It has proven valuable to stage local government elections at a different time from those of national and provincial government. This has helped to raise local government issues.
One of these has been the issue of community participation. These issues raise questions such as, “What is local government’s track record in recording the will of the people in its functioning over the past political term?” and, even more pertinently, “Are elections the only time when one can influence the future of one’s municipality?”
The Municipal Systems Act specifies that all municipal councils should develop mechanisms to consult and involve the community in their functioning.
Many municipalities have developed processes through which to channel customer feedback, using mechanisms such as call centres and petitions processes, as well as increasing communication to communities through various media.
Perhaps the most important mechanism for participation lies in ward committees.
Ward committees are constituted in terms of the Municipal Structures Act and have advisory powers on issues that affect local communities in a particular ward. In part, the ward committee system represents a trade-off between the erstwhile system of having many, smaller municipalities representing individual localities and the system we have today, of larger, somewhat unwieldy, municipalities. The compelling need was to bring together the rich towns and poor townships into sustainable municipal entities, with increased financial and logistical efficiency. But was this at the cost of accessibility?
Many ward committees have been afflicted by a range of factors, including a lack of support from councils and practical difficulties in arranging meetings, compounding apathy within communities. The result is poorly supported ward committees, which have been further weakened by members’ disappointment that their status neither brings power beyond advising council nor personal financial gain.
But is it realistic to consider ward committees as more than a link to communities, focusing on channelling information to and from communities? It should be borne in mind that councils are democratically elected and should therefore focus on governing rather than endlessly consulting.
The balance is a fine one. Certainly communities have the right to advise councils on their concerns — perhaps even more so in light of the election system whereby communities only vote for 50% of councillors, with the complement selected through the proportional representation system.
Of significance are the reports in newspapers that more than 800 protests were directed at municipalities across the country last year, most by frustrated communities in response to the slow delivery of services. Clearly, for these communities at least, formal methods of participation in the affairs of their local council are not addressing their concerns. If it were, communities would not be taking their frustration to the streets.
Participation through mechanisms such as ward committees or a local integrated development planning process have been shown to be working best in well-capacitated municipalities. In municipalities with insufficient capacity and experience, participation is one of a long list of processes that are failing. In these municipalities the lack of participation is symptomatic of organisational failure and the most effective option has become protest.
The most effective method, that is, until the local elections on March 1. At this point, we get to exercise the ultimate method of influencing decision-making in our local municipality — the election of the decision-makers.
Kevin Allan is a local government consultant and former adviser to the minister for provincial and local government. Karen Heese is an independent economist