Section 1:
Participatory democracy in South Africa: Conceptual issues,
positioning the analysis and framework for analysis
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL ORIENTATION
The fifteen-year period of South African democracy since 1994 offers a range
of substantial benchmarks in South Africa’s evolution from apartheid
authoritarianism, through the institutionalisation of formal procedural and
electoral democracy, into a multi-focused era of expanding the institutions and
processes of democracy into the domain of greater and more continuous
popular participation. It is a road on which South Africa, at the time of writing,
had just embarked. Much refinement, elaboration, and integration of new
initiatives into the predominant modes of democratic participation for the
enhancement of substantive democracy, and in particular development
through democratic participation, remained to be completed. The contours
had been outlined, yet the spaces were still to be taken up in full. South Africa
had started emerging as a democratic system in which continuous, betweenelection popular engagement and participation was emerging as crucial
1
supplementation of electoral modes of participation. The manifestations of
continuous participation were both initiated (or endorsed and directed) by
government, and spontaneous in character.
At the point of approximately fifteen years after the formal introduction of
electoral democracy in 1994, South Africa had therefore developed a system
of tentative multi-dimensional participatory democracy, positioned within a
base framework of constitutional and electoral democracy, but e xtended
through a relatively wide range of initiatives that introduced multiple levels of
engagement between government and citizens − forms of engagement that
impacted on most of the phases of political and policy decision making. The
system spanned electoral cycle activities that were supplemented with
participatory actions that fed into the two participatory thrusts of interest
articulation-policy making, and active engagement in a range of actions of
governance and policy evaluation. The participatory actions were both
solicited-structured and spontaneous-unsolicited. In the spirit of democratic
engagement and continuous contestation, all of these actions became part of
the democratic-era repertoire of citizen engagement with the institutions and
processes of South African government.
The intra-party and multi-party contexts of citizen engagement with the South
African polity need to be recognised. The current focus is on participatory
democracy in relation to the government and state. Yet, intra-party
democracy, especially in relation to intra-party processes of the majoritygoverning party, the African National Congress (ANC), directly impacts on
1
The notion of engaging, or involving, a community refers to transferring information on
issues, accepting feedback on issues. In affect, this allows the community to influence the
substance of the decision. Also see DPLG, 2007b: 47-49.
16
citizen perspectives on their interface with government. Other political parties
are not excluded from this effect, but their impact is comparatively small.
Political parties generally impact on the need to engage in participatory
actions to enhance government responsiveness to popular needs.
This broad orientation is elaborated in the rest of the report:
ƒ
Much of the rest of Section 1 is devoted to the conceptualisation and
theorisation of participatory democracy, with particular reference to
South Africa. This first part of the analysis also addresses the South
African application of the conceptualisation and practice of participatory
democracy. Section 1 includes an operational typology of the
gradations of public participation in South Africa, and a periodisation of
public participation in democratic South Africa.
ƒ
Section 2 deals with the details of the design, rooting and uptake of
the range of participatory democratic actions in South Africa since
1994. This section is devoted to the presentation of details on the axes
of democratic participation and the manifestations of emerging
participatory democracy. This section constitutes the bulk of the pages
of this report. It does specific assessments of each of the participatory
mechanisms, based both on analytical and empirical perspectives.
ƒ
Section 3 takes stock of the overall trends. The section includes an
identification of the driving forces that shape the continuous emergence
of participatory democracy in South Africa. It concludes with a
summary and overall assessment of the progress in democratic South
Africa − and specifically also progress in the five years since the 2003
Ten Year Review − towards the deepening of participatory democracy.
1.1.1 BENCHMARKS ON THE TRAJ ECTORY OF SOUTH AFRICAN
DEMOCRACY, 1994-2008/9
2
The period of 1994 to 2009 is one of substantial importance in the
development and consolidation of democracy in South Africa. Thus far it
witnessed the setting of the foundations of electoral and constitutional
democracy and entrenchment of the principles of participation. It has also
witnessed the tentative filling in of the participatory spaces that facilitate and
enhance the operation of both electoral processes and the institutions of
democracy, and give substance to the participatory-developmental axis of
South African democracy.
The period as a whole is characterised by a series of overlapping benchmarks
that illuminate the potential deepening of participatory democracy in South
Africa. The 1994 point of departure was through the Interim Constitution of
2
2009 is the projected end-point of the analysis. The report-writing date was early 2008.
Changes that were likely to impact on the 2008-2009 period are dealt with in the current
analysis.
17
1993, followed by the Final Constitution of 1996. The successive constitutions
offered the fundamentals of liberal democracy and instituted principles that
require and facilitate participation in democracy. Electoral processes and their
institutionalisation emerged as paramount in the constitutional base. The two
constitutions offered the hope of the continuous evolution of democracy. The
1996 Constitution, for example, offered citizens a range of rights to political
activity, including the right to campaign for a particular cause. It enshrined
principles such as equality, human dignity and freedom of expression. In
addition, every citi zen was proclaimed to have the right ‘peacefully and
unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions’
(Constitution, 1996: Chapter 2).
Many of the dimensions of public participation were further elaborated through
3
the battery of 1998-2000 local government legislation. Various interfaces
between communities and their elected representatives, including through the
mechanism of ward committees, first introduced in 1999 (DPLG, 2005: 6; yet
in the process of diffusion from 2001 onwards), were facilitated through these
Acts. Further initiatives, including the Izimbizo project (launched in 2001) of
national, provincial and municipal executives (political and bureaucratic, and
in cooperation with members of the legislatures) engaging with select
communities, emerged as a derivative of the unfolding processes of policy
implementation and the need to receive direct feedback, in specific
combination with policy implementation and developmental imperatives. The
Community Development Worker (CDW) initiative launched in 2003 was a
further instance in this chain of endeavours to build a working two-directional
and participatory interface between government and citizens, for the sake of
advancement in development and effective governance.
At the time of the 2003 Ten Year Review the South African government set its
2014 goals (PCAS, 2008). The fifteen-year point of 2009 will mark the halfway
point on the trajectory towards the 2014 goals. Some of the 2014 goals
pertained specifically to aspects of democracy, and in particular to the
deepening of democracy and citizen participation.
The mechanisms for achieving these goals are outlined in Figure 1. Salient
aspects of the relationships of participation and engagement between
government and citizens, as envisaged in the 2014 goals, are:
3
The basic institutional organisation of the provinces is set out in Chapter 6 of the
Constitution of 1996, and in the White Paper on Local Government, 1998. The frameworks for
the organisation of local government followed in the Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000. It
also provided the outline for the development of and mechanisms for public participation.
Coherence and integration between structures are regulated by the Intergovernmental
Relations Framework Act No. 13 of 2005. The Intergovernmental Relations Framework Bill
(later followed by the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act No. 13 of 2005), as well as
amendments to the Public Service Act of 1994 and the Municipal Employees Bill (B27-2000)
enabled government to set goals from the centre, exercising overall supervision of provincial
government (see Robinson, 2006).
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
The direct interface between state and government structures, such as
Municipal Ward Committees, and the Integrated Development Plan
(IDP)4 Process;
The collaborative interface between state and both public and private
representatives such as National Economic Development and Labour
5
Council (NEDLAC), Pension Funds and Workplace Forums ;
The promotion of democracy in terms of rights and participation that is
represented by the Chapter 9 institutions;
Direct engagement between citizens and government structures, as
illustrated through the Community Development Worker (CDW)
initiative;
e-Communication between citizens and government structures via the
Batho Pele Gateway initiative; and
Direct citizen participation via the Multi-Purpose Community Centres
(MPCCs), subsequently renamed the Thusong Service Centres.
A wide range of the rest of the 2014 goals will be affected by the functioning
of the democratic institutions of South Africa, by citizens’ perceptions of these
institutions and the extent to which they are seen as meaningful in serving the
predominant developmental needs of the population. They will also be
influenced by South Africans’ experiences of the deepening of democratic
participation, including their experiences of opportunities for engagement, and
the impact that their participation in the 1994/96 and post-1996 innovations
has had on the track of establishing and developing channels for continuous
(and substantively anchored) democratic engagement.
4
Generally, an IDP refers to the strategic planning instrument that is used to guide and inform
all
government-led planning and development initiatives, as well as the decisions that inform
planning, management and development in a particular municipality. Section 25(1) of the
Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (p. 37) outlines what an integrated development plan is:
‘Each
municipal council must, within a prescribed period after the start of its elected term, adopt a
single, inclusive and strategic plan for the development of the municipality which (a) links,
integrates and co-ordinates plans and takes into account proposals for the development of
the
municipality; (b) aligns the resources and capacity of the municipality with the implementation
of
the plan; (c) forms the policy framework and general basis on which annual budgets must be
based; … and (e) is compatible with national and provincial development plans and planning
requirements binding on the municipality in terms of legislation’.
5
The concept of Workplace Forums was introduced by the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.
The purpose of these forums is to provide a mechanism for participation within the workplace,
so as to encourage workers to have a say in their place of employment, usually with regard to
decision making (Solomon, 1997). Therefore, it is a public participation interface between
private or public organisations and their employees. A workplace forum may only be
established if there are more than 100 employees within an organisation, and should be open
to both union and non-union members (Solomon, 1997).
19
Figure 1 :
MECHANISMS FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AS ENVISAGED BY
THE TEN YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
STATE
WARD
COMMITTEES
WORKPLACE
FORUMS
CDWs
IDP
PROCESS
CHAPTER 9
INSTITUTIONS
MPCC
PROJECT
NEDLAC
PENSION
FUNDS
BATHO PELE
GATEWAY
Source: PCAS, 2003:10-14
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS
This assessment of South Africa’s progress towards participatory democracy
is informed by a number of research questions. The dual primary question
that drives this research project is:
What has government done to transform institutions of democracy to
accommodate the South African people’s aspirations for citizen
participation, and how effective have these measures been, both in
terms of facilitating participation and rendering participation
meaningful?
The responses to this question and the research undertaken into it will also
provide answers to the associated question of whether South Africa, in its first
fifteen years of democracy and particularly also in the five years since the
2003/4 Ten Year Review, has made notable advances in the deepening of
participatory democracy.
A number of supplementary research questions anchor the primary question.
Foremost amongst these are:
What are the major opportunities for and manifestations of citizen
participation in the institutions and processes of democracy in postApril 1994 South Africa?
How have these opportunities for participation in government
institutions and processes expanded (or contracted) in the first fifteen
20
years of South African democracy, both in relation to electoral and
between-election periods? To what extent are the processes co-optive
or co-operative?
How have citizens responded to the endeavours to ensure participation
in decision making and access to the institutions of government? If
citizen participation has in fact expanded, to what extent has this
happened and what are the major effects of these expansions?
What have these measures meant for the consolidation of democracy
in South Africa?
These questions will be explored in the rest of the analysis. The research is
anchored in secondary, interpretative research. In accordance with the terms
of reference of the project, no specific primary-empirical research was
6
undertaken.
Beyond this, the project is based on a variety of sources and methods.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The report uses academic and applied research articles and reports,
including several academic and consultancy reports and publications
by the author of this report.
It explores a wide range of government documents, both in the
domains of mapping processes of democracy and their (often tentative)
assessments of the initiatives.
The report also draws on public opinion surveys that help shed light on
the project themes of the effectiveness of participatory initiatives.
The research and report rely on continuous empirical observations and
their interpretation by the author.
In the process of undertaking this project, the author engaged with a
range of public sector actors whose perspectives have impacted on the
analysis.
This range of research components has given rise to a complex interplay of
findings that were thematically interpreted by the author.
1.3 THE MODES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN
DEMOCRACY
As South African democracy evolves and potentially matures, South Africans
have been using a range of democratic institutions and processes (both
claimed by the citizens and government-initiated) to constitute their
continuously evolving interface with government. This section first provides
general conceptualisations of participation and participatory democracy, and
then develops the concept in its South African application.
6
In several instances there was the need for more research, in order to facilitate more
definitive assessments. The terms of reference, however, did not allow for this. In addition,
only a limited number of intra-government evaluations were made available for this analysis.
21
Cvetkovich and Earle (1994: 163) observe that public participation can take
many forms, including testifying at hearings, taking part in public opinion
surveys and serving on advisory organs. In addition, direct action, including
peaceful and violent protests, constitutes powerful forms of civil society
participation in governance and engagement in the policy processes (across
the analytically differentiated phases of the policy process). The DPLG
(2007b: 15) argues that public participation denotes an ‘open, accountable
process through which individuals and groups within selected communities
can exchange views and influence decision making’.
One of the fallacies regarding public participation is that the mere act of
participation satisfies people and makes them believe that justice has been
done (Cvetkovich and Earl, 1994: 164). People in the act of participation are
given ‘voice’. They have the opportunity to express their opinions on matters
that affect them. Referring to the work of Sampson, Cvetkovich and Earle
(1994: 174) argue that the problem with this ‘accommodative voice’ is that
power relationships are left unchanged. Instead, the key to public satisfaction
is the giving of ‘transformational voice’, which enables people to also affect
outcomes and to be satisfied with the knowledge that they had exerted that
power. These observations are notable for the report, given that they
emphasise that participation is not merely acts of engagement for the sake of
engagement, but is exercised for particular progressive and developmental
objectives.
For the purposes of the current analysis, the following six modes of popular
participation are distinguished (also see Figure 2):
ƒ
Members of civil society could desire active engagement in the phases
of agenda setting or in policy formulation. The analysis conceptualises
this as ‘proactive (conventional) participation’. It may be manifested
upon request and initiative by government, or be of a more
spontaneous nature. It may emanate from community and/or NGO
initiatives.
ƒ
Citizens might be satisfied with having their interests represented by
their elected members of government, across the respective spheres.
‘Representation’, or representational participation, is the term used in
this regard. It relates to the notion of indirect or representative
democracy.
ƒ
The political and bureaucratic executives drive processes for the
integration and coordination of policy and governance. These include a
wide range of centre-driven initiatives, also in the domain of giving
effect to policy initiatives. This became the centre of the top-down
range of participatory initiatives that were solicited from mainly elite civil
society stakeholders. However, several of the initiatives in the next
bullet point were also linked to these ‘centre initiatives’.
ƒ
‘Community-engagement participation’ is identified as participation that
relates to a range of important phases of the policy process and
22
governance, and has a bearing on engagement with members of both
the political and the bureaucratic spheres of government. It is also
‘extended’ participation, because these initiatives often involve
participation that helps bolster the conventional channels of
representation. It brings executives, legislatives, bureaucrats and
citizens together to help address developmental issues that might have
become neglected in the processes of more conventional
representation and participation.
ƒ
Civil society members could regard the formal processes as ineffectual,
and feel that pressure, protest and mobilization are the required forms
of policy participation. This is referred to as ‘alternative (or
unconventional) participation’. It constitutes an extension of the modes
of public participation, and, at this stage in South Africa’s unfolding
democracy, is also aimed at the deepening of democracy.
Figure 2 :
SIX MODES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
Base
Institutions
Communication
& Mass Media
Elections &
Voting
PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY
Direct Action
& Protest
Co-governance
Co- optat ion
Extended
Enga gement
& Access
Source: Booysen, 2008b
23
The initiative for the first and third options comes mainly from government;
the initiative for the fifth type of participation is overwhelmingly bottom-up,
while that of the second category is initiative from below but with
dependence on facilitation from government in order for it to manifest
itself.
ƒ
Participation may also evolve in more passive, ‘information-related
modes of engagement with government’. Most citizens, in some form
or another, receive government and policy-related information. This
would be either directly from government media, or from the mass
electronic and print media on government. Citizens may use this
information to try to become more active participants in public affairs.
However, the majority will remain relatively passive recipients on
information that will, however, in due course, impact on the other
modes of participation – either to change or to sustain prevailing
modes.
1.3.1 OPERATIONAL TYPOLOGY OF MECHANISMS FOR AND MODES
OF PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICAN DEMOCRACY
The operational typology in Table 1 summarises the modes of participation
that help structure the analysis. It is operational in nature, focusing on the
major forms of public participation that are being realised in South Africa.
7
Many ideal-type typologies exist and have been considered (even if not
incorporated) in the development of this report’s typology. The latter leads into
the conceptualisations in Section 1.4, and will be linked to the periodisation in
Section 1.5.2. There are some correspondences between the listing of the
modes and mechanisms for participation, and the periodisation. However, the
typology is based on analytical considerations, rather than a cumulative
dynamic of unfolding modes of participation.
The details in the periodisation will also indicate that modes of participation
are cumulative. In the case of South Africa, it appears that, as democracy
further develops, citizens add to their repertoires, rather than replace
preceding dominant modes with successive and evolving options. Thus,
beyond the times of origin, the manifestations of measures and actions of
citizen participation are cumulative and co-existent.
In addition, government’s series of interventions to help advance participatory
democracy have also been cumulative, both between and within modes of
public participation. For example, both the system of ward committees and
Izimbizo are essentially aimed at bringing development and delivery to people
7
For elaborations on some of these typologies, note DPLG (2007b: 2); Marais et al. (2007:
17; 94-97). Typologies tend to use the motivations for and potential effects of public
participation as the organising criterion. Instead, this report’s typology uses the arenas in
which participation is manifested as the organising principle. Within the parameters of this
typology, attention is focused on outputs, outcomes and impacts of the realised measures
and participatory acts.
24
through mechanisms that strengthen the local interface and ensure that the
citizens will share responsibilities with state and government. This is a small
illustration of ‘different answers being thrown at the same problem’, without (to
the best of the knowledge that was revealed to this project) systematic and
rigorous comparative assessments being undertaken of what has worked and
to what extent it has worked.
Table 1:
MEASURES FOR BUILDING DEMOCRACY AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Mechanism or Mode Type
1
Institution building &
revision of democratic
institutions
2
Representational
measures & indirect
democracy
3
4
5
6
Centre-driven initiatives by
the political & bureaucratic
executive
Extended participation
Direct action &
‘unconventional’
participation
Informational participation
Illustrations
(details in Section 2)
Constitutional negotiations
Constitutions of 1993 and 1996
Innovations in the presidency of South
Africa
Review s such as ‘A smal Commission’
Regularisation & management of
elections
Electoral participation
Acceptance of electoral outcomes
Institutionalisation of the PCAS
Cluster-organised governance
Elite stakeholder co-optation
Ward committees
Izimbizo
Community Development Workers
Project Consolidate
Protests against ‘service delivery’
Internal party civil replacement actions
Dissemination of information by
government
Coverage of issues of policy and
governance by electronic and print
mass media
For mation of public opinion, w ith
implications for the other modes of
participation
Periods
Early
Continuous
Continuous
Origin of
initiative
Government
Transitional
government
Subsequent
governments
Late-1990s
PRC
Especially
Mbeki
2000s
presidency
Continuous, Government
2000s
Civil Society
Mid-2000s
Continuous
Government
Source: Booysen for the current project
The paper thus argues that an assessment of participatory democracy in
South Africa needs to take account of, in broad terms, (a) conventional
‘participation in democratic processes and institutions’ (including elections),
(b) participation in deliberative, specifically designed processes to add to the
impact of conventional political participation, and (c) unconventional
processes of public participation that further supplement and complement the
more ‘mainstream’ activities. In addition, a distinction needs to be drawn
between citizen participation as an external force to government, in contrast
with citizen participation in the form of bringing citizens into the state in a form
of co-governance and (co-operative) service delivery (as elaborated by
Buccus & Hicks, 2005: 1).
25
1.4 CONCEPTUALISATION OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY,
DEEPENING DEMOCRACY AND RELATED CONCEPTS
This section briefly reviews general conceptualisations of participatory
democracy and extracts aspects that are useful to understanding the South
8
African experience. It also elaborates on the potential usefulness and impact
of public participation, in particular also in complex systems of democratic
governance.
1.4.1 PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY, DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY,
PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Democracy is subject to many definitions and it is often intricately linked to the
notion of participatory democracy. Liberal democracy, it should be noted, is
underpinned by a human rights framework, and therefore encompasses more
than each person standing in line to cast a vote to determine which party
ascends to power (although this may be the minimal assumption). Offor
(2006: 268) defines democracy as ‘a system of government in which every
individual participates in the process of government maximally or minimally’.
As Young (2000: 17) cautions, ‘in principle’ each member of society in a
democracy should be able to exercise his or her vote in broader terms when it
comes to affecting change:9 ‘Only in a democratic political system, do all
members of a society in principle have the opportunity to try to influence
public policy’ (Young, 2000: 17). This orientation takes cognisance of the
reminder by Fung (2006: 66) that when in contemporary democratic contexts
‘there is no canonical form or institution of direct public participation’ the task
becomes to understand the feasible and useful varieties of participation.
A strict interpretation of participatory democracy would entail that democracy
entitles each individual citizen to speak and be heard − a notion that is not
necessarily conducive to determining the running of a state. It may also be out
of tune with the complexities of running contemporary, complex national
political systems. Participatory democracy cannot be viewed without referring
to the process of delib erative democracy. Participation is one matter, ability to
influence another. The process of deliberation, still strictly defined, suggests
that each party is allowed sufficient space within which to argue its particular
viewpoint – to speak and be heard.
Definitions of participatory democracy often touch on the two interlinked
notions of deliberation and action. Where these two are manifested,
participatory democracy, in some way or another, may be expected to feature.
Roelofs, for example, notes that ‘(a) participatory democracy is [used with
reference to] a community in which every citizen is recognized as … both
8
The assi stance of Suzanne Jefferies in the first-phase drafting of parts of this section is
acknowledged.
9
The related conceptualisation of ‘public’ in this project leans on the Draft National Policy
Framework of the DPLG (2007b: 17) and generally equates ‘public’ with citizens participating
in individual, interest group or community contexts.
26
enabled and encouraged … to participate directly and actively in the
dialogues and practices which define, build, and sustain the common life, the
general will’ (Roelofs, 1998: 25). Roelofs thus touches on the fact that
participatory democracy encompasses deliberation and action. Fung (2006:
66) notes that deliberation involves participants taking positions, exchanging
information, and possibly changing their minds. Roelofs nevertheless still
recognises that the individual’s right to exercise his or her political power is
more about 'community' within a state, than about direct influence on the
power machinations of the upper echelons of decision making. Yet, part of the
appeal of this participatory democracy is in being acknowledged as part of the
process, or as active in the process of exercising democratic muscle.
Fung (2006) offers a tri-axial mapping of the space in which, and functions
towards which, participatory mechanisms in modern and complex democratic
systems work. The three axes comprise ‘who participates’ (scope – ranging
from open to all who are interested, to invitations to elite stakeholders), ‘how
participants exchange information and take decisions’ (mode – ranging from
the receipt of information from officials in public meetings, to true
deliberation), and ‘the link between discussions and public or policy action’
(extent of authority and power – elaborated next). The last dimension gauges
the impact of public participation (see Fung, 2006: 69), addressing the
question of ‘how is what participants say linked to what public authorities or
participants themselves do?’ There is a continuum of possibilities on this third
dimension. On the one end, what is expressed in a small town or community
meeting becomes policy. On the opposing end of the continuum participants
have little real expectation of influencing public action. Fung’s five
manifestations on this axis are participation for personal benefit or ‘education’,
participatory mechanisms exerting indirect influence through affecting or
mobilising public opinion (communicative influence), the provision of advice
and consultation (where officials preserve their authority and power, but
commit themselves to receiving participant input; it also occurs in the form of
public hearings). Direct power is exerted either in the form of co-governing
partnerships with government, or, on a higher level, direct authority over
pub lic decisions or resources.10
A pertinent question may be why the electoral system and associated
processes of representation are seemingly insufficient in terms of 'true' or
effective representational democracy. 11 Suggestions by authors Radcliff and
Wingenbach (2000), Green (2004) and Mafunisa (2004) are that participation
in democracy is more of a process in social learning than a means to an end,
as it encourages reflection of views, deliberation, the consideration of other
viewpoints, and in general supports a platform for the development of
alternative political and social strategies. Fung (2006: 70-74) adopts a more
holistic perspective and elaborates on how participatory mechanisms are
used to enhance the legitimacy of public action, justice in public governance,
and effectiveness in the implementation of public decisions (Fung, 2006: 73) –
10
See DPLG (2007b: 19) for additional elaborations of the benefits that may be derived from
public participation.
11
See Lodge (1995: 19-53) for an elaboration of the South African electoral system.
27
building on local knowledge, providing effective problem-solving strategies,
and harnessing distinctive capacities. He elaborates:
‘Citizens can be the shock troops of democracy. Properly deployed, their local
know ledge, w isdom, commitment, authority, even rectitude can address
wicked failures of legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness in representative and
bureaucratic institutions’ (Fung, 2006: 74).
Authors dispute whether the legitimacy12 of participatory democracy is found
in the participation process itself (Radcliff and Wingenbach, 2000) or in the
results thereof. However, it is the 'active dialogues and practices' that are
associated with participatory democracy that help to mobilise civil society,
and, ultimately, influence decision-making. By establishing associations,
citizens can conglomerate their individual power into public power (Fung,
2003). This public power can then be exercised by either representation or
resistance. However, there are suggestions that although participation
denotes an (approximate) equal power-sharing opportunity for the public, in
reality, this spread of power is not feasible. This is largely as a result of
bureaucratic or informational inequalities (Wendling, 1997). Fung (2006: 71)
elaborates on how public participation in the Pôrto Alegre (Brazil) budgeting
process helped address aspects of injustice.
Haus and Sweeting (2006: 278) define participatory democracy as ‘the claim
that the construction, articulation and promotion of the common good cannot
be delegated, but must evolve from the communicative interactions of active
citizens’. Thus far, these 'communicative interactions' need to be based to a
certain extent on deliberation, in order to be both valid and legitimate.
By involving citizens in the greater process of governing, there should be less
resistance to proposed policies and, furthermore, a greater legitimacy of the
policy process (Haus and Sweeting, 2006). Yet there is the flipside in that
citizens not only have to be interested and mobilised to practise democratic
12
Dahl (1963: 28) notes that ‘legitimisation rests on a belief that power is wielded in a way
that is legal’. Thus constitutional laws, and legislation, are legal and therefore legitimate.
However, the concept of legitimacy is also more complex. Central to the concept of legitimacy
is the relationship between those in power, and those who are being governed. Fung (2006:
70) observes that ‘public policy or action is legitimate when citizens have good reasons to
support or obey it’. Weber (1984:29) suggested that there are three types of legitimate
authority, namely traditional, charismatic and legal. Legitimacy as a concept extends to such
morally contentious issues such as ‘lawfulness, order and right’ (Rosen, 1982: 67). To this
extent, legitimacy, by implication, is about the potential abuse of power and the capacity to be
perceived as doing 'good'. Thus, legitimacy of authority appears as a matter of ‘political
obligation’ (Barker, 1990, p.20). Those in authority, by rule of law, should not only be seen to
obey such rules, but also to provide a structural framework in which such rules benefit the
greater public. In addition, the concept of legitimacy extends to the institutions that exercise
authority. Authority, or power relationships, thus overlaps with moral conceptualisations.
Authority is then held accountable by those over whom authority is exercised, by a ‘set of
values which justify the state's commands’ (Barker, 1990: 24). These values and morals are
not heterogeneous, and tend to be culture-specific, which suggests that the ‘recognition of
entitlement’ (Lukes, 1991: 1467) by those under authority might give rise to incongruencies in
perceptions of legitimacy. (Jefferies’ assi stance in drafting parts of this footnote is hereby
acknowledged.)
28
participation, as ‘citizen-activists’ (Green, 2004: 70): governments also need
to provide sufficient space in which civil society might influence policy-making
(Mafunisa, 2004). King (2003) suggests that in order for there to be legitimacy
there needs to be deliberation in the process of decision making. Yet often
deliberation unintentionally results in marginalising those groups who have
limited power (Hall, 2007). By providing strong institutions with which to
engage civil society, within a liberal democratic framework, the scope for
participatory democracy is increased. Mafunisa (2004: 492) thus argues that
‘a robust civil society is a clear indicator of a strong democracy’. The idea that
a citizen in a democracy has a say in how that democracy is run is the basic
premise of participatory democracy.
It is important to note that ‘participatory governance’ is not equal to
representative democracy, which is understood as the regular election of
members of Parliament, of provincial legislatures or councils. Rather, it refers
to the manner in which the elected bodies, and in particular the locally elected
ones, govern between elections. It also refers to a set of structural and
procedural requirements to realise ‘community participation’ in the operation
of local government. Thus, ‘community participation’, more commonly known
as ‘pub lic participation’, is one of the objectives of the legislation, and
‘participatory governance’ is the mechanism through which this is to be
realised.
The contrast between the notions of representivity and participation is central
to the conceptualisation of participatory democracy. On the one hand, there
are the expectations that the mechanisms of representation will work well and
will be sufficient to ensure that citizen voices will be heard in the processes of
need and interest identification, and in the continuous ways in which policy
implementation matches these needs. Participatory democracy is often
equated with the notion of continuous participation in ‘decision making’, and
participatory democracy may be criticised for often falling short of this
objective. Yet it is important that participation in decision making in this
context concerns only a special ‘slice’ of the decisions that are being taken.
This slice is constituted by decisions about the policy goals (and the extent to
which they match community needs) and policy implementation (in particular
the extent to which this part of the policy addresses community needs) that
have pertinence to community participation and participatory democracy. In
the case of the latter, participation would then concern feedback and
evaluations about the effectiveness of policy, as experienced on the ground.
1.4.2 THE ‘DEEPENING OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY’
Unlike the notion of participatory democracy, the ‘deepening’ of democracy, or
the deepening of participatory democracy in particular, is assumed to have
such a commonsense meaning that it does not receive dedicated attention to
the literature. The preceding discussions of participation in democracy and
participatory democracy, however, do guide the elaboration that this section
offers. The points of departure that inform the conceptualisation of deepening
of participatory democracy thus include:
29
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Government’s creation of opportunities for participation, either to
sustain or to complement core institutional opportunities;
The directing of these opportunities at particular or generalised
audiences;
The popular uptake that results from the generated opportunities;
The perception of the participatory opportunities as meaningful, thus
leading to the furthering of the interests and needs that are intended to
be addressed through the generated opportunities;
It is accepted that not all public participants wish to assume (even
modest) activist roles; many are therefore satisfied, for example, with
occasional electoral participation, or they rely on the information-receipt
mode of participation in which information from and about government
is relatively passively received;
Public protest could equally constitute a deepening of participatory
democracy: where it deviates from intra-system, rule-compliant
behaviour, it is interpreted in terms of the deepening of participation in
that it strives to bring more effective representation, and ensure
effective governance through better attention to developmental and
delivery needs. It potentially co-exists with intra-system action.
The two-track-style depiction of the deepening of participatory democracy in
South Africa (Figure 3) highlights the fact of complexity of meaning and the
range of possible manifestations of participatory democracy. The
conceptualisation of the deepening of participatory democracy unfolds along
the two axes of conventional and protest participation that are tied together by
the popular aim of deepening democracy, both in terms of the opportunities
for participation (how many, with what level of feasibility of participation) and
the meaningfulness of the opportunities (whether participation has the desired
impact, being linked into power and authority). The scattered arrows indicate
the multiple cross-over effect of participants potentially becoming satisfied
with the results of protest action, and then reverting to conventional
participation. The inverse is equally possible, signifying that participants may
become disillusioned with conventional participation and cross the line into
protest action. The bottom line is that the tracks do not present a cast-in-stone
commitment to just one option.
Figure 3:
TRACKS OF DEEPENING PARTICIPAT ORY DEMOCRACY
IN SOUT H AFRICA*
A base in place that requires & legitimises public participation
Opportunities for participation (and engagement)
as allow ed by gov ernment or created by civ il society
Interpretation of sufficiency (or otherw is e) of opportunities – ito participatory
and dev elopmental / interest-fulfilling content*
Sufficient opportunities or
Insufficient opportunities both through
opportunities meaningful
structure & pow er of the opportunities
Uptake and reach of opportunities
Silent acceptance or protest, but not
rejection of the system
Feeling content – meaningful
Aw aiting further action, adv ocacy
opportunities or passiv e acceptance
of sufficiency
30
Further elaboration & more
opportunities accepted & used
More engagement, or more cycles of
protest
* Participation could veer from one tracks (‘pillar’) to the other, over time and in lin e
with the opportunitie s specific to, for example, certain sectors
Source: Booysen, for the current project
The bottom line of this conceptualisation is that the deepening of participatory
democracy needs to be assessed in terms of both the opportunities for
participation that are created, and the ways in which they link into relations of
power and authority. If these links are adequate, and ‘listening combined with
corresponding action’ happens at the top, the opportunities are likely to be
perceived as meaningful in giving effect to the citizen interests and needs that
had been expressed in the opportunities that had been generated for
participation.
1.4.3 APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATORY
DEMOCRACY TO SOUTH AFRICA
The negotiations for South Africa’s transition established both a ‘polyarchy’
and simultaneously opened the door to broader and more regular citizen
participation in the emerging processes of democracy. Polyarchy served to
help minimise political instability and remains a cornerstone of South African
democracy approximately fifteen years later. Yet, popular demands and
expectations required that the participatory spirit that is ensconced in the
Constitution be further elaborated. Furthermore, a decade and more of
democratic governance in South Africa propelled the country, and government
in particular, into a complex and demanding space of realistic and demanding
post-liberation governance. There are increasing signs that government can
rely less on ‘anti-apartheid’ or ‘anti-legacy of apartheid’ mobilisation. Instead,
it is more and more required to design and implement action that will assist in
specifically addressing problems of legitimacy, justice and effectiveness (see
Fung, 2006) in the measures of policy and governance. Deepening
participatory democracy constitutes a large component of this requirement.
The period from the mid-1990s on in South Africa has indeed witnessed
multiple initiatives to embody both conventional practices (more liberal
democracy-oriented) and extended initiatives (more substantive democracyoriented) to give further substance to representational processes and
mechanisms (and in the process help build and sustain legitimacy, justice and
effectiveness). In addition, South Africans have also retained a political culture
of direct action, both in peaceful protest form and in more assertive,
sometimes violent, forms. These and other (see Operational Typology Table
1) modes of participation constitute a complex of different modes and layers
of participatory democracy as it applies to South Africa.
Polyarchy is a ‘political system in which an elite essentially governs, with
popular involvement in democracy being restricted to periodic elections’ (Dahl,
1971: 309). On some levels this concept negates principles of participatory
democracy. It could also be that the adoption of a polyarchy-based
democracy results in power elites enjoying the trappings of capitalism, but
distance themselves from the ‘democratic’ discourses that got them there
31
(Taylor, 2002; Pretorius, 2006). In line with Hobsbawn (2007: 106), and in
recognition of problems of a distanced power elite, this analysis adopts the
point of view that ‘multiple’ engines are used to exercise control over
government in between-election periods. Hobsbawn identifies the role of
modern media and the expression of opinion and interests by direct action as
the two crucial engines driving government (besides the use of universal
suffrage at the time of elections).
The current application to South Africa pro vides some elaboration of these
‘engines’ and further includes details of processes and projects that are
initiatives by government, as extensions of the mechanisms of
representational government, and elaborations into interfaces with the political
and bureaucratic executives of the country. The range of supplementary
processes that have been introduced in South Africa demonstrates
government’s willingness to deepen participatory democracy (often on
government-defined terms of engagement), or, at least, ensure that
supplementary participatory opportunities will be opened up.
An underlying assumption of the Constitution of South Africa 1993 and 1996
is that government needs to be representative in that members of political
parties should best represent their constituents (and therefore, the
constituents’ corresponding needs and wishes). In addition to
representativeness (and the participatory aspects of representational
democracy), government needs to heed the principles and practices of
participatory democracy, through public involvement in governance and
decision making processes. Assessments of the representative and
participatory democratic practices may be conflated, when, in fact, they are
separate and constitute different strands of the democratic process (see Fakir,
2004). Subsequent processes, which were introduced mostly in the period
from 1999 on suggested that government was acknowledging the difference
between the two dynamics and was introducing initiatives to supplement the
conventional mechanisms of representation-participation.
As an illustration, Mbeki (2007a) elaborated on the need for participative
democracy, and not simply because of its perceived progressiveness: he saw
that the process would draw on a collective wisdom, and on a ‘unique wisdom
forged from the apartheid past’. The advancement of institutions and
processes with participatory objectives was in line with the arguments by the
ANC (2002) that:
‘…w here people are not involved in the decisions that affect their lives, social
policies and political interventions are less likely to succeed. Participatory
democracy should therefore complement and enhance representative
democracy’ (ANC, 2002).13
13
As recommended to the Slabbert Commission on the tasks of the Electoral Task Team
(ANC, 2002). Further suggestions included for a future electoral system to ‘d eepen
democracy’ and to ensure voters feel ‘effectively represented’ by the elected parliamentarians
(ANC, 2002: 1)
32
ANC formulations generally differentiate between representative democracy
that facilitates popular inclusivity, and participative democracy that is linked to
decision making.14 The fact that participatory democracy is generally
projected as serving the purpose of enhancing representative democracy
suggests that representative democracy is the primary goal, with participatory
democracy serving to supplement and correct the shortcomings of
representative democracy.
From the side of government, comparable (even if differently conceptualised
and anchored) sentiments have been expressed:
‘For us, democracy is not about asking our people to come to the ballot box
every few years; it is about consulting them through the Izimbizo process, and
through consultations. The President has also established a number of
working and advisory groups on women, youth, higher education, big
business, black business, religion, labour and the economy. All of these
initiatives are important elements of the “People’s Contract” and participatory
democracy and serve as important feedback loops for the President and The
Presidency’ ( Pahad, 2006).
Mbeki (2007b) further elaborates this sentiment in quoting the Public Service
Commission (PSC):
‘The involvement of citizens in the decision making process is important to
ensure that experiential and grounded perspectives inform government of
what the needs are, and how these can best be addressed. There are
pockets of good practice in the Public Service that promote citizen
engagement, but more still needs to be done to heighten the level and quality
of participatory governance. South Africa is recognised as having a more
open policy-making process than most other countries...How ever, at the level
of implementation the Public Service has had mixed results in the promotion
of participatory governance. Most of the mechanisms that have gained
momentum are those that are organised by political representatives ...’
This contrasts, albeit only partially, with the notions of participation that are
advanced by the tripartite alliance partners: the South African Communist
Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). The
primary objective of the SACP, on one level and as outlined in a Central
Committee report, is to seek ‘to influence the ANC’ (SACP, 2007: 1).
Participation is also understood by the SACP as being manifested within the
economic and industrial spheres, rather than with particular reference to
decision making or political involvement.
The underlying political philosophies of the SACP and Cosatu suggest that
their agendas diverge from broader government participation initiatives. As
Cosatu (2007: 24) notes:
14
The primary objective of the SACP as outlined in its Central Committee report is to
‘seek[ing] to influence the ANC’ (SACP, 2007: 1). Yet, levels of participation vary, and
certainly the underlying political philosophies of both the SACP and COSATU suggest that
their formulated agendas are not fully in line with broader government participation initiatives.
33
‘The liberation struggle in SA w as never a struggle for civ il rights, or to be
included in democratic institutions. It w as a struggle for the revolutionary
transformation of the state and economic base.’
Although the underlying conceptualisation of participation could therefore
seem to have two different sub-texts in terms of both electoral processes and
those that pertain to decision making, it is important that government’s
endeavours to adhere to ‘government by and for the people’ have
encompassed not only this broad interpretation but also a wide range of
mechanisms in order to fulfil its transformational mandate. The underlying
assumption in the different conceptualisations remains the need for effective
citizen consultation in the context of advancing developmental outcomes.
Over the fifteen-year period of democracy in South Africa these mechanisms
have been initiated and evolved and include both top-down and bottom-up
processes that cover the range of participatory mechanisms (as elaborated by
Fung, 2006). These processes have displayed varying degrees of success
(assessed in Section 2).
1.4.4 BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
STUDIES IN SOUTH AFRICA
Studies on public participation in South Africa have generally been broad in
scope. The current review focuses on comparative perspectives in the South
African literature since 1994 on the conceptualisation and interpretation of
15
public participation. Foremost in these studies is the question as to what
constitutes public participation and the relationship of public participation to
democracy and participatory democracy. The boundaries between citizen and
state, and the ‘terms of engagement’ feature strongly.
Much of the prevailing literature is compatible with the approach to
conceptualisation and categorisation that the current study has adopted.
Deegan (2002) stresses that a distinction needs to be drawn between
participation by way of the ballot, and more inclusive decision making and
consultative processes. This focus on conceptualisation is echoed in a
number of studies, for example those of Pretorius (2006) and Buccus et al.
(2007). Pithouse (2006) explores the use of protest by communities in order to
publicly participate in the policy making process. He supports those who
argue for protest to be regarded as public participation. Part of his argument is
anchored in the reality of structural violence that is manifested in massive
poverty and inequality. He refutes common perceptions that public
participation requires transformation into civil society organisations that aim at
professionalized engagement in official opportunities for public participation.
He also goes further and suggests that the road to successful public
participation is closely linked to establishing democratic protest outside of the
organisations of party and state:
15
Suzanne Jefferies’ assi stance in an early draft of this section is acknowledged.
34
‘The route to more effective opportunities for public participation in South
Africa will come from popular struggles for democratisation w aged outside of
direct control of the party and the state’ (Pithouse, 2006: 3).
Deegan (2002) also asserts that participation should be conceptualised as
voluntary action, i.e. the public do have the right not to engage if they so wish.
Pretorius (2006) raises the question of who the public actually are, noting that
the notions of public and the people suggest heterogeneous groups and
interests. Pillay (2007) examines the context of participation in terms of
economic policies.
The South African literature also ranges over a wide spectrum with regard to
perceptions and expectations of the relationship between citizen and
government regarding public participation. Mosoetsa’s (2005) examination of
multiple factors in an Mpumalanga township stressed the impact of the
apartheid legacy on present day relationships with government, be it local or
provincial. Tapscott (2006) supports this argument. However, the relationship
between citizens and contemporary government is occasionally seen as just
as tenuous. Pillay (2007), for example, argues that any bottom-up means of
participation has vanished under the post-apartheid regime. Williams (2005)
suggests that the public need to be actively re-educated in political terms, as
there are those who see active criticism of their government, and thereby of
their political party, as ‘disloyal’. Other authors also emphasise the need for
education about public participation (Williams, 2005; De Villiers, 2001; Buccus
et al., 2007).
The literature generally apportions blame for lowered levels of public
participation to government action to suppress and disempower. The literature
affords little attention to the cyclical movements in the relationships between
citizen and government, as these are likely to have transformed along with
changing governance and policy needs. Williams notes that post-1994,
communities have been less civically active. In addition, despite efforts by
government, political activity, particularly amongst the youth, is not as robust
as it could be (Deegan, 2002). Edigheji (2007) criticises the government elite
for its failure to provide a vision of transformation, which has spilled over into
its relationship with the people, and which subsequently stunts civic
responses in terms of organisations.
Williams (2005) found that community participation is hampered by the lack of
sufficient community organizations, a concern echoed by Zuern (2002).
Mosoetsa (2005) explored the formation of less-formal mechanisms of civil
organisation such as burial societies and stokvels, which were formed to give
substance to democratic consolidation.
Booysen (2001) argues that the new democratic government was often
unclear as to whom they ought to be consulting with, or the particular forms of
participation that were to be advanced by government. Progressive civil
society organisations became ‘depleted into’ government and demobilised
after liberation, with the MDM becoming subsumed into the ANC. This 2001
literature could not yet definitively deal with the changing nature of the South
35
African state and polity, and with how popular demands of the 2000s up to
2008 would start posing altered needs and demands to government.
A number of studies explore the problems of the implementation of
participation. In terms of policy from both national and provincial government
there was found to be a lack of support (see for example Hicks, 2005; Buccus
et al., 2007). Support from government was also lacking in terms of resources
(De Villiers, 2001; Buccus et al., 2007). In her 2002 study, Deegan explores
the legislative and institutional capacities that have been developed to
encourage public participation. De Villiers (2001) further examines the
creation of legislation procedure itself, as well as that of policy making. Marais
et al. (2007) shed light on the shortcomings of public participation initiatives in
Gauteng, with specific reference to IDP processes.
From the viewpoint of the government officials, the various mechanisms of
public participation such as CDWs and Izimbizo revealed a lack of operational
clarity in the process, internal politicking between the various role-players, or
a lack of official to man on the street consultation, with preference given to
official to official consultation (Buccus et al., 2007; DPLG, 2007c). De Villiers
(2001) further noted that there was a lack of co-ordination and communication
between the various government structures, a problem also noted by Tapscott
(2006). In addition, Tapscott (2006) found that expectations from local
government were too great and these governments lacked the capacity to
cope. This often resulted in a breakdown in the relationship between people
and local government. Buccus et al. (2007) concluded that the idea of public
participation is seen as a tool for both accountability and transparency.
Except in activist circles, a culture of low community challenge to the
government’s lapses in effecting delivery and transformation prevailed into the
2000s. It was only from the mid-2000s onwards that communities re-engaged
in civil protest action (Booysen, 2008a). This broader cyclical perspective is
not generally addressed in the literature. The reality of shorter cycles, which
articulate with the ebb and flow of electoral activity, are not recognised either.
Furthermore, the literature pays scant attention to the synchronicity of
historical advance over the liberation period of the early to mid-1990s and
public participation and democratic governance into the second decade after
liberation.
The South African literature does offer insights into the advances in and
hurdles to effecting participatory democracy in South Africa. Many of the
concerns that are raised in the conceptual and applied frameworks that
prevail in the South African literature reinforce crucial conceptual and
operational issues, which are addressed in the current analysis.
1.5 PERIODISATION OF EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION OF PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION
36
Section 1.4.4 noted that it is crucial for the analysis to take account of various
cyclical effects in the realisation of public participation and participatory
democracy in South Africa. Opportunities for public participation in the
processes of policy and governance in South Africa have contracted and
expanded over the years since the advent of democracy, depending on the
stages of policy processes, electoral cycles, institutional development,
prevailing community-based public opinion, and the growing distance in years
between liberation and contemporary government. This section first deals with
the cycles in public participation and then offers a periodisation of public
participation in democracy in South Africa.
1.5.1 EBB AND FLOW IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
This analysis sets out to capture the spectrum of major modes of public
participation in the politics of democratic South Africa. In the process, it strives
to capture both the relative ebb and flow, and the historical advancement of
the relationship between citizen and state. These changes highlight the
stages through which this relationship has evolved and also suggest that the
realities of post-liberation governance have brought new demands and
requirements for the advancement of participatory democracy (see Figure 4).
There is little doubt that the post-1994 period brought a contraction in public
participation in South Africa. After the period of widespread contestation and
mobilisation around policy issues of the 1980s and early to mid-1990s, and
the institutionalisation of a democratic government that captured both policy
initiatives and key actors, the bulk of initiatives shifted to government and the
state. High levels of popular legitimacy prevailed, in particular also in the early
periods of democracy. Policy consultation simultaneously had a high place on
the government agenda (see Booysen & Erasmus, 1998). As policies and the
processes for handling them became entrenched, much of the initiatives
became lodged in public sector hands. This coincided, in the Mbeki period
from the late 1990s onwards, with the creation of the Presidency of South
16
Africa. At least for the time being, the need for sustained activism had
lessened. The onus had moved on to government, albeit with some popular
reinforcement on policy and governance needs.
Much of the institutional action for policy coordination within a system of
integrated governance − the system that was implemented in the Mbeki era −
was either located within the Office of the Presidency, or was directed from
this nerve centre of Mbeki-era policy making. With respect to institutions and
consultative processes reaching outward from the Presidency, the emphasis
was on the ministerial and Director-General levels, where the action was to
coordinate and provide stimuli for provincial and local government to pull
implementation together, and on linkages between the spheres of government
to ensure articulation and integration of policy initiatives. By 2006, the policy
16
The Presidential Review Commission (PRC) was first outlined in The White Paper on the
Transformation of the Public Service (WPTPS). The Commission was established in order to
undertake ‘a comprehensive review of the structures, functions and operation of the post
1994 public service’ (Bardill, 2000: 103).
37
structures within the Presidency had become the powerhouse of policy
making. However, throughout this period of emphasis on integration and coordination from the Presidency, there were a series of both select communitystakeholder and grassroots consultative actions. The Presidency brought with
it a range of opportunities for institutionalised public consultation, often
through either specialist bodies (such as those in business), or with councils
that represented sectoral interests (such as those of religion, gender and
17
culture) (see Booysen, 2001; 2006). These initiatives enhanced popular
participation, albeit as procedurally (albeit not altogether in terms of content)
directed from the centre.
Even if public consultation in this era remained one of the expectations of
policy formulation in democratic South Africa, it was often popularly argued
that the public mandates for policies had already been issued (by the public,
including the voters) and had been confirmed through successive electoral
mandates. Government emphases thus tended to shift to the imperatives of
implementing and refining policy, programme and implementation strategies
in the context of the broad government and ANC-endorsed policy mandates.
These are activities that are mostly associated with limited opportunities for
public participation.
Figure 4 :
17
The Presidency of South Africa is a highly structured institutional operation that has been
created to integrate and coordinate government action in pursuit of policy making and
implementation, and effective governance. Also located in the Presidency is an expansive
system of cabinet clusters, cabinet committees and further cabinet support systems. See
Presidency of the Republic of South Africa (2005).
38
PERIODISATION - CHANGES OVER
TIME
CONTINUOUS,
CHANGES IN
REPERTOIRE, BUT
MOSTLY
CUMULATIVE, NOT
SUBSTITUTIVE
Protest,
1990s,
Concentrated
Mobilisation,
Community level
liberation
Initiatives to
Directly engage
Citizens; Presidency,
Coopt/Cooperate
‘INSULATED’
ELECTORAL
ACTION
Early democracy
cont inuous
mobilisation
Scaling down,
More structured,
subs umed
Top-initiated
into Govt ;
CS action;
‘Govt knows
co-exists modest
our needs’
SM mobilisation
Note: This figure depicts circular action, yet with the caution that there is only partial
carry-over into the subsequent cycles.
Source: Booysen, 2008b
Yet, in the subsequent period (especially from 1999 on, and in particular in the
period of the second decade of democracy) government recognised potential
pitfalls, and linked these to serious deficiencies in the transformational and
developmental impact of public policy and governance. Given this change in
the landscape of policy and government (in line with the progression in policy
formulation and implementation), new needs for public consultation arose.
From its side, government experienced the need for the executive to obtain
direct feedback from the population as to how the people were being affected
by new policies, the state of implementation and the remaining challenges of
transformation. Hence followed a period in which government followed
through with a series of initiatives to create potentially meaningful
opportunities for public participation, especially in the sense of engagement
with government to both improve policy implementation and help ensure that
citizens would benefit from policies-in-the-pipeline. It was in this context that
three initiatives stood out (several others are also dealt with in Section 2).
The first was the Izimbizo initiative of public consultation and feedback that
fostered direct links between government (particularly the e xecutives in the
three spheres of government) and communities across the provinces. The
second was that of ward committees, primarily operative in the local sphere.
Ward committees were designed to strengthen the local level representational
mechanisms, and ensure the representation of community interests, along
with offering supplementary report-back mechanisms. The third was in the
form of continuous monitoring through government-commissioned national
surveys through the Government Communication and Information System
39
(GCIS), keeping a finger on the pulse of the ‘mood of the nation’, also
disseminating information about, for example, policies and services.
Collaborative partnerships between the GCIS and research agencies such as
Research Surveys (see GCIS, 2008b: 1) further consolidated democratic
processes by providing continuous civil society and citizen-based
assessments of the progress that government was making, both in terms of
policy implementation and with advancing the ideals of democracy and,
specifically, citizen participation in democracy.
From the side of citizens, there is the use of direct action, including protest, to
provide and demand feedback on processes of governance. Both of these
forms of citizen participation are assessed in order to get to the point of
evaluating South Africa’s progress towards the introduction and
institutionalisation of participatory democracy. The main reason for the
inclusive approach is the current analysis’ assessment that there is a
continuum of political participation that takes in formal and informal,
conventional and unconventional, institutional and contestational, forms of
participation. ‘Participatory democracy’ builds on and is in many respects
complementary to ‘electoral democracy’. In order to assess the state of
participatory democracy it is necessary also see the achievements and
shortcomings of participation in conventional electoral and democratic
processes. It is essential to understand the complementarity and the choices.
These initiatives stood in the context of the continuously sub-optimal
functioning of representative and legislative institutions of Parliament,
provincial legislatures and municipal governments. In South Africa’s first
decade of democracy, and beyond, the elected institutions became known for
their relative isolation from the communities they were intended to represent.
This was a function of a battery of factors. These included the proportional
representation electoral system, which had the disadvantage of not obligating
regular contact between representatives and constituents.18 The juniorisation
(Calland, 2006: 94-102) of Parliament through the redeployment of senior and
accomplished parliamentarians to other parts of government contributed to
this effect. In addition, there was often limited expertise in the parliamentary
committees. Moreover, senior members of the committees felt disempowered
in relation to a powerful executive arm of national government (Feinstein,
2007; Govender, 2007).
These factors contributed to a lowering of the positive perceptions of the
representative institutions (and their associated mechanisms of participation)
and opened space for those who were personally or socially inclined to
participate in protest action to embark on that route. The protests were linked
to both the weaknesses of representation and frustrations with the
developmental impact of government outputs.
In this context, it is illuminating to differentiate the use of ‘conventional’ from
‘unconventional’ participation in the institutions and processes of democratic
18
Van Zyl Slabbert Commission, or the Electoral Task Team led by Slabbert made
recommendations in 2003 related to changing the electoral system (see Graham, 2003: 7).
40
South Africa. Direct action in the form of protest is a form of unconventional
action. South Africans use the conventional institutions, including Parliament,
provincial legislatures and local government institutions − along with their
associated processes of elections and contact with elected representatives −
to further their interests and ensure collective representation and feedback to
government. Civil society19 also uses a range of unconventional − either
specifically created by government or initiated by civil society − processes to
supplement the formal interface.
In this research paper, ‘conventional’ includes reference to institutional
innovations for the representation of citizen interests in the operations of
government that do not routinely feature in line-ups of democratic institutions.
The paper thus argues that unconventional ‘fora’, such as the stage created
through public protests, should equally be considered in the assessment of
participatory democracy in South Africa. Whereas it is generally desirable for
citizens not to need to engage in direct action (or in protest action) in order to
make their voices felt in the processes associated with government and
policy, this form of citizen engagement is a reality of political participation and
could have constructive impacts.
1.5.2 PERIODISATION
South Africa’s participatory democratic institutions, government’s role in
creating and extending them, as well as emerging, associated citizen
participation in the new arrangements for engagement between government
and citizens, is variably also the story of South Africa’s advancement on the
path of democracy. Man y of the government’s reviews and reassessments
constituted new innovations, which (entirely successful or not) constituted
efforts to refine and advance the ‘first generation’ of democratic institutions.
The subsequent innovations were nowhere in people’s minds at the dawn of
1994’s democracy.
A broad periodisation of these processes, institutions and mechanisms for
participation offers the perspective of history and change over time (see Table
2), and complements the broad outlining of trends and their causes in Section
1.5.1 In all instances, there was a synergy – even if not always a perfect
match – between the political contours of the period, the citizen needs that
were evident in terms of a certain Zeitgeist, and the initiatives undertaken by
government.
Table 2:
PERIODISATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTICIPATORY INSTITUTIONS AND OTHER
MECHANISMS IN SOUTH AFRICAN DEMOCRACY
Periods
Innovations and Reinforcements
19
Civil society includes ‘labour unions, religious groups, cultural and educational associations,
sport clubs, student groups, political parties and ethnic groups’ (Mafunisa, 2004: 490).
41
(also overlapping)
1991-1993
1993-1996
1995-2000
1996 on
1998-2007
2000-2005
2000 -2007
Mid-2000s on
2004-2008 on
Negotiated settlement that leads to the adoption of system of government,
intrinsically linked to a range of democratic institutions, incl. Government of
National Unity (GNU), and generally a system to enhance inclusivity &
reconciliation
Institutionalisation & entrenchment of new national & provincial institutions;
finalisation of the Constitution of South Africa 1996 by the Constitutional
Assembly, popularisation of the Constitution of South Africa
Development of the basic institutions of local government
Institutional & process focus shifts to executive & bureaucratic structures in
order to help ensure implementation
Presidential Review Commission (PRC) & development of institutions of the
Presidency
Institutionalisation of the Izimbizo; further development of supplementary
representational mechanisms such as ward committees and Community
Development Workers (CDWs)
Integration of processes of government into the Presidency-anchored
executive processes of governance (to enhance policy implementation &
representation of specific interests in the processes of governance)
Interventions to improve provincial & local government; revision of provincial
& local government (notice & tentative processes)
Waves of participation through community protest (superimposed upon coexisting trends of cooperative participation and electoral engagement)
Source: Booysen, 2007; also specifically for this project
The periodisation highlights the cumulative nature of the development of
institutions and processes for democracy generally, and the participation of
citizens in policy and governance in particular. The system of local
government lagged behind the national and provincial. It was only introduced
in time for the 2000 local government elections (the 1995/96 local elections
were run in terms of a transitional dispensation). In later phases, local
government also became the interface for citizen protest-related engagement
with government. The local citizen-government ‘crossing point’ bore the brunt
of frustrations with government, relating to both national and local (often
provincially mediated) issues.
The periodisation re-emphasises that the need for creation and innovation of
institutions with participation as main or partial drive in democratic South
Africa did not cease with the adoption of the Constitutional Assembly’s
20
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) .
Whereas the design and institutionalisation of the essential democratic
institutions were one of the first benchmarks of South Africa’s democracy,
these institutions were continuously monitored and, where necessary,
elaborated. The following three examples illustrate this point:
20
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108, as adopted on 8 May 1996 and
amended on 11 October 1996.
42
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The series of institutions that were created in the Presidency of South
Africa in the aftermath of the Presidential Review Commission (PRC)
brought the criticism of some centralisation of power, yet were also
specifically aimed at ensuring that government would be able to follow
through on the bureaucratic-administrative tasks of governance in
order to better realise the policy needs of South African citizens.
The ‘Asmal Commission’ of 2007 investigated and made
recommendations on the improvement of the Chapter 9 and associated
21
institutions.
The governing ANC’s December 2007 Polokwane national
party/movement conference resolutions in effect supported the
institutional innovations referred to above (bullet point 1), noting that
the ANC’s 2004 Manifesto promised ‘better cooperation among
national, provincial and local governments with integrated planning,
monitoring and evaluations, and a common system of public service’
(ANC, 2007: 30).
Several measures (dealt with in detail in Section 2) were also incrementally
and cumulatively put in place to help ensure the meaningfulness of the
representative mechanisms, in all spheres of government. Foremost amongst
these were the multi-sphere Izimbizo, the local sphere system of Ward
Committees, and, also in the local sphere, Community Development Workers.
Project Consolidate contributed to the building of democracy in that it
identified and ten directed interventions of fragile aspects of local government.
This was manifested both in terms of government management and the ability
to implement popular mandates. In addition, the system of local and provincial
government was under continuous review, also through the 2007-2008 Local
Government White Paper process.
In conclusion, and to provide an overview along with the periodisation, Table
3 offers a narrative ‘stock-taking table’ of the range of government initiatives
that directly or indirectly impacted on participatory democracy in South Africa.
The national sphere is the more inclusive one, containing initiatives (elections,
outreach programmes, including Izimbizo, etc.) that are duplicated in the
provincial and local spheres. In addition, many of the nationally listed projects
have implications for participation in the other spheres.
NATIONAL
Table 3:
A CROSS-SPHERE SLATE OF MEASURES / INNOVATIONS / MECHANISMS (INSTITUTIONS &
PROCESSES TO HEIGHTEN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & ENGAGEMENT
Formal & conventional, both institutional and related processes:
Measures to make Parliament accessible to public / civil society (e.g. through Offic e of Speaker)
Parliamentary initiatives to familiarise people with Parliament
Elections and related processes:
Electoral campaigns & participation, including through IEC
Voting in elections
21
The proceedings were put at the disposal of people through radio and media, with the
objective of encouraging ‘robust debate’ (Mbete, 2007: 7).
43
PROVINCIAL
LOCAL
Outreach by legislative & executive institutions:
NCOP’s taking Parliament to the people
Legitimation of Constitution
Izimbizo (President, other members of executive)
Institutionalisation in Presidency of spaces consultation special interest groups
Legal access (incl. to Constitutional Court)
People’s Assembly
Proxy institutions & processes:
Accountability through Auditor-General and related organis ations
Mass media (private sector), and GCIS information services
NEDLAC
Presidency of South Africa:
Forums and councils for big business, black business, international investment
Forums for special interest groups such as religious, cultural
Direct action:
Community protest action against delivery gaps; marches and the presentation of memoranda
Izimbizo
Inter Governmental Relations Forum
National Council of Traditional Leaders; the Provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders
National House of Traditional Leaders
Integrated Development Plan (IDP) forums; Associated Budget Processes
Ward committees & their meetings
Community Development Workers (CDWs)
Road shows22, Stakeholder meetings, Media work
Dissemination of information through traditional leadership structures
Source: Booysen, for this project
The details thus provide an approximate slate of the range of government
initiatives to advance participatory democracy, as these pertained to the three
spheres of government.
1.5.3 THE RANGE OF CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT WITH
GOVERNMENT
Understandings of the distance between civil society and government further
help illuminate the notion of deepening of participatory democracy. The fifteen
years of democracy and in particular the five years since the Ten Year Review
have shown that many of the participatory and engagement actions were
solicited by the centre. Others, like protest action, ran contrary to the wishes
of the centre. In addition, many of the acts of civil society participation have
been noted as ‘top-down’ and other as ‘bottom-up’. These dimensions
converge in a consideration of the range of distance between civil society and
government.
22
Examples of these road shows, which are not further pursued in this paper, include: The
'Economic Opportunities Road Show', by the Gauteng Provincial Government in the Thokoza
area in January 2007 (Gauteng Provincial Government, 2007), or the Mogale City local
government road shows held in 2005.
44
The range of civil society engagement with government may be depicted in
terms of a gradation between the two ‘poles’ of civil society and government
(Figure 5). For purposes of this gradation, the three spheres of government
are equated – thus, for example, ward committees are taken as relatively
close to ‘government’, even if they are generally far removed from the sphere
of national government. Citizen participation in democracy may be manifested
anywhere in the graded intersection area between civil society and
government. It would range from being entirely anchored in either civil society
or in government, or in the range of activities that spans the graded section of
interaction between the two. The initiatives that are closer to civil society tend
to be bottom-up and unsolicited in nature. It is important that these grid
placements are subject to change depending on the specific political context.
Change is also manifested over time.
Figure 5 :
GRADATION OF CIVIL-SOCIETY-GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT
Civil Society
Government
Gradations of
Civil Society Engaging with Government
Illustrations of the details in Figure 5
ICON
EXAMPLES OF ORGANISATIONS ENGAGED IN ACTIONS OF
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Protest movements or acts; civil society campaigns such as the Sow eto
Electricity Crisis Committee and the Anti- Privatisation Forum
Izimbizo; IDP process activities
Community consultation actions, for example in preparation for policy
white papers
Trade Union Cosatu, though participation in the Tripartite Alliance and
campaigns to influence public policy (in late 2007 alliance partners
moved closer to government); lobbying by private professional lobbyists
National Economic Development and Labour Council ( Nedlac); w ard
committees
Forums and consultative committees or councils w ithin the Presidency of
South Africa, such as the Big Business and Black Business Consultative
45
Forums; Community Development Wor kers
This range of civil society-government participatory interactions also helps to
demonstrate the notions of co-option, cooperation, constructive (meaningful)
engagement, consultation, and protest with a view to being heard.
1.6 CONCLUSION
Section 1 offered both the conceptual orientation to the question of
participatory democracy in South Africa, and an orientation to mapping the
range of participatory practices, mechanisms and institutions in South Africa.
The brief literature review demonstrated a paucity of attention thus far to the
systematic mapping of South Africans’ participation in democracy. South
Africans, through a range of institutions, constitutional provisions, legislative
imperatives and political-cultural practices, both expect and get the
opportunity for various forms of participation in the processes of policy and
governance. These processes of policy and governance also converge at the
point of monitoring, evaluation and feedback on the implementation of
government policies. In addition, and in line with international comparative
literature, the citizens of South Africa have also increasingly received a range
of opportunities to extend and strengthen their access to services and
information about services.
Citizen participation is also conceptualised as engagement with government.
The section’s conceptualisation of participation draws attention to this range
of possible meanings. The relevant aspects of the conceptualisation include
that participation is viewed as part of the deepening of democracy, in at least
two understandings. First, it is participation for the sake of making the
mechanisms, institutions and processes of democracy meaningful, anchoring
them in substantiating actions, perhaps for the sake of revelling in the
enabling democratic space, but also in order to engage with processes of
development (for the latter meaning, see Buccus et al., 2007: 6-7).
The theoretical overview specifically focused on the range of participation in
the processes of post-liberation democracy. Attention was drawn to the fact
that participatory democracy involves a systematic accumulation of
continuous and relatively deliberatively organised participation in the
processes of policy and governance. In the case of South Africa, the system
is not one that is designed (nor has it yet evolved as) a fully-fledged
participatory democracy − despite the reality that a range of participatory
principles are ensconced in constitutional and applied practice. Yet, the
multiple institutions, processes, political-cultural orientations, and so forth, add
to a substantial complex of participatory practices that involve both
deliberation and action. Jointly, these practices and institutions constitute a
multi-dimensional complex of democratic participation. It is also crucial to note
that the uptake of these opportunities is uneven. Perhaps the design is not
optimal; perhaps the time has not yet been optimal for the uptake to be
manifested; perhaps the political leadership culture that is manifested around
46
these practices negates their uptake; perhaps cynicism prevails because
government leaders and institutions are not perceived to be playing their
parts.
This complex has undergone many changes in the period of analysis. There
have been ebbs and flows, advances and setbacks. There has been steady
progress with the institutionalisation of participatory democracy since 1994.
The period from 2003 to 2008 has witnessed an elaboration, a sprinkling of
assessments and partial reinventions of participatory measures that originated
in the late 1990s or early 2000s. This period has also been a particularly
challenging one in which the realities of post-liberation governance and
delivery continuously combined with specificities of the Mbeki period to both
motivate further extensions of participatory mechanisms and subvert other
participatory projects.
The analysis notes that the desire for participation in democracy, and
engagement with the processes of governance, has been both cyclical and
historically unfolding. In the early days of democracy, there was a carry-over
of protest politics and enthusiasm for assertively being part of the early
processes of policy formulation. As the democratically elected government
became entrenched and government moved into the ‘business of
government’, there was a convergence of citizens feeling that government
knows their needs, and had (mostly) adopted the required policies. The need
for participation often became subdued. There followed an increasingly
institutionalised system of public engagement, and citizen involvement in the
Mbeki era largely entered a pattern of high-ranking, specialist stakeholders
becoming engaged in inputs into the policy making processes. In addition,
there was a greater emphasis on co-governance with civil society, even if in
theory more than practice (at least in early and pre-institutionalisation)
phases. Following on this period, and in the second 2004-2008/9 term of
President Thabo Mbeki, systematic attention was given to the
institutionalisation and improvement of the early initiatives such as the
Izimbizo. The notions of citizen engagement and citizens assuming coresponsibility saw the light, all in an effort to establish participatory democracy
and help bring forth effective governance. These initiatives were continuing
through phases of possible institutionalisation when, towards the mid-2000s,
another dimension of citizen action was added, namely that of protest action
(beyond what would routinely be termed civil society engagement).
Throughout, electoral participation remained high and credible.
It is important to note that civil society participation in democracy in South
Africa went through phases that are cumulative in nature. The preceding
phases’ major actions never completely lapsed. Rather, new layers and new
practices were cumulatively added. As the rest of the analysis shows, the
complex of citizen participation in democracy grew, through cumulative
phases, into a complex of practices that are regularly extended, and almost
always subject to selective uptake. As such, the conceptualisation of popular
participation in South African democracy, and the expansion of this notion into
one of participatory democracy, is a multi-level, multi-focused and densely
interactive complex of actions.
47
48