Thato Mpakanyane

MPKBAA001
POL3038S: Urban Politics and Administration
word count: 3870
Does public participation play an effective role in resolving South
African citizens local government service delivery concerns?

In 1994, when SA became a democratic state, some structural changes

followed, including the decentralisation of government. Under apartheid
SA, there was the division of tiers of government, with central control
coming from the national tier of government that had absolute autonomy
and decision making power. With the occurrence of decentralisation that
under democratic SA, the old tiers of government became spheres of
government. This meant that national, provincial and local government
although interrelated, were granted individual autonomy to carry out their
respective functions. Local Government was reconstituted into a
developmental sphere charged with socio-economic development and
effective service delivery for all citizens. Public participation was seen as a
key mechanism for local government to ensure that service delivery met
the concerns of South African citizens. This essay will seek to explain the
role of ward committees linked to integrated development plans (IDPs) in
municipalities, to highlight the key issues that hinder the potential ability
of public participation from contributing to a more effective service
delivery process and to specifically locate the critical role of these ward
committees in the overall plan of a developmental framework for
government. It will be argued that public participation has the potential to
play an effective role in resolving South African citizens needs but doesnt
in its entirety because of the manner in which legislation plays down the
importance of public participation by not making the integration of the
proposals of ward committees, compulsory to IDPs, the issue of capacity in
both ward committees and municipalities and lastly the politicisation of
ward committees, an issue that distracts ward committees from fulfilling
their primary functions unfettered by unrelated political considerations.
Without changes to these three key issues that hinder the effectiveness of
public participation, the concept of participatory governance will continue
to be idealistic and impractical.
The definition of democracy is a highly contested one. How it is
conceptualized and practiced in reality is often left up to the discretion of
the government leading a country. Part of the reason for the contestation

behind democracy is its vagueness in definition which is subject to a

variety of interpretations. The widely accepted definition of democracy is
a form of government in which the elected supreme power is vested in
creating a better life for all its citizens to engage in the development of
the country, under the direct lead of their government. How a government
creates a better life for all or involves their citizens has proven to be
rather flexible, having countries practice rather authoritarian
interpretations or neo patrimonial forms of democracy. Such governments
practice democracy only as far as respecting a rule of the law that is
standardised, formalised, but lacking the intrinsics of active citizenship
participation beyond the mundane five-year voting formality thus losing
the true meaning of participatory democracy. As a result, a new school of
thought called deepening democracy emerged in the 1990s, as one of
the ways to enhance the meaning and practice of democracy to be less
subjected to authoritarian practices and have greater quality (Gaventa,
2008:8). This was directed through a process of decentralisation which
emphasized the devolution of power from central rule and allowing for
greater involvement in the decision making process of development by
regional and local entities. With decentralisation came the empowerment
of the role of the other spheres of government that now have decision
making power, along with the empowerment of citizens who could now
exercise their political and social right of holding government accountable
and assisting government with governance (Gaventa, 2006:7).
The idea behind deepening democracy is about taking democracy further
than just instilling democratic rules, but also about recognising the social
and political rights of citizens to engage in the governance of their
country. This was seen as a way of creating a more legitimate state in the
eyes of the people. This bottom-up approach to governance calls for
greater public participation as a way to empower citizens through what is
known as participatory governance. Participatory governance is the
mobilisation of citizens experiences into a political sphere (Gaventa,
2006:13). It is more than just about citizens presenting their concerns, but
about citizens actively engaging in government decisions that will impact
on their lives. In this way democracy is deepened as citizens are
empowered as an autonomous body that co-governs with the state. A
major critique of this thinking towards deepening democracy is that
whilst it may sound great in theory, as will be demonstrated through the
different South African legislations, in reality it has proven to be a rather
idealist notion of democracy that is very hard to put into practice
(Gaventa, 2006:15).
The significance of public participation in SA has to be understood through
SAs history of apartheid. Apartheid by the National Party called for the

legitimisation of racial discrimination against Blacks, Indians and

Coloureds. Apartheid was created at the centre of national government
policy which used the other tiers of government as mere implementers of
the apartheid manifesto. Local government carried out policies of separate
development which brought about forced removals whereby the White
advantaged population lived in well developed cities and localities that
had the provision of efficient service delivery. On the other hand, Black
people who were placed in Bantustans (Black designated reserves) were
not provided with any forms of services from local government. The Black
population continued to live in deep poverty and high unemployment as
their political and social rights were legally taken away from them. Black
chiefs, essentially apartheid impositions had no access to resources to
look after the impoverished Black areas that were devoid of any
meaningful basic services like water and electricity. Even with the
adoption of a newly formed Tricameral Parliament that included Coloured
and Indians in the apartheid led government structure, Coloured and
Indians representation was never enough to collectively challenge the
central rule of the National Party. Thus it is clear that the Tricameral
Parliament that did not recognise Black citizens was a rather authoritarian
interpretation of democracy (Williams, 2006:20).
It is of no surprise that when the ANC government won the 1994 election,
it did not just want to instil democracy, but wanted to instil democratic
practices that deepened democracy. This was to ensure that the
structures and governance of the apartheid government were completely
eradicated from the new democratic SA. The ANC government carried out
decentralisation to bring about a deepened system of democracy that
would transform the existing tiers of government into semi-autonomous
spheres of government so that all three spheres were granted the
autonomy to govern their respective areas of competence. This meant
that local government was created to be a developmental sphere of
government responsible for carrying out basic services to all communities,
especially those that were excluded during apartheid. Decentralisation not
only granted more power to provincial and local government, but also
empowered community members. Participatory governance was used as a
way to ensure the inclusion of all citizens in the planning, implementation
and evaluation of developmental projects and service delivery. The ANC
wanted to create a more legitimate and transparent government that
served the socio-economic needs of all its citizens. Local government was
thus created to be the key driver of participatory governance, in order to
enhance service delivery and bring about development in communities
(Williams, 2006:20).

In order to have an understanding of public participation, it is important to

understand the system of cooperative governance and how legislation
drives it. With public participation, ordinary citizens would be able to voice
their specific local concerns directly to local government, and local
officials would be able to plan developmental projects and service delivery
initiatives according to those direct concerns. This is how the ANC planned
to transform government into a people-centred government. To formalise
this, the Constitution and the Municipal Systems Act set out the functions
of local government as a developmental sphere. The Municipal Structures
Act (2000) further defined the roles of development ward committees as
the body of public participation (Williams, 2006:21).
Being the overarching legislative framework, the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa sets out the mandate for local government which
other Acts and policies on local government have to be in line with.
Section 152 of the Constitution (1996) explains the role of local
government as a developmental sphere of government that is
independent yet interrelated to the other two spheres. The Constitution
explains this autonomy to be used as an opportunity for local government
to manage its administration, budgeting and planning processes. This was
how local government was to give priority to the basic needs of
communities and build socio-economic development for communities
through the provision of efficient service delivery. Public participation is
explained in section 153 of the Constitution as a defining feature of local
government, not only to deepen democracy after SAs past of central
control, but also as an attempt to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of local government functions through citizens that are expected to
become actively involved in the governance of their communities
(Williams, 1989:22). This is further emphasized by the White paper on
local government (1998) that also sets out the role of local government as
a developmental sphere that should be committed to working hand-inhand with communities and thus enhancing local officials knowledge of
citizens social, political and economic needs. In both these key
legislations, there is no specification on what is an acceptable standard of
participatory governance that municipalities must meet and the
consequences for not fully engaging in participatory governance. This
highlights the vagueness and lack of clarity with regards to public
participation which often has local officials not taking participatory
processes seriously. This lack of clarity is partially the reason why
municipalities as a whole have failed to engage in public participation in a
way that would create the provision of more efficient service delivery and
development (Carrim, 2011:1).

The Local Government Municipal Systems Act (2000) states that it is

expected of municipalities to develop a system of participatory
governance. It further sets out the functions of municipalities as those
bodies of local government which provide service delivery to their
designated areas. Part of the functions of municipalities are to ensure the
involvement of residents in the decision making and the implementation
process of local service delivery and socio-economic development. The
Act explains the channels in which residents can become actively involved
in local governance. It is explained that citizens can help in the
preparation, adoption, implementation and review of IDPs, which is the
centre at which all local government development initiatives for
communities are decided upon and developed. The Act also explains the
other available avenues created for citizens to participate, such as
assisting with budget allocations to match pressing communal needs,
reviewing the performance and management of municipalities in order to
enhance accountability, and lastly through participating in ward
committees which are structured within municipalities specifically for
ensuring participatory governance. It states that residents have the right
to critique local government, make recommendations on how to go about
improving service delivery so that there can be greater development in
communities and hold municipalities accountable (Government Gazette,
2000).
Focusing on IDPs which are a required plan of all municipalities, they are
defined as community-driven, council led strategic plans based on the
needs and concerns of all citizens. Prior to the advent of IDPs, some local
authorities ended up developing parallel and sometimes double processes
and programmes which were being developed by other institutions,
resulting in wastage of resources and leading to double billings and
dissipation of the limited budgets that government had in store. IDPs
essentially introduce a 360 degree vehicle that attempts to integrate the
development work of all spheres of government, to ensure cooperation
and continuity without any clashes or contradictory development plans;
that is if they are rolled out as planned and also fully staffed with due
competent personnel, as it unfortunately is not the case.
It is through the assistance of ward committees that hold quarterly
meetings with community members that a report based on their concerns
may be considered to be integrated into an IDP framework by municipal
officials. It is from this that municipalities incorporate the needs of citizens
into an IDP framework. This shows the importance of public participation
in municipal development plans. Without public participation,
municipalities have no concrete means of knowing whether their

developmental plan for communities actually meet communal needs and

are in line with their own capacity (Carrim, 2011:1).
It is clear from the two legislations on local government and public
participation, that there is no legal obligation for councillors to consider
any proposals that summarise the main concerns of communities, even
though ward committees are institutionalised bodies that are formally part
of local government specifically to create public participation. The
seriousness and value of participatory governance that can contribute to
bringing about more effective service delivery is undermined by the lack
of specification of how a MEC that overlooks IDP processes to ensure that
both the content and process of IDP, will hold municipalities accountable
for not meeting the requirements of public participation (Carrim,
2011:1).The responsibility of ward committees needs to be taken
seriously. There is no point of institutionalizing participatory governance
through fixed bodies like ward committees if the integration of their
proposals that encapsulate the key issues raised by community members
are not taken seriously and integrated into the planning and
implementation of IDPs. Ward committees cannot be expected to
contribute to greater service delivery if they do not have an official
influence over decision making that affects development in communities
and service delivery. The tone of how legislation explains public
participation is rather lax when considering the potential value of public
participation. This sets a tone of reluctance by municipalities that are
supposed to drive participatory governance at a civic level and further
elicits a dual response by citizen. The potential impact that public
participation could have thus becomes questionable (Carrim: 2011).
As briefly explained above, ward committees are well established bodies
found in every municipality created to facilitate public participation in an
effort to improve local governments performance and responsiveness to
the communities it serves (Deacon & Piper, 2008:41). A ward committee is
made up of a ward councillor that chairs committee meetings where key
issues and concerns of residents are raised. The committee is also
supposed to raise these concerns in the different participatory structures
within municipalities. Ten other members assist the ward councillor in his
duties. IDPs which are the long term development plans of local
government are one of the local government processes in which ward
committees can represent their communal based reports, in an attempt to
assist all local based development planning to meet community needs. It
is in this way that a ward committees plays the role of a middle man as it
mediates the relationship between communities that raise their local
concerns and municipalities that are supposed to hear these concerns and
put solutions in place. This is how participatory governance through ward

committees is designed to present the direct needs of communities to key

service delivery and developmental processes at municipal level.
Additionally, municipalities can use the closer relationship that they form
with communities to maintain their already limited financial capacity by
reminding residents of service delivery charges, payment dates and the
importance behind paying for services which essentially are
municipalities key source of revenue. Without this source of revenue,
municipalities development plans will be built on a foundation of poor
capacity, as they allocate resources and create a budget based on an
unpredictable financial source. This leaves municipalities financially fragile
and constrained (Carrim, 2011:1).
Although ward committees are a progressive model, the majority of them
have failed to meet their obligation of deepening democracy through
public participation in order to enhance service delivery at an acceptable
standard. The effectiveness of ward committees which already is made
fragile by how they are explained in key legislation is further hindered by
their poor financial and human capacity. The reality is that their role is
bigger than their capacity. Ward committees are not receiving the support
they need from municipalities which further lack funds, skills and
resources to carry out their functions. This constrains their ability to bring
about greater service delivery. The poor efforts to address the lack of skills
among municipal administrators suggests that there was a poor
understanding of the demands that need to be met in order to carry out a
developmental local government over and above the primary function of
municipalities to provide basic service delivery to all communities (Lemon,
2002:23).
The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research revealed that 35% of
municipalities had the minimum capacity needed to roll out IDPs
effectively. This suggests that municipalities are also facing their own
financial, resource and human capacity constraints to implement IDP, and
with that being the case, it cannot be expected of municipalities to
support and fund ward committees when they themselves can barely roll
out their own functions effectively. Ward committees have thus been
created as bodies that are supposed to obtain support from municipalities
that are not in the capacity to be developmental. This reality is worse for
those ward committees that exist in local municipalities that lack the very
basic institutional and financial capacity to be developmental and assist
ward committees because they are set up in local areas where
unemployment and poverty rates are high, making it difficult for them to
generate revenue in order to enhance their financial and resource
capacity (Carrim, 2011:1).

The above capacity restraints within ward committees and municipalities

suggests that there was no measurement of the varying capacity levels of
municipalities and even that of provincial government when the
transformation of local government into a developmental sphere of
government, was taking place. The link between community participation
and IDPs becomes affected. This suggests that even if ward committees
may be successful in driving participation, and municipal officials in
integrating communal based reports, as long as municipalities do not have
the capacity to roll out services and develop IDPs into practice, then
public participation becomes a relevant but ineffective method to enhance
service delivery. The effectiveness of public participation is measured
based on what municipalities implement. Without a successful
implementation process and despite the efforts of citizens and ward
committees to engage in developing their communities, citizens are left to
think that participatory governance is just nominal and has no substance
to it (Carrim, 2011:1). This capacity issue that affects their performance is
exacerbated by the reality that ward committee members are not paid.
They do not have an incentive to effectively carry out their rather time
consuming occupation. All of these constraints on ward committees,
impacts the perception that residents have of ward committees and the
whole concept of participatory governance. This directly affects
attendance levels, thus making ward committees ineffective in creating
better service delivery (Smith, 2008:4).
A third factor that affects the effectiveness of public participation in
bringing about greater service delivery is the politicisation of some ward
committees. This is an illegitimate act of parties that drive party interests
in ward committees, which essentially overshadows the interests of those
not affiliated with the dominant party in that ward. Compiled first and
secondary evidence of meetings and in-depth interviews of various ward
committees in the Msunduzi Municipality in Kwazulu-Natal is proof of the
poor practice of public participation due to heavy political influence in the
different wards. This has hindered ward committees from being an avenue
of participation at a communal level, as their politicisation causes a
breakdown of the general functioning of ward committees. The two ways
in which this municipality has been affected by party politics in the
different wards, is through the representation of members that are aligned
to the dominant party of that ward. This is caused by the inner-party
competition between the ANC and the IFP. Evidence has showed that
members are not elected based on their qualifications or relationship with
their community, but rather based on the party which they represent.
Most members that were interviewed were unaware of what was expected
of them (Deacon & Piper, 2008:41). The use of ward committees as a

platform to drive political interests and secure political power, rather than
aiming to serve the interests of all community members, affected the
levels of participation in most wards that were filled with people that were
affiliated with the dominant party. This resulted in the marginalisation of
some sections of communities that were not affiliated with the dominant
party of their ward. This leads to the accurate assumption that new voices
are not heard and that the ward councillor only pursues interests that will
enhance his/her political position and gain votes for the party. What this
does is creates negative views around the effectiveness of participatory
governance, as ward committees are seen as an arm of government and
not an arm of the community. This undermines the concept of bottom-up
governance and leaves many residents dislodged from influencing
municipal decisions as a way to ensure that their communal issues will be
fixed. Communities are thus left discouraged from participating in ward
committees because of this political abuse of the system by partys
(Deacon & Piper, 2008:44).
It is strongly suggested that if participatory governance is to enhance
democracy and result in more effective service delivery, then the change
needs to start with how public participation is institutionalized. This calls
for the rephrasing of how ward committees are described as an advisory
body but expected to impact municipalities by enhancing the provision of
service delivery as if local officials are legally bound to the advice of ward
committees. This will help to transform the perception of participatory
governance into one that actually deepens democracy by empowering
communities as decision making bodies that can be active in shaping
decisions that affect their communities. Secondly, the capacity of
municipalities and that of ward committees needs to be addressed by
realigning their objectives to their different levels of capacity and further
attending to the lack of skills amongst ward committee members and
municipal officials. This calls for ongoing training of officials and
transparent elections free from party alliances. In order to break away
from political corruption, there needs to be strong monitoring of the
representation of ward committee members and the conduct of ward
committee meetings, to ensure that all voices are heard and represented.
The planning of IDPs at municipal level also needs to be closely monitored
by external, non-politically aligned consultants, to ensure that there is
representation of community needs into IDP plans and that ward
councillors report back on how municipalities intend on solving communal
issues through IDPs (Gaventa, 2006:10).
The key to ensuring that the above suggestions are successful is to treat
the work of ward councillors and ward committee members as a job.
Often, incentivising people especially for work that is time-consuming and

complex in its own right, can motivate people to do their work effectively,
as they come to perceive their role as a ward committee member as being
very important to the development of a more people-driven local
government that can bring about more efficient service delivery through
co-governance. If government does not make an effort to attend to these
critical issues that constrain the success of local government, then the
role of ward committees could be effectively supplemented by community
based organisations (CBOs) that are slowly becoming more successful at
mobilising individuals for key causes (Ranchod, 2007:5).
CBOs pose a challenge to the large body of inefficient ward committees
that have not been successful in mobilising community participation
because they are not associated with government like some ward
committees that have become subject to political influence. CBOs are
seen as more independent and free of political influence because they are
not an arm of government but rather an arm of the community. They are
non-government organisations that form due to frustration of a certain
issue that affects their community. This means that they do not get sidetracked by party politics, from their primary purpose of raising community
based issues. They are able to mobilise a more diverse group of people
because they are issue specific and designed to act quickly to specific
community needs (Ranchod, 2007:5). As a result, the perception of CBOs
has been more positive than ward committees as they seem to be more
people-driven and more productive because they are issue-orientated and
want to bring about immediate change. Lastly, the fact that they use
informal methods such as the use of media to spark debate on their
cause, over and above formal processes to bring awareness to their
concerns, can be seen as a reassurance that they are not afraid to speak
out and hold local government accountable. This external pressure that
CBOs place on local government often has local government left with no
choice but to meet their demands out of fear of being seen as an
unresponsive and illegitimate developmental sphere of government.
However, this pressure can be used effectively if ward committees and
CBOs form a partnership and work together (Ranchod, 2007:7).
Thus it can be said that through the analysis of public participation in
ward committees, participatory governance can possibly bring about
greater service delivery if legislation on participatory governance at a
local level is amended to make the work of ward committees compulsory
to the IDP process, and not merely just a possible inclusion that local
officials may integrate into their IDPs. There is a need to ensure that the
work of ward committees is effectively included into local governments
development plans for communities. A further commitment to building the
capacity of municipalities that roll out service delivery, and that of ward

committees that drive public participation is strongly needed to ensure

that both bodies of local government can successfully carry out their
functions. It has been briefly suggested that the partnering of ward
committees with CBOs can help enhance the efficiency and effectiveness
of participatory governance at local level, however, this needs a far
deeper analysis that was not looked at in this essay. Without the above
considerations, public participation will continue to be ineffective in
bringing about effective service delivery that meets the real concerns of
communities.

Bibliography
Anand India. 2011. Participatory planning in local government in South
Africa: Policy legislation and Practice in Yunus Carrim. Cooperative
Governance Traditional Affair. Available
http://www.cogta.gov.za/index.php/component/content/article/174-yunuscarrim/279-participatory-planning-in-local-government-in-south-africa-policylegislation-and-practice.html

Deacon Roger & Piper Laurence. 2008. Partisan Ward Committees, elite
accountability and community participation: The Msunduzi case. Public
participation in Review 41. Centre for public participation. Volume 4, No.
1:41-45. http://www.cpp.org/za/publications/critical_dialogue/vol4no.12008/art7.df
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. 1996. Government
Gazette. Act No. 108 of 1996.
The Local Government Municipal Structures Act. 1998. Government
Gazette. Act No. 117 of 1998.
Local Government Municipal Systems Act. 2000. Government Gazette. Act
No. 32 of 2000.
Gaventa John. 2006. Triumph, Deficit or Contestation? Deepening the
deepening democracy Debate in Working paper 264. Institute for
developmental studies. London, University of Sussex Brighton.
Lemon Anthony. 2002. The Role of Local Government in Sue Parnell. Et
al (eds). Democratising Local Government: The South African experiment.
Cape Town, UCT Press.
Smith Terrence. 2008. The role of Ward Committees in enhancing
participatory local governance and Development in South Africa.
Williams J, John. 1989. Community Participation and Democratic Practice
in Post-apartheid South Africa: Rhetoric VS Reality. Cape Town: University
of Western Cape.