to focus on development outcomes, such as: the provision of household infrastructure and services the creation of liveable, integrated cities, towns, and rural areas the promotion of local economic development community empowerment and redistribution S.A context of local governance three approaches that can assist municipalities to become more developmental: Integrated development planning, budgeting, and performance monitoring Performance management Working with citizens and partners Participation Efficiency Accountability Equity Rule of law 5 Governance Matters Principles of Good governance at local level: 1. Effectiveness 2. Rule of Law 3. Accountability 4. Participation 5. Equity 6 Assessing Governance Matters If governance matters, than assessing governance matters too, in order to: 1. Gain insight in overall performance 2. Benchmark against standards (= desired situation) and peers 3. Identify areas for improvement 4. Define a plan of action 7 LGB Objectives The LGB translates a complex concept in locally specific and easy to understand indicators It captures governance criteria and standards It enables to compare the quality of governance in different situations It results in a plan of action to improve the governance situation. 8 Local Governance Index Core model Participation Accountability Rule of Law Equity Effectiveness SA local model Community Dialogue Transparency Legal framework Participation Strategy Control Corruption incidence Community involvement Oversight role Citizens rights and duties Service delivery standards Legal framework Vision and plan Access to Power Financial Management Access to income and services HIV-AIDS strategy Community safety strategy Data Decision-making Satisfaction of service delivery Leadership 9 Advantages of LGB Combines quantitative and qualitative data Multi-stakeholder engagement Dialogue Consensus-building Awareness raising Action-oriented and promotes advocacy . Benchmarking (peers / time) Sectoral application 10 LGB average scores RSA 15 municipalities 70 50 Cllrs 40 Officials 30 CSO 20 Overall 10 To ta l Eq ui ty Ac co un ta bi l it Pu y bl ic pa rti ci pa tio n R ul e s of la w 0 Ef fe ct iv en es Scores 60 Governance indicators 11 Structure The following narrative reflects my limited understanding of participatory governance at the local level in the South African context. The first part presents a birds-eye-view of the meaning and practice of local participatory governance in the S.A. context, the second part peers into the operations of ward committees, and the latter offers some entry points for realising a more inclusive and empowered form of participation. Meaning of participatory governance ‘Participatory governance’ is described as ‘a regulatory framework in which the task of running public affairs is not solely entrusted to government and the public administration, but involves co-operation between state institutions and civil society groups. In the South African context, the rationale advanced for participatory governance is that it seeks to alter the exclusionary nature of the apartheid development planning paradigm by ensuring popular participation in the design, planning and evaluation of development programmes. Participatory governance thus serves to broaden and deepen democracy by expanding the range of citizens engaged in making or influencing government decisions. Legal support for public participation Section 152 (1) of the South African constitution enjoins local governments to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government. The Municipal System Act, 2000, section 16, obliges municipalities to create an enabling environment for the local community to participate in municipal affairs, integrated development planning, performance management system, performance, etc. The official meaning attached to these constitutional and legislative commitments to participation is that local authorities need to facilitate consultation with their communities. The narrow equation of participation with consultation is problematic for the following reasons: Local power-holders often regard ‘consultation’ as a legal compliance issue, treating its form and content as secondary issues; The beginning– and - ending points of consultation are not always clearly defined which often opens it to manipulation by local-power-holders; It lacks the power to insure that the views of grassroots citizens would indeed be heeded by those in power. Participation in consultation doesn’t equal participation in decision-making A snapshot critique of the practice of participatory local governance Since 1994, a range of institutional mechanisms were established to foster a culture of public participation in local governance processes, including Ward Committees, Integrated Development Planning, Izimbizo (public gathering or meeting), Public Hearings, etc. Most of these institutional mechanisms are premised on a top-down participatory paradigm, and tend to privilege organised interest groups who posses the necessary vocabulary and rhetoric that are endemic in state-provided spaces of participation. For example, in the case of IDPs, communities are often consulted on predetermined development plans and budgets, whilst implementation and performance assessments are regarded as official municipal competencies. The IDP consultative process is tied to highly technical development interventions that are impervious to the actual needs of grassroots citizens. Consequently, final IDP documents do not always reflect the priorities and needs of communities. Citizens are expected to be “grateful” for the delivery frameworks provided by officials and technicians in municipal offices. In addition, communities often lack clear information regarding IDP consultative processes, i.e., venue of meetings, draft documentation, etc. Meanwhile, very little empirical evidence exists whether Izimbizo (public gathering or meeting) enhance the participation of the poor. Genuinely participatory public policy formulation is the outcome of contest between contending positions which is resolved either by a compromise between them or the ability of one view to gather majority support. There is no room for this sort at izimbizo. A snapshot critique of the practice of participatory local governance Interestingly, some empirical data indicates that participation seems to be more successful when conducted on an ad hoc basis and where engagements are going to where people live, i.e., roadshows on specific issues. Also in cases where there are follow through on processes (Barichievy, Piper & Parker, 2005). Overall, the limited amount of empirical data of S.A.’s system of local participatory governance intimates that state-provided or invited spaces of citizenship participation have been unable to translate the expressed political and legislative promises of public participation into genuine citizens’ involvement in decisions regarding development policy and practice. Politically, the South African system is rooted in the representative system –decision-making resides within elected bodies-, and therefore do not constitute any deliberate attempt to maximise popular influence in the political process at a local level. Hence, at best, institutional participatory mechanisms have yielded a modest reduction in democratic deficit. At worst, their institutional design is an obstacle to the entrance of a popular mass in democratic politics. Establishment of ward committees The establishment of ward committees is provided for in Chapter 4 of the Municipal Structures Act (1998). According to the Act, ward committees could be established in each ward of a Category A or Category B municipality. Other key aspects of legislations include the Municipal Systems Act (2000), which requires of municipalities to establish appropriate mechanisms and procedures to enable community participation in municipal affairs, and the Municipal Planning and Performance Regulations (2001), which reinforces the provision for community participation of the Systems Act, but beyond that, it also adjures municipalities to establish alternative forums where no municipal structures for community / public participation exist. These forums are expected to be representative and enhance community participation in IDP processes. Role of ward committees Ward committees are defined as important communicative channels for informing municipalities about the needs, preferences and problems of communities. They are mandated to facilitate substantive grass roots participation in the development processes of municipalities, including the Integrated Development Planning (IDP), budgeting and municipal performance management processes. They are meant to be non-partisan and advance the interests of the ward collectively. Legally, ward committees have been assigned a limited advisory role without any direct participation in decision-making processes (Guidelines for the Establishment and Operation of Municipal Ward Committees, 2005). Gauging the ward committee participatory process Empirical evidence of the ward committee participatory process suggests a latent discord between the rhetorical zeal for participation and existing practice. The main concerns about the participatory process of ward committees pertain to issues of access and voice, operational capacity and the relationship between the municipal council and the ward committee. Access and voice Where ward committees are functional they remain under the influence of the local party branch (or traditional leaders in rural areas). In this way, party political influence not only impinges on the autonomy of ward committees, but also serves to ostracize a repertoire of dissenting voices. Partisan ward committees dominated by party political agendas are also less likely to hold party elites and those in power accountable, and are often used to simply legitimate the decisions of municipalities. Gauging the ward committee participatory process Operational capacity The functioning of ward committees is dependent on ward councilors. This is because they are responsible for scheduling meetings, the agenda, the information required by committee members and the type of information the council requires from ward committees. Consequently, the inefficiencies and incompetency of ward councilors in certain cases have a rippling effect on the operations and effectiveness of ward committees. In addition, evidence suggests that ward councilors wield enormous influence over the composition/constitution of ward committees, and therefore contribute to the exclusion of those voices that dissent with the dominant party agenda. For example, in the case of ward committees in the Msunduzi municipality in Pietermaritzburg/KZN, an ANC ward councilor amalgamated the ward committee with the local ANC branch into a single committee of 26 members. Meanwhile, IFP-associated ward committees were found to be extensions of the local IFP branches (Piper and Deacon 2006). Gauging the ward committee participatory process Relationship between municipal councils and ward committees Ward committees are not institutionalized into municipal council processes, and as a result lack institutional support of municipalities for the training of ward councilors; the administration of ward committees, etc. Meanwhile, case study data of ward committee operations reveals that they lack influence in council decision-making processes, and that they are not always brought up to speed with council deliberations. For example, evidence by Steven Friedman of the Greater Johannesburg Metro Council’s IDP consultative process, in 2005, indicates that two thirds of municipal councils reported that ward committees had ‘no powers’ and less than half- 47% claimed that committees affected council decisions. More curiously, none of the Metro Council’s 109 ward committees knew about the content of the draft IDP plan (Friedman 2005). Proposals for inclusive and empowered participation at the local level One size doesn’t fit it all: need for an expanded notion of space, including both invited spaces (state sanctioned spaces) and invented spaces (organic spaces created by citizens), i.e. ward committees, rate payers associations, protest actions, etc. Participation should be considered more than just a compliance issue – inherent political right of citizens. Linking institutional design, political will and popular participation An inclusive realm of civil society: the state needs to recognize all spaces of citizenship participation Alternative formulation of planning: Planning processes should include ethnographic knowledge of citizens needs and priorities, and should reflect the views of civil society actors in all spaces of citizenship participation Innovative strategies are needed to inform people about the policies and processes which they are invited to participate in. Here civil society advocacy groupings have an important role to play. For example, through establishing advocacy networks and working with grassroots movements, these groupings can use their resources and expertise to inform grassroots communities of the specifics of development policy debates. From a research perspective, much more ethnographic knowledge is needed about the operations of local institutional spaces and the patterns of citizenship participation.