/ 31 March 2000

Experience proves iGoli 2002 wrong

Ebrahim Harvey

CROSSFIRE

David Hall, director of the Public Services International Research Unit, University of Greenwich, London, and an acknowledged authority on public services, has roundly condemned the iGoli 2002 plan as a “narrow vision and limited world view” in a booklet titled World-class Evidence against iGoli 2002. Has the management of iGoli 2002 and the ruling party read this report? So compelling is the evidence that one can only hope that it is not too late to review and change the plan.

Drawing on experiences with neo-liberal municipal restructuring in South America, North America, Asia, Europe and Africa over the past two decades, Hall systematically shows that privatisation and commercialisation of basic public services have been a staggering failure, to the extent that, in many cases, control and management reverted back to municipal or other forms of public ownership and control.

He notes the striking irony that while iGoli 2002 has been presented as a plan for a world-class city it has totally ignored world-class evidence against it and instead confined itself to the views of neo-liberal consultants aligned to the World Bank. In so doing, the diversity of approaches to restructuring public services was ignored. Privatisation and corporatisation, which ironically have dismally failed elsewhere in the world, were unilaterally decided on as the only way to restructure local services.

What is further ironic and intriguing is that while iGoli 2002 has been backed by the World Bank, which is based in the United States, the restructuring that has taken place in the state of New York has had a high level of union-management co- operation in what is known as the “partnership approach”. According to a study, “high levels of public sector unionisation in New York makes internal restructuring through labour-management co-operation especially important”. With iGoli 2002 management has had a largely confrontational and adversarial approach to the unions.

Contrary to what has happened with iGoli 2002, the international trend over the past few years has been based on democratic restructuring, guided by the principles of full participation of all citizens, the engagement of workers and their unions, openness of documents and procedures, local accountability even at the expense of business interests and a sensitivity to the needs of communities and workers.

The report goes on to show the many benefits of the “partnership approach”, such as expenditure shifts to small local infrastructure, reduced inequalities, enhancment of local community development, higher employee morale and reduced corruption. Of great importance is that none of the case studies were motivated by any political or ideological perspective.

Unlike iGoli 2002, in each case study there was a groundswell of grassroots participation in decisions concerning restructuring. Unions, civics and other community-based organisations were drawn into the process of consultation and decision-making. What we had with iGoli 2002 was a semblance of union participation with no adoption of the alternative proposals put forward by the unions. Worse, when management failed to win union support, it rode roughshod over the unions and began implementation of the plan.

The report highlights the problems of the neo-liberal business model which was earlier imposed on public sector restructuring in other countries and concludes “by contrast the iGoli 2002 plan shows no acknowledgement that a business model has any drawbacks”, of which the lack of democratic accountability is one of the biggest.

The research shows that the effect of privatisation and corporatisation is the removal of powers from local government and communities as it distances service providers from direct accountability to both the local political system and its consumers.

The report notes that in the city of Montreal, Canada, there were vast public debates about proposed water privatisation and that many public hearings were held and over 400 submissions of evidence taken. Following this process the proposal to privatise water was abandoned in December 1999. It adds that there is a world trend towards devolving functions to municipal level – the opposite of iGoli 2002 – because of its democratic advantages.

What is of further concern is that the report states that privatisation of public services always leads to increases in tariffs, withdrawal of services to those who cannot afford it, increased inequalities, deficiencies in maintenance and repairs, and a trend to focus on middle- and higher-income consumers who can afford it at the expense of the poor who cannot.

In the light of this report and with the implementation of iGoli 2002 well under way despite massive union opposition, the future of the citizens of Johannesburg does not look good. Can a plan be implemented and a city effectively governed without the support of the major stakeholders and its residents, and for how long can this happen?

In every major respect -“adequate consultation, democratic worker and community participation, sensitivity to workers and consumers, accountability and transparency” -iGoli 2002 has failed to draw on international experience. With widespread opposition to the plan, what will happen in the run-up to the local government election and thereafter?

It is the height of bureaucratic and brutal cynicism to promise residents, as was done by the council last week, that “swift action” would be taken against utilities if municipal services were not up to scratch after November’s local government election. It is especially cynical considering that the council bludgeoned its way through massive opposition which warned it, against the background of international experience, of the impending adverse consequences of the privatisation of basic services.

It is much worse when the ruling party, the neo-liberal instrument of the World Bank in South Africa, and finally responsible for adoption of the iGoli 2002 plan and the shabby treatment of unions, will call on the residents of Johannesburg to vote for it in the November local government election.

This is the ugly, absurd and hypocritical extent to which taking voters and the public for granted has gone. Kick them in the shins and still call on them to vote for you. In so doing the ruling party tramples upon many rights enshrined in our Constitution and the legacy of our struggles. Who can put a stop to the rot?