The new municipal structures Bill negates municipalities’ rights to govern themselves, writes John Sewell
The South African Constitution contains many glowing phrases, and none is as powerful to local politicians as Section 151(3): “A municipality has the right to govern, on its own initiative, the local government affairs of its community.”
That section has been picked up as far away as Canada as the kind of statement needed to protect municipalities from the power of provincial and national governments. But they are just words, and the national government in South Africa does not seem to know what they mean.
Even when Section 154 states that “the national government and provincial governments, by legislation and other measures, must support and strengthen the capacity of municipalities to manage their own affairs, to exercise their powers and to perform their functions”, the national government apparently doesn’t get it.
Instead, its real intention is found in the municipal structures Bill, introduced in early July and given hearings in Pretoria last week. The Bill replaces the constitutional right of
self-government with the legislated micro- management of municipalities.
For example, it requires each municipality to create the position of speaker, something rarely seen in local government since the mayor usually chairs council meetings. The legislation apparently wants to interfere with one of the traditional functions of the mayor.
It also sets out detailed procedures for the functioning of executive committees and other standing committees. So far it has been the prerogative of local councils to establish these procedures to fit local needs.
And it requires each municipal council to establish ward committees, which must function according to the precise provisions described in the legislation. Most councils don’t have ward committees, and in small municipalities they would simply duplicate the work of the council itself.
The South African Local Government Association has strongly objected to these sections of the Bill. It makes it clear that these details should be left to local governments to sort out and agree on; they should not be prescribed by national legislation.
But the association made little headway at last week’s hearings, and one fears the final set of hearings scheduled for September won’t see much change either. The government seems anxious to get the Bill passed in its present form, the Constitution be damned.
There’s a second problem with the Bill, one with a more targeted impact. East London, Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg, the largest in the second rank of South African cities, will be effectively stripped of their powers and of some revenue by the Bill, and set under the control of local district councils.
The Bill defines different kinds of cities. The metropolitan cities – Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria – all have a two-tiered system of local government with sub-structures, a system particularly effective at diffusing and confusing decision-making. These cities are given full powers and full access to local revenue sources by the Bill.
East London and Port Elizabeth, big cities by anyone’s standards, aren’t so lucky. Three years ago each city opted for a single municipal council as this would best serve local needs.
In the case of East London, the wisdom of that decision has never been in dispute: this city has gained a reputation for being the best-run in the country. It is stronger financially, politically and administratively now than it was three years ago, a claim none of the metropolitan-style cities can make.
That there is only one council responsible for local decisions is one reason for the city’s success. But that means nothing to the sponsors of the municipal structures Bill. The new legislation says such local councils will be under the control of the district councils, which are mainly controlled by rural appointees.
The Bill gives local councils like East London only a single power: the power to appoint a CEO. Any other powers must be specifically assigned by the district council. East London will be the baby of the Amatola District Council. It’s crazy.
If that weren’t astounding enough, the lucrative levy on companies (also known as the payroll or profit tax) would go to the district council, not to the city council, even though almost all of it is raised in the city. In the case of East London, this amounts to about R70-million a year.
The reward to East London and similar single-tier cities for providing good government to their citizens is a kick in the teeth.
East London mayor Lulamile Nazo says he thought they would be offered an amended version of the metropolitan model, but it never happened. He says he and the other mayors felt ignored at last week’s hearings.
There seems no good reason why large cities such as East London should be denied power and revenue just because they have adopted a more effective, more rational and less expensive form of government than some other large cities. Even the Constitution agrees with that.
— John Sewell is a former mayor of Toronto, Canada, and has been an adviser to the East London council for the past four years