“The Municipal Demarcation Board: Notes Towards Some Tentative Remarks”

Yunus Carrim
Deputy Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION BOARD ROUNDTABLE ON METROS
Johannesburg
9 June 2011

    •    There’s much talk, especially in recent days, especially in the context of the local government elections, of changes to the local government model. Exactly what these changes will be is not clear yet. Some aspects of the changes are on the agenda now but most, the key aspects, will have to wait for guidance from the ANC’s 2012 policy and national conferences. In a sensible democracy, the majority party, of course, guides the government. Which doesn’t mean micro-managing the government. Anyway, following the policy guidelines determined at the ANC December 2012 Conference, government and parliament will engage with the public on proposals to change the local government model.

    •    The core values and principles of the model are likely to be retained, but aspects of it are likely to change. This is likely to be part of a review of the powers and functions of all 3 spheres of government. The aim is not ideological as much as practical. We want to see a more integrated cooperative governance system to accelerate service delivery and development. Part of this will probably entail provincial and national government far more actively assisting local government in ways that strengthen it, not erode its powers.

    •    Given the debates that are opening up and will assume momentum in the months ahead, the Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) would be well advised to also, within its legally defined role, keep abreast of what goes on and also play a role.

    •    There are at least two issues that may impact on you:

    •    The Future of Districts: As you know, the two tier system of District and Local municipalities is being reviewed. At this stage the outcome is not clear. The current system could be retained as it is, or Districts could be given different powers and functions, or Districts could exist only in rural areas, or Districts could be scrapped altogether. Changes to the District-Local municipality system will impact on your role in various respects, including on boundary determinations and capacity assessments.

    •    Strengthening of Ward Committees: As you know, there has been much discussion for a while now on strengthening ward committees as part of an overall strategy to improve community participation in local government. One of the challenges in having effective ward committees is the geographical size and ward boundaries of certain wards. Depending on how ward committees are empowered, it may mean that in future  the Board will have to pay greater attention to the need to have effective ward committees when deciding on ward boundaries.  

  
    •    As you well know, the role of the MDB is also being raised by several stakeholders, and will in all likelihood be considered too in the ANC 2012 Conference. And why not? If we are reviewing the local government model, there is also a case to be made that the role of the MDB should also be reviewed. It doesn’t follow that there will be any major changes – but that your role and performance should be subject to review is something shouldn’t you also welcome? After all, you’ve been in existence for 11 years now, and surely there should be a review of organisations like yours, regardless of whether political parties and other stakeholders are calling for such a review?

    •    There are those, as you know, who suggest that most of your work is done, and the regular work you have doesn’t require the MDB in its current form? Their view is that the major task to rationalise municipalities had been successfully completed in 1999/2000. It is unlikely that we will see rationalisation of that magnitude again soon. But, of course, the delimitation of wards remains a key function to sustain democracy at local level. We also need to consider whether only the MDB can perform this function independently and effectively. Some ask whether the IEC shouldn’t be doing this rather?

    •    Also it is being asked if the MDB has not done municipal capacity assessments since 2008, is that function necessary any longer, or can it be performed elsewhere?

    •    As you know, the independence of the MDB, its accountability as a non-elected body, and the need to rationalise organs of state performing more or less the same functions, are being questioned and discussed in many circles.

    •    The MDB was not subject to the review of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy by parliament a few years ago. Is it not time that the MDB and other institutions supporting democracy not considered in that review to also be reviewed?

    •    There are issues related to this discussion about the MDB’s role that you may want to raise? If so, please raise them. Any review of your role must fully involve you. I know from the MDB Chairperson that you are keen on some legislative amendments to make your work more effective. The MDB needs to insert these issues into the debate.

    •    It’s important that you not wait for the debate on your role to take off fully before you take part in it. It would be useful to raise your issues in the early stages. There’s some work already being done in certain quarters on the role of structures similar to the MDB in other countries, especially developing countries.

    •    But before I move on to this and other issues, let me, on behalf of CoGTA, warmly congratulate you and, of course, the IEC for your role in a remarkable local government elections! We are very, very pleased at the high turnout and the professional manner in which the elections were held.

    •    We are also aware of the good work the MDB has done over the years. Among the achievements of the MDB are:
    •    The reduction of municipalities from 843 to 284.
    •    The dissolution of cross-boundary municiplaities in 2005
    •    The withdrawal of District Management Areas in 2008
    •    The determination of 2 new metros in 2011.
    •    The delimitation of wards for the 2000, 2006 and 2011 elections.
 
    •    Before I move on to other issues, I need to say that because of time and other pressures I have not been able to give considered thought to this input and I have not prepared a particularly coherent talk. You should see these remarks as no more than notes towards a speech. They are very preliminary, tentative thoughts that need to be worked through further. And although this Roundtable is focusing on metros, it was agreed that I would make general remarks about the MDB. I will though say a few things about metros.  
    •    As you are aware, a wide range of stakeholders have expressed concern about some of the decisions that the Board takes. Now, of course, boundary determinations and ward delimitations in many situations the world over raise huge emotions. Vested political interests often get challenged. Cultural, ethnic, racial and other identities can be also be challenged. There are many other interests too that are confronted with boundary determinations and ward delimitations. So, of course, the work of the MDB can’t be easy. It would be difficult to always get consensus among the various competing interests. But the MDB needs to ask whether it is managing these challenges well? 
    •    Some in government, in all spheres, have asked whether the MDB properly takes into account the serious ramifications for intergovernmental fiscal relations some of the changes it makes to municipal boundaries have. The national government and MECs feel at times that they are saddled with the consequences of decisions taken by the MDB. It can be very challenging to deal with issues such as legal succession, the transfer of assets and liabilities of the affected municipalities, and the continued delivery of services.
    •    A constant complaint is that the public does not have  sufficient say in the boundary and ward delimitation decisions of the MDB.
    •    A major concern also is that the MDB has not done enough to undo apartheid spatial planning.
    •    There are questions too about why the MDB has not done any effective assessments of the capacity of the metros.
    •    Issues are also being raised about how the move towards a differentiated local government model will influence the work of the MDB.
    •    Obviously, this is not an easy matter – but traditional leaders have also raised concerns about the way MDB decisions unduly split traditional authority areas.
    •    Gauteng speaks of the City Region concept. CoGTA hasn’t give sufficient attention to this. We need to. But it’ll be interesting to see what the MDB’s view on this is.
    •    It’s useful that the MDB has organized this Roundtable on metros. We need greater clarity on the application of the criteria to determine metros. Recently, the Board had to reverse its decision to declare Msunduzi a metro, and there was a court challenge to its decision that Mangaung be declared a metro. So that too might warrant the need for this roundtable.
    •    However, the MDB also needs to take into account discussions within government, the majority party and other stakeholders about the future of the Districts. Discussions are also taking place about the role of the cities in the national development of the country in various forums.
    •    So this roundtable has to be seen only as part of the ongoing discussion on the role of the metros.
    •    According to the invitation to the Roundtable, the Board wants to "develop increasing consensus on how and when to declare new metros in the future."  This is welcomed. There must be greater public participation in MDB decisions that affect the public.
    •    The South African Cities Network (SACN) released its latest “The State of the Cities Report”, entitled “Towards Resilient Cities”, shortly before the elections. It’s not clear how the key issues raised in the report impacts on the MDB’s work – but among the issues emerging from the report are:
    •    Our cities are crucial to our countries growth and development. The nine major cities contribute more than 60 % of our countries economic output.
    •    Economic conditions are generally better in the cities than the rest of the country.
    •    Improved conditions have encouraged people to move towards the cities.
    •    Cities are struggling to keep pace with urbanisation and population growth
    •    Informal settlements are increasing in the cities.
    •    Spheres of government have not worked effectively well together on the releasing of state-owned land, provision of housing and infrastructure.
    •    Much needs to be done to strengthen the productive capabilities of metros and to spread the benefits of prosperity.
    •    Metro councils need to create conditions in which all citizens can develop to their full potential. Emphasis should be on production rather than welfarism or consumption.
    •    We need to restore trust and confidence in the public sector. Dealing with corruption and public servant’s inertia will be crucial to these efforts.
    •    The capacity of metros and cities to plan and manage urban growth should be strengthened.
    •    South Africa, like most middle income developing countries, is experiencing rapid urbanization and urban growth in most of our cities.  Estimates are that more than two thirds of the population of South Africa will settle in urban areas in the foreseeable future. How will this impact on the MDB’s work.
    •    Environmental considerations and sustainability imperatives are increasingly becoming key considerations in planning new metros. To what extent are the designation of metros taking into account energy security, water availability and other non-renewable resources?
    •    The MDB needs to take these and other issues into account in its work.
    •    Now to another matter. Of course, like all statutory bodies in this country, the MDB needs to work in a united manner. Regrettably, far too many statutory bodies are hampered by internal divisions between Board members and/or the Board and management. Often too divisions cut across Board members and management. Both government and parliament are severely tested by these mostly unnecessary divisions, which most often have nothing to do with the role of the body, and far too often have to do with conflicts around power, tensions over appointments to posts, patronage and tenders. These conflicts consume too much of government’s time and cause a huge wastage of resources.
    •    Even where there are bodies not so challenged, they often  don’t have the degree of unity that’s necessary for maximum productivity and effectiveness.
    •    These issues are being raised here because as Cogta we’d like to see the MDB be an example of a body that is united and effective. Obviously there will be differences within the organisation, but these should be to a reasonable degree, and on issues of policy, strategy and the like - divisions that serve to help an organisation grow and develop, that enrich an organisation, not debilitate it.
    •    As was pointed out earlier, questions are being raised about the need for a review of the role of the MDB. It must be stressed again that no clear or agreed views have emerged about this.  Examples of how similar organisations in other countries, particularly in developing countries, work might be of some relevance. I asked a Department official to look at some examples from other countries, and this is what he came up with. I can’t vouch for the accuracy, but here is what I was given:
    •    The responsibility for drawing boundaries vests, in different countries, in the legislature, the executive, a boundary commission, an electoral management body, a government department, or an agency. In some Commonwealth countries, the authority for demarcation is allocated to independent, impartial commissions with final decision-making powers. In others, the legislatures can debate and even delay the enactment of a commission's plan. Some countries require executive, rather than legislative, approval before implementation.
    •    In Canada, the federal and provincial levels of government have constitutionally entrenched status, while municipal governance is subject to provincial authority, which is a common trend in most federal states. This results in provincial authorities determining boundaries.
    •    Northern Ireland has a Local Government (Boundaries) Act, in terms of which the Department of the Environment appoints a commissioner to determine the boundaries of local constituencies.
    •    The Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland is an advisory non-departmental public body. It is an independent, non-political body created by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1973.
    •    In New Zealand the Local Government Commission  takes decisions on the structure and representation requirements of local government, and is also responsible for altering boundaries of local authorities
    •    In Malawi and Sierra Leone, the Electoral Commissions are responsible for boundary issues in addition to electoral matters.
    •    The Constitution of Ghana provides for the Electoral Commission to be the final authority in the demarcation of constituency boundaries and electoral districts.
    •    There are different structures and ways of managing boundary determinations and ward delimitations in different countries, shaped by the specific needs and other circumstances in each country. Obviously, any review of the MDB in our country will have to take into account our specific needs.
    •    The MDB should not feel threatened by any review of its role. You should welcome it. As CoGTA we recognize the good work you have done so far. But we agree with others that there is a need for a review of the MDB. We are clear that you should play a very active role in the review of the MDB. Of course, we recognize your independence, but if there’s any way in which we can facilitate that role, please be assured that we will gladly assist.
    •    We thank you for this invitation, and wish you well.