WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY
LIVEABLE CITIES: URBANISING WORLD. MEETING THE CHALLENGE
CITY OF CAPE TOWN, 10—11 NOVEMBER 2011
SESSION 3
PLANNING FOR INFORMALITIES: HOW CAN PLANNING BE MADE MORE RELEVANT TO
RESIDENTS LIVING IN INFORMAL AREAS?
RESPONDING TO INFORMALITIES
Tanja Winkler
School of Architecture, Planning & Geomatics
University of Cape Town
INTRODUCTION
As we know, calls for informal settlement upgrading have intensified ever since the promulgation
of the Upgrading of Informal Settlement Programme (UISP) in 2004 by the former (national)
Department of Housing. In fact, during the first quarter of 2010, the Presidency announced a
target of upgrading 400,000 in situ homes across South Africa by 2014. And this target--which
suggests a 'radical' overhaul of the state's former 'eradication' discourse via the implementation of
BNG (or RDP) housing, or via the temporary relocation of informal settlers to 'more suitable'
locations (or TRAs)--is now actively supported not only by the National Department of Human
Settlements, but also by various municipalities, 'housing think-tanks', lobby groups, and donorfunded NGOs, including SDI and its affiliates. Moreover, in 2007, the Cities Alliance requested
that the then national Department of Housing submit a funding application to them for the explicit
1
purpose of enhancing, refining, and implementing the National Upgrading Support Programme
(NUSP) in accordance with national legislation (Cities Alliance, 2007).
While the reasons for this re-conceptualisation of housing policies might, arguably, stem from a
'pragmatic turn' found in current policymaking agendas--namely, that it is economically unfeasible
to meet the original RDP targets, and that informal settlements are an intrinsic component of
cities of the global South--for the purpose of this paper, these reasons are not explicitly explored.
Rather, the seemingly progressive policy directives found in the USIP (RSA, 2004), for example,
necessitate deeper explorations, since these policies suggest possible answers to an enduring
question: How can planning be made more relevant to residents living in informal areas? Said
differently, Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code (RSA, 2004) stipulates a number of
directives for how planning interventions might become more relevant to informal settlement
residents by, for example, minimising disruptions to residents' daily livelihood strategies and by
involving residents in all the decision making processes and outcomes of proposed in situ
upgrading initiatives. Promises of ‘participatory democracy’--via resident involvement and
inclusion in planning (and other) state-led interventions--are also enshrined in the Constitution of
the Republic of South Africa and they are legislated in local government policies.
It might then be argued that current planning and development legislation in South Africa
conforms, to some degree, to a dominant strand of contemporary planning theory that explicitly
focuses on deliberative forms of policymaking, as “the challenge of building democratic polities
where all can realise their rights and claim their citizenship [in the broadest sense] remains one of
the greatest of our age” (Cornwall and Coelho, 2007: 1). In other words, there is some
consensus amongst local policymakers, NGOs, and urban scholars alike that “direct public
engagement in governance is a means to redress the democratic deficit plaguing liberal
democratic institutions” (Lipietz, 2008: 138). Much of the literature therefore aims to recognise
2
local actors as “active claims-making agents” (Hickey and Mohan, 2004: 3); and participatory
discourses now occupy a mainstream status in the international and local planning and
development fields.
However, despite the fact that that 'public participation' and ‘participatory democracy’ are deemed
essential policy directives in the UISP (and elsewhere) for the purposes of making in situ
upgrading more responsive and relevant to informal settlement residents, outcomes from these
policy directives seems, for the time being, to be devoid of any real transformation. This paper
aims to demonstrate this claim by identifying at least four possible, but interrelated, reasons for
non-transformative participation. Findings, in turn, are based on ongoing research on public
policymaking practices in South Africa. Due to a word limit constraint, in-depth case study
findings are, however, not presented here. Rather, such findings are published elsewhere (cf.
Winkler, 2011; 2009a; 2009b). Let us then turn to a few possible reasons for the (still) ineffective
implementation of 'public participation' in local planning interventions. Yet, in order to make
planning more relevant to residents living in informal areas, we, as planners, arguably first need
to ensure that our interventions are inclusive of residents needs, hopes, and aspirations. And to
do this, we need to understand (and reassess) why we are struggling to implement our seemingly
progressive policies.
REASONS FOR NON-TRANSFORMATIVE PARTICIPATION
Various reasons for ineffective participation, from a transformative standpoint, may be identified
from my ongoing research on 'participatory democracy' and 'the voice of the poor' in local
planning interventions in cities across South Africa. These reasons are outlined and summarise
accordingly. First, research findings suggest that municipal planning officials have fairly limited
3
policymaking autonomy, since policy agendas and outcomes are, more often than not, set by
local politicians who, in turn, are required to endorse national policy directives (as is customary in
most liberal-democratic and unitary systems of governance in various world regions). This
suggestion corroborates a statement captured, for example, in the now 'outdated' but nonetheless
relevant Jo’burg 2030 policy document:
[C]ity administrators are policy-takers rather than policymakers. What this means is that
the City of Johannesburg [or any other City in South Africa] is largely governed by policies
made at [the] national government level. The City does not possess many of the levers
required to affect policy at a fundamental level: Thus it is a policy-taker.
(CoJ, 2002: 7)
A senior official at the City of Johannesburg confirms this suggestion:
Although politicians tend not to be involved in the details of spatial policy and strategic
planning, they do establish the priorities that officials respond to. And officials need to
respond to political imperatives.
(Interview, senior municipal official, 2010)
It may, therefore, be argued that if a 'truncated approach' to resident engagement is deemed a
more pragmatic, cost effective, and resource efficient solution to achieving national political
imperatives by restricting public input to the implementation and evaluation phases of an
upgrading initiative alone, then local officials possess limited power to facilitate open-ended and
ongoing resident involvement in all four phases of the policymaking process (namely, in the policy
formation, policy adoption, implementation, and evaluation phases). Such a ‘pragmatic’ approach
to policymaking, whether in Johannesburg, Cape Town, or elsewhere in South Africa, thwarts
4
opportunities to transform the existing planning system, because citizens have a limited voice
regarding the state’s allocative structures. Moreover, upgrading initiatives necessitate longer
timeframes, and, as such, such initiatives are often vulnerable to five-year political cycles that
curb sustained citizen engagements, and ongoing mutual-learning exchanges, in policymaking
and implementation processes.
Second, research findings show that the adopted 'public management system' in South Africa is
purposefully designed to guide local authorities' strategic planning processes and budgets.
However, most municipalities' “performance management systems set fixed targets that don’t
allow for the depth, flexibility, and time public engagements require” (interview, senior municipal
official, 2010). As a consequence, officials often have no choice but to resort to 'quick-fix', linear,
and one-off public participation initiatives to meet legislated directives, thereby confirming some
scholars' claims that most participatory initiatives serve only to fulfil the technical requirement of
the planning system (Cooke and Kothari 2001; Corbridge et al 2005; Huxley and Yiftachel 2000).
Lost in the process of quick-fix results is a political will to engender participation as empowerment
and as a right to change public policy and outcomes. Linear and one-off initiatives are thus
emptied of transformative political content. Instead, legislated public participation in South Africa
often tends to operate as a proliferation of national political rhetoric and technical control
standards that reduce diverse resident needs and social structures to manageable and
quantifiable outcomes alone. Regardless then of legislated directives, a gap remains between
the legal and technical apparatus that has been created to institutionalise participation in many
cities across South Africa. This finding equally applies to other geo-political contexts (cf. for
example, Clark and Stewart 1998; Cornwall and Coelho 2007; Harcourt and Escobar 2002;
Putnam 2000).
5
Third, findings from Johannesburg in particular suggest that active citizenship seems to favour
Johannesburg’s organised and resourced constituencies. To be sure:
Communities may prepare their own plans. If the Department [of Planning and Urban
Management] is satisfied that their plans are consistent with Council policy, then we will
submit it to [the] Mayoral Committee for approval. Generally speaking, only better
resourced communities prepare their own plans.
(Interview, senior CoJ official, 2009)
A final reason for non-transformative participation may rest squarely with the national state's (and,
in particular, the ANC’s) “underlying ambivalence towards participatory processes” (Lipietz, 2008:
147), despite legislation and political rhetoric to suggest otherwise. Arguably, from an ANC
standpoint, the struggle against an oppressive apartheid regime was fought and decisively won
on principles of social justice. Formal participatory processes and structures, such as elections
and ward committees, are then perceived by the ANC as the most appropriate channels to
facilitate its inclusionary credo and to deliver equitable planning outcomes, as the ANC remains
confident in its role as ‘the people’s representative’ (ANC 2002; 2005; 2007). Equitable outcomes
are also achievable through the ANC’s liberation promise to deliver services: “The more powerful
political imperative is to show delivery, even if there’s an emphasis on participation” (interview,
senior CoJ official, 2009).
A centralised approach to policymaking and “a dominant party system [that] rewards loyalty to the
party above all [else]” (Bénit-Gbaffou, 2008a: ii) effectively ‘eliminate’ the need for wider, more
open political structures and processes to affect participation through a rights-based approach.
Accountability then tends to flow towards party structures and not to residents, regardless of
established ward committee structures (Bond 2008; Heller 2001; Friedman 2001). As a
6
consequence, ward councillors and committees are often by-passed by residents, civic
associations, and social movements, because formal structures are perceived to be ineffectual,
powerless, and even corrupt (cf. Ballard 2008; Bénit-Gbaffou 2008b; Meth 2010; Miraftab & Wills
2005; Piper and Deacon 2008). It may, therefore, be argued that legislated participation is little
more than an administrative tool, specifically designed to legitimise the existing political and
planning system. Under such conditions, forms of policymaking remain unchanged (Gilbert
1987), and the transformative potential of active citizenship remains unrealised.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
While promises of ‘participatory democracy’ are enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa and legislated in national housing policies, state-led participation in most
municipalities remains, for the time being, devoid of any real transformation. This paper
demonstrates this by retracking the municipality’s invited, and other, spaces of policymaking.
Findings spotlight at least four overarching, but interrelated, reasons for non-transformative
participation. First, officials have limited policymaking autonomy to promote open-ended and
sustained citizen engagement in planning processes, as they are required to respond to
predetermined political imperatives that are subject to ever-changing political cycles. Next, NPM
precludes possibilities to engender participation as empowerment or a right. Third, active
citizenship tends to favour organised and resourced constituencies, thereby undermining
opportunities to deepen democratic and responsive governance. Fourth, the national state's
current conceptualisation of participatory governance is limited to formal election procedures and
structures alone that marginalise and delegitimize other forms of political engagement. Still, the
argument mounted here does not deny, preclude, or devalue the potential of managed
participation to generate expectations and participatory skills that might, in the future, lead to
more transformative outcomes, since the state is neither monolithic nor omnipotent.
7
My ongoing research also sets out to explore the following question: What is the role of legislated
‘public participation’ in South Africa? Again, research findings show how legislated participation is
little more than an administrative tool. Public input to policymaking also becomes vulnerable to
political cycles; and when this input takes place, it is, at best, restricted to the less influential
phases of the policymaking process, namely the implementation and evaluation phases. This
restriction further diminishes opportunities for residents to affect the state’s allocative structures,
since they have no say on the contents of formulated and adopted policies.
What then will it take for city residents to meaningfully participate in state-led participatory fora,
and for their participation to result in an actual transformation of planning policies, practices, and
outcomes? A way forward might be to embrace Heller’s (2001) 'optimist conflict model' of
participatory democracy and responsive government. Yet, such an embrace requires both a
demand making citizenry and a responsive state, so that the boundaries between claimed and
invited spaces for participation may become more permeable, and so that actors may circulate
more freely between and within these spaces. An 'optimist conflict model' for real transformation
recognises the tension that exists between and within claimed and invited spaces. It enables
citizens to claim their own space to challenge public policy, but it also requires state actors to
respond to claimed spaces by re-conceptualising the institutional design of invited spaces so that
these may become more inclusive, responsive, and effective, even if outcomes are subject to
constant trade-offs. In sum, deepening democratic engagements calls for more than merely
invitations to participate. It calls for a “step-by-step process of radical reform and social learning
in all domains of public action” (Friedmann, 1987: 407). However, without the necessary political
will to secure citizens’ rights not only to participate in planning (through legal or constitutional
guarantees), but also to change planning policies, practices, and outcomes, the transformative
potential of active citizenship may remain unrealised.
8
REFERENCES
ANC (African National Congress) 2002. Conference Update/ 5: Information on the ANC 51st
National Conference, 51st National Conference, Stellenbosch, 16—20 December.
Available at: http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/conf/conference51/update5.html
(accessed, 17 June 2009).
------- 2005. Consolidated Report on the Strategic Context of the National Democratic
Revolution and the State of Organisation, ANC National General Council, 29 June—3
July. Available at:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/ngcouncils/2005/consolidated_report2.html (accessed, 17
June 2009).
------- 2007. Declaration of the ANC 52nd National Conference, 52nd National Conference,
University of Limpopo, Polokwane, 16—20 December. Available at:
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/conf/conference52/declaration1220-07.html
(Accessed, 17 June 2009).
Ballard, R. 2008. Between the Community Hall and the City Hall: Five Research Questions
on Participation. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 66/67: 168—
188.
Bénit-Gbaffou, C. 2008a. The Place of Participation in South African Local Democracy,
Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa. 66/67: i—vii.
------- 2008b. Are Practices of Local Participation Sidelining the Institutional Participatory
Channels? Reflections from Johannesburg. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on
Southern Africa, 66/67: 1—33.
Bond, P. 2008. Social Movements and Corporate Social Responsibility in South Africa,
Development & Change. 39(6): 1037—1052.
9
Cities Alliance 2007. City Development Strategies: the Cities Alliance perspective.
Available at: http://www.citiesalliance.org/doc/resources/cds/cds-discussion-paper.pdf
(Accessed 1 June 2009).
City of Johannesburg (CoJ) 2002. The Jo’burg 2030 Vision. Johannesburg: City of
Johannesburg Press.
Clark, M. & Stewart, J. 1998. Community Governance, Community Leadership, and the New
Local Government. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (Eds.) 2001. Participation: the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. & Coelho, V.S. 2007. Spaces for Change? The Politics of Participation in
New Democratic Arenas. London: Zed Books.
Friedman, S. 2001. A Quest for Control: High Modernism & its Discontents in Johannesburg,
in B. Ruble, R. Stern & J. Tulchin (Eds), Urban Governance around the World.
Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars: 31—68.
------- 2009. Acid Test for ANC’s Commitment to Democracy. Business Day. 7 October: 15.
Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gilbert, A. 1987. Forms and Effectiveness of Community Participation in Squatter Settlements.
Regional Development Dialogue. 8(4): 56—80.
Harcourt, W. & Escobar, A. 2002. Women and the Politics of Place. Development, 45(1): 7—14.
Heller, P. 2001. Moving the State: the Politics of Democratic Decentralisation in Kerala, South
Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics & Society. 29(1): 131—163.
Hickey, S. & Mohan, G. 2004. Participation: from Tyranny to Transformation. London: Zen
Books.
Lipietz, B. 2008. Building a Vision for the Post-Apartheid City: What Role for Participation in
10
Johannesburg’s City Development Strategy? International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research. 32(1): 135—163.
Meth, P. 2010. Unsettling Insurgency: Reflections on Women’s Insurgent Practices in South
Africa. Planning Theory and Practice. 11(2): 63—81.
Miraftab, F. & Wills, S. 2005. Insurgency and Spaces of Active Citizenship: The Story of
Western Cape Anti-eviction Campaign in South Africa. Journal of Planning Education
and Research. 25: 200—217.
Piper, L. & Deacon, R. 2008. Party Politics, Elite Accountability, and Public Participation: Ward
Committee Politics in the Msunduzi Municipality. Transformation: Critical Perspectives
on Southern Africa. 66/67: 61—82.
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Republic of South Africa 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No.108 of 1996.
Government Gazette. Pretoria: RSA Press.
------- 1998a. White Paper on Local Government, No.18738 of 1998. Government Gazette.
Pretoria: RSA Press.
------- 1998b. Municipal Systems Bill, No.18739 of 1998. Government Gazette. Pretoria:
RSA Press.
------- 1998c. Municipal Structures Act, No.19614 of 1998. Government Gazette. Pretoria: RSA
Press.
------- 2000. Municipal Systems Act, No.21071 of 2000. Government Gazette. Pretoria: RSA
Press.
------- 2004. Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP). Government Gazette.
Pretoria: RSA Press.
11
------- 2009. The Presidency, Organogram, Available at:
http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/main.asp?include=about/organogram.htm
(Accessed, 29 November 2009),
Roy, A. 2005. Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning. Journal of the American
Planning Association. 71(2): 147—158.
Winkler, T. 2009a. For the Equitable City yet to Come. Planning Theory & Practice. 10(1): 65—
83.
Winkler, T. 2009b. A Donor Agency Scramble for South Africa. International Planning Studies.
14(1): 7—24.
Winkler, T. 2011. Retracking Johannesburg: Spaces for Participation and Policymaking. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 31(3): 258—271.
12