Not fit to govern: Helen Zille’s public disapproval of impactful socio-economic redress interventions illustrate that she is not a suitable Johannesburg mayoral candidate, says the writer. Photo: Supplied
The Democratic Alliance’s (DA) decision to deploy Helen Zille as the party’s Johannesburg mayoral candidate for the upcoming local government elections has raised intense public debates.
She has been positioned as the ideal candidate for addressing long-standing governance and socio-economic challenges in the City of Johannesburg (CoJ).
This candidature is juxtaposed as an alternative to the current CoJ leadership led by the ANC coalition, which, according to some sections of society, has failed citizens.
Several commentators and DA supporters suggest that Zille’s leadership will create a more just city.
This assertion is not supported
by facts or evidence, for the following reasons.
Firstly, Zille has explicitly called for the removal of racial-redress socio-economic policies from government public policymaking.
This is unjust because all socio-economic studies point to race, class and gender inequalities in households and communities. These disparities are most stark at the local state level, as it is the coalface of governance.
Municipalities implement impactful socio-economic redress interventions such as employment equity legislation, preferential public procurement, indigent public goods provision, as well as cross-subsidisation. These policies have cushioned black working-class households and communities from racialised socio-economic exclusion.
Zille’s public disapproval of these policies illustrates that she is not a suitable candidate for building a just city that alleviates the low and unequal human development levels within municipalities.
A second problem with the proposed candidature is the narrow, reductionist approach to good governance.
The DA’s municipal governance record hinges on claims that the party obtains the most clean audits and implements more efficient public goods provision.
This proposition is often backed up by reference to Auditor General (AG) reports as well as other local government indices.
There are some success stories across municipalities. Yet, the party’s attainment of clean audits has not automatically produced improved human development levels or decreased community inequalities.
Race, class and gendered socio-economic disparities persist in key areas such as employment, health and access to other public goods despite clean audits.
In addition, uneven spatial development patterns between townships, suburbs and rural areas are still prevalent. This is most clear in investment, infrastructure, and economic development policy areas.
The CoJ needs political leadership that appreciates all good governance dimensions, which include, but are not limited to clean audits.
In simple terms, we also need to assess municipal good governance on the following development grounds: employment creation, reduced racial socio-economic inequalities, economic diversification and improved access to public goods. These core pillars constitute a just city that contributes towards national socio-economic goals.
Lastly, the DA has a poor record of regulating informal or non-wage economic activities.
This is alarming because most residents, especially black Africans, rely on these non-wage livelihood activities to earn income or access human development basics such as food.
Two examples amplify this point: taxi industry regulation and informal trade governance. In both cases the party has attempted to criminalise these economic activities using derogatory and discriminatory language.
The policy logic informing the DA’s regulatory responses assumes that non-formal economic activity belongs on the margins of municipal local economic development plans. This explains the party’s failures in regulating these two sectors in a manner that reduces socio-economic exclusion.