The ANC is struggling with the fact that the elimination of poverty will not be achieved unless metropolitan areas can be governed at a local level, argues Mark Swilling
THEY used to say in the 1970s and 1980s that “when Soweto sneezes, the country catches a cold”. Extended into the democratic non-racial 1990s, we should pause for a moment to wonder how sick the country can get if Greater Johannesburg falls really ill. Because the signs are not at all good. And as the next elections draw nearer, so the search is on for things to blame.
Within the African National Congress the debate has reached new levels of intensity – some call for a “mega-city” at metropolitan level, others call for more power to the local councils, and still others see centralisation to provincial government level as the solution.
All over the world there is a growing consensus in both left-of-centre and right- wing governments that metropolitan governments are the only way to manage metropolitan areas. And there is good reason for this.
Recent evidence points to a positive correlation between a reduction of inequalities and increasing growth rates. All the surveys point to the fact that the fastest growing cities are the cities where inequalities between richest and poorest areas are being reduced.
The other correlation is between growth and the health of the inner city: where inner cities are in decline, growth rates are retarded.
But then the question is raised about how best to reduce inequalities and promote growth. There is increasing evidence that the neo-liberal revolution that was premised on the theory of public choice has given rise to a conception of urban governance that has failed to deal with growth and inequality.
The reason for this is that conservatives like Maggie Thatcher scrapped metropolitan- wide governments because it was thought that the best way to promote growth was to allow urban localities to compete with one another for investment, skilled personnel and people prepared to pay more for increasingly costly privatised services.
Great cities were disassembled into neighbourhoods and localities and given disempowered local governments which were told: if you want to stay in business, lower the land and labour costs, squeeze out the poor as they cannot afford to pay and attract the better off who not only pay for services, but also attract more investment in the service industries.
The global trend now, however, is to recognise that metropolitan cities must be managed at the metropolitan level. If you want to save the inner cities, don’t let the middle class secede from the tax base at the peripheries. If you want real development, don’t let firms play off one area against another as they seek subsidised land, low rentals and tax rebates.
If you want public sector investment to leverage private and community investment, stop the urban sprawl that national housing policy in combination with provincial housing board decisions tends to promote and densify so more people use the infrastructure.
If you want to grow the informal sector, don’t dump the poor in areas where access is limited and transport costs consume potential savings. None of this can be achieved without metropolitan governance.
But does the ANC understand that none of the grand ideals of poverty elimination and growth will be achieved until it is accepted that metropolitan areas must be governed at a metropolitan level?
In short, does the ANC understand the city? Unfortunately, the answer is mixed. There was a time in the days of the Central Witwatersrand Metropolitan Chamber (1990 to 1993) when there was a multi-party consensus on the need for a strong metropolitan government for Greater Johannesburg.
This consensus was smashed by the Gauteng provincial government when it passed a promulgation in 1995 creating four large “metropolitan sub-structures” – a decision applauded by the neo-liberal wings of the Democratic Party and National Party which were marginalised in the metropolitan chamber.
Supporters of metropolitan governance knew that big sub-structures meant strong sub- structures, which, in turn, meant a weak metropolitan government.
Worst fears came true when the Gauteng government followed up in 1996 with promulgations that split land-use planning, the tax base and infrastructure and service delivery between metropolitan and local levels. Despite a general strike against the death of true metropolitan governance by municipal workers, the Gauteng government stuck to its guns.
Now that the consequences of a weak metropolitan government have become apparent, many politicians and managers have changed their tune. They are appalled at the slow pace of decision-making, massive duplication, rising development needs which are not met, declining service delivery and the power of northern suburbs yuppies whose “rates boycotts” have managed to hold up what little redistribution was possible in a two-tier system. But not all agree at local level.
Politicians and managers at sub-structure level, who stand to lose from a powerful metropolitan government, share a common cause with investors and rich suburbanites who want to be able to use local zoning laws and rates hikes to drive out the poor.
Some politicians and managers, so threatened by a strong metropolitan government that they don’t control, have resorted to the bizarre and unconstitutional notion that the metropolitan level be completely scrapped!
But there are those in the Gauteng government who concur with those at local level that metropolitan areas should be managed by metropolitan governments. This position may well find support at national government level where fiscal restraint is the name of the game.
However, the logic of efficiency can cut both ways: for the neo-liberal mindset it will mean many small local governments competing with one another; but it can also lead to the opposite conclusion which is that a strong metropolitan government can take over functions transferred downwards from higher levels that have cut taxes and can therefore no longer afford to do what they used to do.
As Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel and Minister of Trade and Industry Alec Erwin try to kick life into the macro-economy and even resort to all sorts of weird and wonderful neo-liberal magic potions to buttress their efforts, they may do well to address the governance of the metropolitan areas that hold the micro-economic relationships that are the stuff of real investment and job creation.
Ironically, metropolitan governance has become an issue that requires decisive and visionary political leadership. Let’s hope that this is what we will get from the White Paper on local government that is being drafted under the auspices of Minister Valli Moosa.
— Mark Swilling is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and Development Management, University of Witwatersrand