Controversy surrounds the future of governing Johannesburg. Muff Andersson presents the options open to the city and its sub-structures
This weekend there will be a private referendum in the white suburbs to determine whether residents of Johannesburg believe the city should remain governed by four separate sub-structures or be merged into one giant megacity.
Regardless of the referendum, the issue will have a fundamental bearing on the future shape of local government in South Africa. It has created a lot more heat than light. The South, a newspaper to be published this month by the Southern metropolitan local council, has assembled the four scenarios that are presently being considered, analysing their strengths and weaknesses.
Option 1: Two-tier system
Keeping the status quo as it is, a metro with four autonomous local councils. Existing political representation would stay. So would the current administration and geographical demarcation.
Enthusiasts say:
The metro system has gone a long way to making local government accessible to the citizens of Johannesburg. It is a democratic system, and it has a local economic development focus which is the only way an unevenly developed city such as Greater Johannesburg will be able to grow into a world city.
Although the current demarcations (boundaries) are complicated, they make sense and people are now familiar with them. To change this system would be like saying: Two years ago we brought you this system, but we were wrong. We are starting again with another system.
Critics say:
The metro and four local councils are a circus. Functions are duplicated five times over. The cost of maintaining five councils is exorbitant. It would be cheaper to have only one set of people performing these functions. Under the present system, there are different priorities, which is confusing for residents. For example, the Sandton rates boycott in the east messes up things for other residents, because of cross-subsidisation. If there was only one council instead of five, this wouldnt happen.
Option 2: Two-tier system
Both the metro and local powers would have legislated powers and functions. However, there would be a smaller number of councillors (both PR and elected) and a larger number of smaller local councils made up of four to five wards and a maximum of 100 000 voters per local council.
Ward councillors on a metro list would represent citizens at local council and metro council. Ward councillors on a local council list would represent citizens at local council only.
Local councils would take care of functions and services of relevance to citizens at local level (for example administrative facilities and local infrastructure).
All the big stuff finance policy, land- use planning and economic development would be decided by the metro.
Enthusiasts say:
Independence by local councils in metropolitan areas over development policy and over land-use planning and regulations will lead to local councils avoiding these problems … it is, therefore, proposed that metropolitan-wide policy and land-use planning as well as land-use regulation or control must be a metropolitan function.
Critics say:
What is not explained here is why there is this assumption. A view often given is that local councils are too close to the ground to get a perspective (the big picture) of their development policies and land-use planning programmes.
Yet the opposite could be argued. Because of the proximity of local councils to their constituencies and because of their own ability to workshop issues and invite public participation, they are better poised to take correct development and land-use planning decisions than would be a body several steps removed from that process.
Enthusiasts say:
We want decisions on what use land is put to be informed by local community interests set off against longer term metropolitan- wide interest in securing the vision for the metropole. We propose that economic development functions, other than those which relate to implementation, such as hawkers, should be metropolitan functions.
Critics say:
* Again, there is a suggestion that a body several stages away from the community would be better placed to decide on behalf of that community what is in their long- term interest. And again, the opposite argument might be more convincing.
* If all the key functions are being taken away, what is the point of having local councils? They will be toothless.
Option 3: One-tier system: Unicity or mega- city model
The central authority would be one metro council. Under it would be several metropolitan management communities (MMCs) with powers and functions delegated (by agreement, not by legislation) to local level.
There would be a smaller number of both directly elected (ward councillors) and PR councillors (elected to metro level only).
There would be a larger number of smaller MMCs made up of four to five wards and a maximum of 100000 voters per MMC.
An option being considered is to have ward councillors voted to metro council and ward-level community elections, held separately as a separate event, for community representatives on the MMC. Community leaders would have advisory authority only on the MMCs.
Principles of demarcation are still to be investigated and agreed upon.
Enthusiasts say:
* It would be cheaper to have fewer councillors and one metro council with a central streamlined administration.
* Events like the Eastern rates boycott wouldnt affect the rest of the city if there was one decision-making body only.
* We would maximise economics of scale in delivery of services. We could provide high-quality services. We would avoid duplication, waste and uncertainty in the administration.
* We would bring participative democracy to the people of Johannesburg.
* Through the mega-city approach we could create a single vibrant metropolitan economy as well as a high quality of life for all. We would be poised to develop our vision as the leading city in Africa.
Critics say:
* It would not be cheaper to change systems. Such a massive change would make expenditure spin out of all proportion. There is no way that overnight the work of five councils would be reduced to that of a single council. It is likely that another structure, a super-structure, would be created to oversee the transition. This will be very costly.
* In the process of changing systems, projects would go by the wayside and current development initiatives would be dropped. In mega-cities throughout the world it is clear that the development priorities change. We might end up having a highly developed inner city and little or nothing to speak of in the informal and previously black areas.
* If the current system is slow, and five councils are sharing the burden, how would a single council cope? Imagine the bureaucratic bottlenecks.
* The proposed system is precisely what we moved away from when we destroyed the old apartheid structures. People on the ground will not tolerate management committees.
* This system will not bring participative democracy. Instead it will make democracy very distant from the people.
* It is no use proposing a structural solution to a political problem.
* If Johannesburg is to be rezoned, and if these major changes are to be made, its citizens will have to know about it. There are two costs to be considered: the financial cost of reinventing the wheel and the cost in terms of credibility in saying, we did it wrong first time, now were starting again.
Those are the three major options currently being considered. And now for something which is somewhere in between all the other options:
Option 4: Two-tier system
In structure, Option 1 would remain. In function, the finance and budget processes would be centralised and controlled by the metro, which would distribute finances equitably according to the capital project commitments of each metropolitan local council (MLC) and in keeping with overall metro-wide strategies of developing previously underdeveloped and neglected areas of the city. In this way, whatever the East does will not affect the other MLCs.
Enthusiasts say:
* It solves the problems without the upheaval and the cost.
* It provides the opportunity for aspects of a mega-city to be put into place without overturning the entire apple-cart. That way everybody gets to understand what centralised functions mean in reality.
Critics say:
If you go this route you might as well go the whole hog. Where there is a problem with finances now, later there will be one with economic development and that function will have to be centralised. Ditto human resources, ditto corporate service, ditto social development.
So why not plan for one centralised city economy from the beginning?