A Reply to Friedman: Strong Ward Committees only Part of the Solution

Yunus Carrim
Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional  Affairs

13 May 2011

“Imitations” or “substitutes” of democracy? The ANC’s attempt to give people outside its branch structures some say on its candidates for municipal elections? And CoGTA’s (Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Department) proposals to strengthen Ward Committees? Hardly fair or reasonable comments from astute commentator Steven Friedman (‘ANC’s tinkering won’t make democracy work”, Business Day, 4 May).
Both the ANC’s candidate selection process and CoGTA’s ward committee proposals are aimed at ensuring more, not full, community participation, and are not, on their own, “solutions” but aspects of an overall strategy to incrementally improve participation.
In the context of “one party dominance”, the ANC has been criticized because its candidates are chosen by branch activists, and other ANC voters have no choice but to vote for them, even if the candidates are not known in the community. So here was an attempt to let community members have some say.  Not the final say. Where community choices differed from ANC branches, List committees and higher ANC structures would finally decide, sometimes favouring the community’s choice, at other times the branch’s.

Finalising the ANC’s candidates is always challenging.  It’s a sophisticated, complex balancing act, involving grassroots democracy and leadership interventions, to ensure the inclusion of the full range of constituencies and strata we represent. More specifically, 50% of our candidates had to be women, in a reasonable mix of list and ward candidates. There were targets too for racial inclusivity and serving councilors being returned. It is a remarkably democratic and fair system. No other party in this country and few elsewhere have anything like this.
Obviously, given unemployment levels and the huge dependency on incomes from the state, the stakes are high. Some of the tensions and a measure of abuse of the process are inevitable. There invariably have to be trade-offs in meeting the different targets, which opened the space for party elites to in some cases unfairly get their way. But the community consultation also gave space to local elites to mobilise sections of communities to ensure that they or those they championed became candidates or sometimes simply to oppose the ANC branch’s choice. This was easy to do because residents have legitimate grievances about service delivery in the first place.

It’s against this background that some of the problems with consulting communities have to be understood. It was the first time this more comprehensive approach to deciding candidates was used, and there were difficulties in implementing it. Perhaps we should maybe have started the process earlier? But the approach is correct, especially as we recognize its limits, some of which Friedman also points to. We need to clarify and improve the process, not forego it. 
Friedman says we should scrap ward committees! No, no! It is only in the local sphere that we have directly elected public representatives, and it is through ward committees that they can be most effectively held to account and act on the needs and interests of those who voted for them, making democracy more than just about voting or being elected once every five years. My fleeting remarks on radio that Friedman refers to were not meant to suggest that improving the representative nature of ward committees would be the “solution”.   Stronger ward committees are just one form of encouraging more active community participation in local government. But if they work well, they will strengthen community participation generally. The ANC’s 2012 Conference will provide guidelines on improving ward committees and other forms of community participation. Government and parliament will facilitate discussion on this with stakeholders and the public before final decisions are taken.

Instead of being “colonised by political parties”,  ward committees could be made up of representatives of  residents, ratepayers, business, trade union, women’s, youth,  taxi, sport, cultural, traditional and other organizations. They could maybe comprise up to 30 people, instead of the current 10, and could establish sub-committees and area structures, especially in geographically large wards. Ward Committees could also be required to hold at least 4 Ward community meetings and interact with the community regularly in other ways.
Among other issues being considered are:  incrementally delegating limited powers to ward committees; giving them responsibility for such issues as fixing street lights, potholes and pavements, using local labour; encouraging them to adopt Ward Development Plans; allowing them to monitor the delivery of services in the ward, including commenting on the quality of new services provided before a contractor is fully paid out.
Consideration also needs to be given to legally obliging municipalities to consider proposals from ward committees and, within limits, give reasons for their responses. Provincial and national government departments also need to take into account the role of ward committees in their roll-out of their programmes. Community Development Workers, who connect residents with government departments to expedite services, could be allocated to ward committees to improve coordination and assist their functioning. Where possible, an administrator could attend ward committee meetings, especially where municipalities have decentralised regional administrations.

These proposals and others will take considerable effort, time and resources to implement.  National and provincial government will have to assist municipalities with capacity, funding and other resources as part of an incremental implementation programme. With more powers and resources, new tensions could arise in ward committees. The transformation process will have to be managed adroitly.
Apart from ward committees, other forms of community participation also need to be strengthened. Municipalities need to be flexible about the options. Communities also create their own spaces for participation, and municipalities should also engage in these. It would be useful to have a Public Participation unit set up in the Speaker’s Office of each municipality.

Friedman proposes replacing ward committees with a second layer of elected councils. But having another council layer is not practical. As it is, we have huge challenges with the two-tier District and Local municipality model. And already voters have three votes in elections in Local municipalities.
We should not have too romantic a view of community participation. Many communities not represented in ward committees are also subject to elite capture. These communities, especially in informal settlements, are volatile, fractured and factionalised, with different strata in constant contest for hegemony. For them to consistently identify their needs and participate in their own development can be difficult. The allocation of municipal resources at times fuels further conflicts within these communities.

Of course, communities spontaneously wage major struggles and win! But for effective democracy and sustainable development there has to be a balance between a community’s right to participate and elected councilors right to ultimately govern. It’s in finding this balance that maybe we differ with Friedman. If we are accused of being too state-centric, Friedman may be too community-centric.  
But if we disagree with Friedman on this balance and on some of his proposals, and what is do-able in different contexts, and maybe even what the context is precisely, we agree with most of Friedman’s principles and values on a people-centered democracy. It’s good that Friedman is there to constantly raise these issues and challenge us. We need to engage with him more. I’ll certainly do so, including privately.    

An edited version of this appeared in “The Business Day”