eThekwini mayor, Mxolisi Kaunda
The rates revolt movement sweeping through eThekwini metro should be viewed as less about the actual exercise of withholding rates and more about the growing strength of citizen movements in South Africa.
The power dynamic is shifting to “the people” really having power, and long may it last.
Years of corruption, poor service delivery and a failure to maintain and repair critical infrastructure has pushed voters away from the governing ANC, which runs the majority of defunct municipalities in the country.
But it has also galvanised residents across race and class, and sent them searching for any legal means possible to hold their failed leaders to account and possibly oust them at the next opportunity.
These residents are South Africans with everything to lose if their local municipality fails. For most, their homes are their largest or only asset.
Thus, taking the service delivery fight to the municipal leaders and using the little real leverage they have is rational and justified.
But what must not be overlooked is that there are various legal pitfalls in the rates revolt approach and the very real possibility of personal, financial and emotional distress.
First, if the reasons for your dispute are tenuous and poorly supported by others, the council will drag you to court and not only force you to pay up, but obtain a cost order against you.
And even if your dispute is solid, the municipality could still use lawfare to intimidate you. In reality, the municipality is fighting your case with your money, and the coffers thus appear to be endless.
Second, your water and electricity services will probably be terminated multiple times as the boycott continues, and although you will be reconnected, it can still be distressing and disruptive.
Furthermore, if you are part of the rates revolt, obtaining a rates clearance certificate if you choose to sell your home will be difficult.
And despite the assurances to the contrary, if your rates that are held in an interest-bearing lawyer’s trust account are stolen, as has happened before, you are still liable for the outstanding rates.
Municipalities will state that residents who withhold rates entrench inequality and harm service delivery. They will blame you for soup kitchens not having stock.
A rates dispute should be viewed as another form of protest that, like every other protest action, needs large numbers to succeed.
If there is anything we have learnt in nearly 30 years of democratic rule, it is that our government only listens when the noise is too loud to ignore and, importantly, they only act when they view the noise as a direct threat to their electoral success.
At the heart of any dispute or protest is the lack of trust between the residents and the municipality. This is a key finding in a 2010 study by the Community Law Centre, housed in the Dullah Omar Institute at the University of the Western Cape, that looked at the withholding of rates as a form of protest.
The study, although dated remains relevant, concluded that in all cases, the grievances giving rise to disputes were linked to “concrete service delivery problems”.
It found that in most cases, “municipal and provincial officials confirmed that there were genuine service delivery problems, indicating a high degree of convergence among parties on the facts of the dispute”. The study quotes one official who said “[ratepayers] wouldn’t have a space [to protest] if the municipality had done what it was supposed to do”.
There is no doubt that South Africa is entering a new phase in its democracy. The growth of stakeholder institutions such as ratepayer associations and other civic and nonprofit organisations will increasingly play a more influential role in local, provincial and national politics and policy decisions.
These groups have also learnt that the courts, which are often expensive, are not the only avenue to protest poor governance, so they are increasingly looking for new legal methods to force the government to be responsive to their needs.
South Africans, who for too long have often worked in silos, have come to the realisation that the collective is where the power lies. The idea of working together is not a political or ideological position but rather one of common sense.
Jonathan Erasmus is a researcher at the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse and a regular contributor to The Witness. He writes in his personal capacity.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.