“Linking Local Government Elections with Ongoing Community Participation”

Yunus Carrim
Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

15 May 2011

Globally, the percentage of the electorate that votes in local elections is significantly lower than in national elections. In this country we have no choice but to reduce that gap. In some senses, in our emerging democracy, it’s even more important to vote in local than in national and provincial elections. After all, the most immediate basic services, such as water, electricity, sanitation, refuse removal and roads are provided at local level. And it’s only in local government elections that there are ward candidates. But most importantly, people need to be mobilized not just to vote, but to take an active part in local government issues. Without this, local government will simply not function effectively.

Legally, we have one of the most advanced, progressive, far-reaching systems of community participation in local government in the world. Uniquely, the legal definition of a municipality is that it comprises not just the councillors and the administration, but the local community as well. Yet it’s clear, from the persistent community protests and much else that the model of community participation in local government is not working well. Why? What can be done about this? And why is this so important?

In the first place, the value of community participation has not been sufficiently internalized by councilors and administrators.  Understandably, some councilors and administrators are wary of, or even fear, community participation. Others see it as holding up speedy and efficient service delivery.  Participation is time-consuming and costly. Many municipalities comply in a technical manner with the legislative requirements for community participation. They have a top-down, technocratic approach that is aimed at seeking endorsement for decisions rather than effective participation in which communities have a significant say in decision-making and in playing a role in implementation.

Often, though, engagements with communities on their needs as part of the IDP (Integrated Development Plan) process ends up with popular “wish lists”.  There is an understandable tension between the communities’ immediate needs and the municipality’s strategic considerations of a five-year plan that has to take into account various competing needs and be implemented with limited resources. As a government review notes:  “Communities often prioritise visible delivery needs, and do not understand the importance of invisible service delivery needs, such as bulk infrastructure”
Most municipalities don’t have the funds or other resources for effective community participation. Nor the necessary skills. Ward Committees, crucial to community participation, are not working well.

But municipalities can’t be solely blamed. Communities must also take some responsibility. Communities often don’t use the space for participation effectively or at all. We should also not romanticize community participation.  Many communities, particularly in informal settlements are highly contested, complex and multi-layered, with fluctuating leaderships, with different strata or factions constantly competing for hegemony. Exactly how representative of the communities the leaders are is not always clear. Identifying needs, priorities and targets in these communities and ensuring participation in implementation of programmes can be difficult. Allocating resources at times fuels further conflicts within these communities. Ensuring effective community participation in these conditions can be very challenging.

So what do we do? Strengthen community participation, that’s what! The ANC’s December 2012 Conference is to discuss this. Government will then take proposals to parliament. A stronger Ward Committee is likely to emerge as one part of an overall strategy to improve community participation.
The law may be tightened to ensure Ward Committees do not comprise political party activists but representatives of  residents, ratepayers, business, trade union, women’s, youth,  taxi, sport, cultural, traditional and other organisations.  Instead of the current 10, Ward Committees could comprise up to 30 people and set up sub-committees and area structures, especially in geographically large wards.

Within a clear framework municipalities could, incrementally, consider delegating limited powers to Ward Committees. Ward Committees could shape Ward Development Plans that feed into and respond to the IDPs.  They could draw up annual profiles of the ward community. They could also oversee the delivery of services in the Ward, including possibly contributing to the municipality’s assessment of the quality of the services provided by a contractor before the contractor is fully paid out. Ward Committees could take some responsibility to fix potholes, pavements, street lights and similar issues, using local labour.  

The law could be amended to obilge municipalities to consider proposals from Ward Committees and inform them of their responses. Municipalities should provide administrative and other support, including for the training of Ward Committee members. Where possible, an administrator could attend ward Committee meetings, especially where municipalities have decentralised regional administrations.  A CDW (Community Development Worker) could be allocated to each Ward Committee to act as a secretary.

Ward Committees could be required to meet at least once a month and hold at least 4 Ward community meetings and interact with the community regularly in other ways.  Ward Committees could account through Annual Reports. There could also be a Code of Conduct for Ward Committee members.
If there’s consensus on these and other proposals, they will be challenging to implement. They will have to be implemented incrementally, depending on capacity, funds and other resources, and the specific conditions in each municipality. National and provincial government will have to actively assist, including with funding. Ward Committee members should get at least out-of-pocket expenses. Given the unemployment and dependency on the state for income, there will, understandably, be a scramble to serve in the Ward Committees and tensions could arise. Payments to Ward Committee members and delegation of powers will have to be dealt with cautiously, incrementally and sensitively. 

Each Speaker’s Office should establish a Public Participation Unit to foster community participation through Ward Committees and various other forms. Municipalities need to be flexible about the options. Of course, communities create their own spaces for participation through their struggles, and municipalities should also heed these.

It’s important to avoid being populist or technocratic. We need a new strengthened model of community participation that balances giving residents the fullest space to participate in municipal affairs and ensuring the right of elected councillors to ultimately govern. Finding the right balance will encourage greater collective responsibility and reduce the infighting and negativity. This country, after all, has enormous potential. Let’s make it work!
So let’s go to vote on 18 May in large numbers. And become more active in local government issues. The vote may not be all. But in an emerging democracy like ours it’s a lot. Not as an end, but as one of many means! But a fundamental means! For which so many sacrificed so much for so long!