Municipal Budget and Financial Management Programme
Public Participation
A critical review of public participation in
development planning within South African local
governments
ODA Occasional Paper
Prepared by:
André Olivier
Organisation Development Africa
P.O. Box 16526
Tel: 021-4222970
Fax: 021-4222934
E-mail: andre@oda.co.za
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Executive Summary
Seamless flow of information between communities in the broadest sense and formal local
government and service provision structures is increasingly a reality of modern governance.
Technology, techniques and mechanisms contribute to participation as never before. This paper
contributes to the understanding of participation in two parts. The first part roots the debate in an
exposition of the theoretical construct behind the participation idea. The second part addresses
current experience in South African local government by discussing and providing a critique of
current practice.
Organisation Development Africa
2
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Table of Content
Page
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 2
1. Background ............................................................................................................. 4
2. Community Participation: Origins of the theory and practice in
development thinking .................................................................................................. 4
2.1
Context ............................................................................................................ 4
2.2
The origins of participation in theory ............................................................. 6
2.3
Dominant patterns in participatory approaches .............................................. 8
2.4
Towards a differentiated participation model ................................................. 9
3. Current Municipal experience with participation in South Africa ......... 14
3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................... 14
3.2
Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes ........................... 15
3.3
Towards a critique of current participation in practice ................................. 16
4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 22
Organisation Development Africa
3
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
1.
Background
Contemporary developmental thinking tends to be in vehement agreement on the topic of
public/community participation. The notion that communities should have a say and be
empowered to exert direct influence in decisions that would impact on their social, material
and environmental well-being is virtually undisputed in the development and
democratisation debate to the point of becoming accepted as a basic need and democratic
right12. No longer the sole domain of radical thinkers; public participation, it would seem,
has become off age. Yet, despite the wide acceptance of the need for and benefits of
participation in development, the going consensus becomes fuzzier with regard to the best
way to achieve participatory governance in practice. More often than not, despite good
intentions, the practise of participatory democracy still falls short of its ideals and
expectations. Why does the practical manifestation of public participation processes so
often falter?
A prodigious amount of literature on the theory and practice of public participation currently
exists, offering a plethora of case studies, best practises and guidelines. This vast
literature also spawned a rich (and sometimes bewildering) lexicon of theoretical concepts
and terminology. This paper attempts to provide a translation of the theory and praxis on
participation to practitioners so as to built understanding in support of stronger
public/community participation processes.
2.
Community Participation: Origins of the theory and
practice in development thinking
2.1
Context
Community expectations from public sector organisations are undergoing significant
changes. In the 1950’s people were more tolerant of poor services; more patiently waiting
in long queues and enduring inefficient public administration than they are now.
Communities are expecting quality delivery of public services and are beginning to hold
elected representatives increasingly accountable when their expectations are not met.
Before the 2000 municipal election IDASA conducted a poll on public perceptions of local
government. This survey found declining local government opinion levels with only 31% of
people expressing trust in and 30% giving approval of local performance, with 44%
perceiving corruption in their municipalities. Only 36% of people thought that their
municipalities were responsive to their needs; down from 58% in 1995. The most worrying
aspect of this and similar polls conducted since, is that local government seems to score
consistently lower than provincial and national government, despite being closer to the
people. The call is now for delivery, but more specifically delivery that is more responsive
This contemporary South African view is articulated by Davids I, 2002: Good Governanance & Community
Participation: Case Studies form the Western Cape. Foundation for Contemporary Research. 2002.
2 Also see Max-Neef M, 1991: Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. Appex
Press, London. (Pages 30-37).
1
Organisation Development Africa
4
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
to and places greater focus on community satisfaction as communities become
increasingly assertive in demanding and expecting a range of quality local services.
The pattern of rising expectations of public sector delivery is not unique to South Africa
and indeed strongly influenced domestic municipal reform initiatives. An international
discourse emerged during the last two decades with regard to government efficiency, size
and cost. A wave of reforms, with increasingly distinctive styles, themes and interventions,
were unleashed which gradually became collectively known as New Public Management 3.
The reform agenda since the latter half of the 1980’s were popularised by the Thatcher
and Major governments in the United Kingdom. It however rapidly spread into Australia,
New Zealand, and Scandinavia which all introduced bold reform programmes. By the
early 1990’s the Clinton Administration introduced broadly similar initiatives in the United
States to address the domestic crisis in public services.4
Although many public sector reforms have ideological underpinnings they mostly respond
to a legitimate crisis in the delivery of public services; i.e. fiscal viability, large scale
inefficiency, societal changes and growing popular dissatisfaction with bureaucracy. New
Public Management type best practices are now succeeding in large scale public sector
improvements across the globe; from India to Finland, Columbia to Canada, North and
South, Developed and Developing countries.
The main elements of the 1990’s reform agenda can be summarised as:5
o
o
o
o
o
o
The introduction of quasi and real market competition into public service delivery;
Increasing decentralisation in the management and production of public services;
Emphasis on improving service quality;
Reforms to reduce costs and increase efficiency;
Increasing emphasis on benchmarking and measuring performance and
Focus on increased responsiveness to individual needs of the
consumers/customers of public services.
The first democratic elections in South Africa coincided with a public sector reform wave
fanning out across the world. The ills of the Apartheid administrative system were similar
to other stale bureaucracies; mismanagement of resources, outdated management,
unresponsiveness to users, lack of accountability, poor labour relations etc. The RDP
document laid out a public sector reform agenda that is in many ways were not dissimilar
to that of other reforming states. In time key aspects of this reform agenda was captured
into Batho Pele principles and legislation such as the Municipal Systems Act.
See Barzelay, M 2001; The New Public Management: Improving research and Policy Dialogue, for a good academic
exposition of term.
4 The most influential book on this has been that of Osborne & Gaebler, 1993: Reinventing Government; How the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.
5 See Osborne & Geabler (1993), Fitzgerald 1995 and Pollitt 1990 for detailed contemporary overviews of this reform
agenda.
3
Organisation Development Africa
5
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Municipalities now are expected to roll out a clear reform agenda in terms of a suite of
municipal legislation addressing:
o Restructuring of Apartheid authorities into inclusive administrative entities
(Municipal Demarcation and Structures Acts);
o Service delivery and clarity of purpose through a general set of service delivery
duties within the system of government (Constitution and Municipal Systems Act);
o Community participation and accountability (Municipal Systems Act);
o Integrated planning (Municipal Systems Act); and
o Performance management (Municipal Systems Act).
Yet, almost all municipalities are faced with a dual challenge of rising community
expectations/needs and declining resources. In many cases cost cutting and revenue
enhancing strategies have reached their limitations as communities increasingly struggle
to afford municipal services and municipalities risking infrastructure failure through
simplistic cost cutting exercises. The time has come to introduce more sophisticated
strategies that aim to strike a bargain/pact between municipalities and communities on
what services are to be delivered against set standards and affordable payments. Within
such strategies municipalities can strike a better balance between community expectations
and service affordability while still finding ways of improving efficiencies and reducing
costs. This dialogue will by enlarge happen through participation.
2.2
The origins of participation in theory
The origins of public participation within the local government sphere can probably be
traced to three root sources:
o Participation as good development project practise:6 Participation was first used
in the 1950’s by social activists and project field workers as a necessary dimension of
development.7 The World Bank8, internationally, as well as the Development Bank of
Southern Africa have since taken the notion of participation as a prerequisite for
successful project implementation to heart. It has now become common practise to
include some or the other form of public participation in the implementation of
infrastructure projects within the local government environment. A large amount of
case studies tend to focus on project specific participation and it is arguably the most
well known participation framework of reference.
o Participation as good governance: Governance is a term that refers to the nature of
the relationship between the state and civil society. Participation within the context of
good governance has its origins from within Western democracies since the 1980’s
and 90’s. Falling voter turn-out (the so-called democratic deficit) and a general sense
of disillusionment with particularly local government resulted in a rethink in the way
See Abbot J. 1996: Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. Earthscan.
Rahnema, M. 1993: Participation. In The Development Dictionary, edited by Wolfgang Sachs. Witwatersrand
University Press.
8 Note the World Bank Participation Sourcebook, 1995. Social Policy and Resettlement Division.
6
7
Organisation Development Africa
6
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
civil society can be re-engaged. A powerful late 1990’s article in The Economist has
shown how voter turnout in almost all Western democracies are experiencing rapid
decline. South Africa is, according to IDHSA pre-election polls9, experiencing the
same perception trends, possibly indicating that the healthy state of participation in
local democracy after 1994 will decline in line with other democratic societies. The
thread presented to democracy when few bother to vote is self evident. The causes of
this democratic disengagement is varied but commonly based on perceptions of
oppressive, unresponsive and inefficient bureaucracies,10 in addition to a sense of
powerless and marginalised local political structures within the state. Strong links also
exist with the crisis of the welfare state in Western democracies. A common feature of
the dramatic public sector reforms in the developed world in the last decades has been
serious attempts to address what has become known as the “crisis” in local
democracy.11 Widespread disengagement and disinterest of key groups and social
and economic exclusion prompted a range of initiatives to re-establish the legitimacy
of local councillors, combat social exclusion and improve participation in representative
democracy.12 New forms of democratic participation have been the result, egovernance and real time polling mechanisms to name a few. It has also given rise to
completely new institutions of governance, illustrated by the rapid increase of the
residential community association phenomena,13 increases in community development
corporations and increasing complexity in service delivery configurations.
o Participation as political empowerment: Originating from economic development
theory and theories of development the empowerment approach to community
participation is located within the radical paradigm of alternative development and
manifests itself in the mobilisation of popular political power. With intellectual origins in
neo-Marxist writers such as Freire14 and Castells this approach locates participation
within a wider political struggle that links the condition of under-development with
access to political power. In South Africa Patrick Bond is the most prominent
articulator of ideas within the empowerment tradition.15 Originally participation within
this tradition found expression in popular resistance movements within South America,
Asia and South Africa. The United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa being an
typical example of the type of movements to emerge within the context of popular
urban resistance movements with a political empowerment agenda.16. At the local
9
Bennington J. New paradigms and practices for local government: Capacity building within civil society. The same
point is made by many analysts
11 See Geddes & Martin, 1997: Evaluating local democratic initiatives: Interim Research Report. Warwick University
Local Authorities Research Consortium, Working Group on Political Change.
12 The best known book articulating the good governance paradigm is that by Kooiman J. 1993: Modern Governance:
New Government Society Interaction. Sage
13 Cited by Garreau as the most rapidly increase in local government organisation type in North America. In Garreau J.
1991: Edge City: Life on the new Frontier. Doubleday. Also Dilger JD, 1994: Residential Community Associations, in
Public Management, April 1994.
Leach S.: The indirectly elected world of local government
14 Freire P, 1972; The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.
15 See Bond P. 2001: Against Global Apartheid: South Africa meets the World Bank, IMF and International Finance.
University of Cape Town Press.
16 Seekings J, 2000: The UDF: A history of the United Democratic Front in South Africa 1983-1991. David Philip.
10
Organisation Development Africa
7
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
government and community interface participation within this approach manifested
itself in dialogical forums where stakeholder groups with a political empowerment
agenda engages the local state in participation on a wide range of development
issues. The existence of dialogical forums is no longer as prevalent and dominant as
they were prior to 1994, but still forms the dominant mode of participation in the
preparation of IDPs and provides the backdrop for some types of civic organisations.
These three dominant strands of thinking and approaches to participation intermingle and
sometimes are getting confused in practical engagement between communities and local
governments. Municipalities, for example often intermingles participation on a projectbased engagement in a similar manner as consultation in their IDP process that falls more
within the good governance realm. The communities with which they engage often
resembles empowerment; that is that they define the terms of engagement in terms of
conflict and opposition to the local state or ward councillor; using the participation process
as a proxy for political engagement. At other times communities define their engagement
in terms of cooperation and community management. The key conclusion is that there is
no single universally applicable or perfect model of participation. It is important to
recognise different circumstances require a different style of participation from authorities.
The trick is to understand the context within which communities are engaged so as to
design the most appropriate participative mechanism and process.
2.3
Dominant patterns in participatory approaches
In the section above an interpretation of the intellectual origins of participation is outlined.
In this section the thinking is taken further to link styles of participation to different
approaches of public sector reform. Table 1 is an attempt to provide an outline of and
linkages between the various dominant “schools” in participation in literature. A general
differentiation can be made three dominant public sector reform approaches; public choice,
post-Fordist reform of state service delivery and neo-Marxist.17 Each one of these reform
approaches displays dominant, but not exclusive, characteristics.
Table 1: Dominant participatory approaches
Characteristic
Dominant public Public Choice
sector
reform
paradigm
Dominant reform Market reform –
introduction of
agenda
Role of local
government
competition in service
provision and consumer
choice
Enabler of service
provision
Dominant Differentiation
Post- Fordist
(New public management paradigm)
o
o
o
Statist reform of traditional
bureaucracy
Market reform
Developmental local government
Pluralism – spreading power within the
state (traditional normative view of the
state)
Neo-Marxist
Economic
development
model
o Developmental
government
Local state as
manager of uneven
development and
o
Mayekiso M. 1996: Township Politics: Civic struggles for a new South Africa. Monthly Review Press.
17
Space and the focus of this paper unfortunate do not allow a comprehensive discussion of these reform approaches.
Organisation Development Africa
8
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Participation
approach
Citizen as customer
Participatory
mode
o
o
Scale
Market research
Focus group
research
o Opinion polls
Service Provider
Focus
Individual consumer
Outcome
o
o
Service efficiency
Customer
satisfaction
Planning Product
o
o
o
Sector strategies
Service plans
Business Plans
Service provider – utilitarian role
o Citizen as subject
o Community benefit
o Community partnership
o Dialogical Forums
o Sector-based advisory groups
o Area-based/ constituency based
advisory structures
Traditional
Emerging
o Municipality o City-wide
o Public
o Partnership
actors
o NGO
o Private sector
o Community
groups
o Community beneficiary of public
services
o Social development stakeholders and
partners
o Good Governance
o Legitimacy
o Responsiveness
o Accountability
o Decentralisation
o Effectiveness
o Social sustainability
Traditional
Emerging
o
o
o
o
o
Discourse
2.4
Narrow focus
Structure plans
5-year plans
MTIEF
Capital
Programmes
Integrated
Development Plan
Traditional
Needs based
o
local dualism
Popular mobilisation
Community
activation
City/Regional/Nation
al
Human scale
development
Social equity
Social justice
City
Development
Strategy
Emerging
Priority driven
Globalisation
Capitalism
Towards a differentiated participation model
John Abbot18 (1996:68) comes to an important conclusion by noting that different
approaches to community participation exist. This means that practitioners need to be
alive to a variety of participation models and when to use them. Abbot contributed an
original and rather interesting framework to participation in his work. His argument is
based upon the observation that the paradigm approach to participation is too weak.
Economic development theory provides a useful framework of analysis, but fails to provide
an appropriate participation approach to the consultation with a community faced with, say,
youth development issues. Abbot alternatively suggests that the surround, or context,
within which the participation takes place, determines the most appropriate participation
18
Abbot J, 1996: Sharing the City: Community Participation in Urban Management. Earthscan.
Organisation Development Africa
9
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
model. He identifies six such types of community interface models. The characteristics of
the most appropriate models are summarised below:
Characteristic
Role of Government
Nature of decisionmaking
Community dynamic
Primary purpose of
participative process
Community
Development
Open
Small programmes and
projects with clearly
defined/concrete and
single outputs
Focuses –through
project selection
Limited
Model
Empowerment
Negotiated
development
Closed
Open
Political/economic targeted Complex multi variable
programmes with clearly
and multi-faceted
defined agenda/outputs
programmes. High
level of complexity
Focussed through strength Diffuse, heterogeneous
of needs/issue
and require level of
moderation
Centred around a dispute
Integrated systems
between community and
approach, wide ranging
government
interaction
Adapted from Abbot 1996
The value of Abbot’s approach becomes evident if one considers the dynamic (or
surround) associated with cutting off electricity supply in Emfuleni hostels in comparison
with that of the Mayor’s Listening Campaign in Cape Town. Emfuleni’s19 participation
problem is participation along the lines of the empowerment model; it is driven by a single
issue (electricity) and is based on the politicization of a dispute between the hostel
residents and the municipality. In the City of Cape Town the Listening Campaign falls
within the realm of negotiated development. It deals with every issue/need and thus
places no limit of the complexity of issues that may be raised. When municipalities, as
many do, establish a ward committee to articulate the special issues of a defined
geographic area it practices a form of participation associated with community
development. The dynamic relating to each of these examples is obviously very different,
meaning that the mode of participation cannot be similar in each case.
19
Organisation Development Africa, 2003: Emfuleni Restructuring Grant Application. Unpublished report.
Organisation Development Africa
10
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Hierarchy of increasing complexity
Surrounds of community participation
Arena of
exclusion
Arena of consensus
Arena of
confrontation
Arena of inclusion
Increasing openness of government
Source: Abbot 1996
Abbot outlines four types of surrounds or contexts, along two variable axis. If, for example
the government is open to participation, but has to deal a highly complex issue, then it
finds itself in the arena of consensus (Cape Town’s Listening Campaign). The issue of
Emfuleni’s electric cut-offs in hostels is a fairly simply simple issue, yet it is shaped by
confrontation. This type of issue finds itself in a context/arena of confrontation. Abbott
connects each the arenas/participation context to appropriate participation responses.
Appropriate approaches to participation
Hierarchy of increasing complexity
Arena of
exclusion
Arena of consensus
Revolution
Deep-rooted
Concensus
Negotiated Development
Community
Empowerment Development
Community
Management
Arena of inclusion
Increasing openness of government
Source: Abbot 1996
Organisation Development Africa
11
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
If one takes Abbot’s framework a bit further, by locating typical participation examples
within each approach, the value of his contribution becomes clearer.
Illustrative applications of participation
approaches
Hierarchy of increasing complexity
Arena of
exclusion
Arena of consensus
City Development
Strategy
IDP
Gautrain
Services
cut-offs
Foreshore freeway
Soccer field
management
Arena of inclusion
Increasing openness of government
The next layer of sophistication of the framework developed by Abbot is to establish a link
with the kind of participation mechanisms and processes that one would expect within
each participatory approach.
Hierarchy of increasing complexity
Typical mechanisms and processes
within participative approaches
Focus
Community as entity
Dialogical Forum
IDP Forum with
area/sector
commissions
Ad hoc
meetings
Ward participatory
system
Special
Management
Committees
Special interest groups
Stakeholders
Community as
localized subset
Individual
Increasing openness of government
Organisation Development Africa
12
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
Can the City of Johannesburg use an IDP Forum with confidence in that its consultations
will give it a true reflection of the views of the community? In the now disestablished South
Peninsula Municipality (now amalgamated into the City of Cape Town) 450 organisations
registered to be part of the IDP Forum. Collectively the membership of all these
organizations accounted for less than 1% of the people living in the area. 20 Only a fraction
of this membership ever turned up for forum meetings. It is clear that representivity of
forums in large and complex communities is a problem. However, if Ikwezi Local
Municipality (Eastern Cape) wants to, it probably will be able to fit most of its community
into a large hall. In smaller municipalities such forums may be sufficient. While Jo’burg
may benefit greatly from an opinion poll, Ikwezi will have a very good understanding of
public opinion of issues. In Pniel, for example, communication to the community and the
gaining of views regarding municipal issues is simply done by raising it in church on
Sundays! In Albertslund, a municipality within Copenhagen, opinions are elicited and
responded to during a special time provided before a council meeting. Any member of the
community is allowed to address the council on any municipal issue during this time. The
use of electronic voting means is growing, with mechanisms being provided allowing
people to vote via e-mail on contentious issues.21
Different approaches to participation therefore exist and are appropriate for different
contexts.
Not all participatory mechanisms serve the reform agendas and desired
outcomes of municipalities equally well. If, for example, the public reform agenda is to
pursue market driven service delivery options, then dialogical forums are not particularly
useful. On the other hand, if new housing options are considered, affecting specific
stakeholder groupings, dialogical forums may work well. When it comes to potholes in the
streets, issues with a small scale geographic focus, constituency based structures such as
street committees and ward participatory structures work best. Environmental policy,
again, has a strong sectoral stakeholder impact. It is of little use to generalize it in a
dialogical forum unless also supported by participation from an environmental focus group.
The point is that there are different approaches to participation that tend to work; one size
does not fit all.
20
21
Olivier A 1998: Challenges Facing the South Peninsula Municipality. Unpublished report
Holmes D. 2001: eGov: eBusiness strategies for government. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Organisation Development Africa
13
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
3.
Current Municipal experience with participation in
South Africa
3.1
Introduction
Public participation is considered one of the key tenets of democratic governance in South
Africa. Municipal councils are obliged “to develop a culture of municipal governance that
shifts from strict representative government to participatory governance, and must for this
purpose, encourage, and create conditions for residents, communities and other
stakeholders in the municipality to participate in local affairs”. In addition, the White Paper
on Local Government states that “Local government structures must develop strategies
and mechanisms to continuously engage with citizen’s, business and community groups
and offers the following options amongst others; focus group participatory action research
to generate detailed information about a wide range of specific needs and values; and
participatory budget initiatives aimed at linking community priorities to capital investment
programmes”.
The deepening of local democracy in South Africa is embedded in wide-ranging regulative
provisions that oblige organs of the state in general and municipalities in particular to
establish mechanisms and processes for public participation. Municipal legislation
(Municipal Systems and Structures Acts) lays down formal measures to establish a
coherent system of developmental local governance resting on pillars of community
participation, integrated development planning (IDP), budgeting; and performance
management. The preparation of IDPs, in particular, has become a mantra to
communities, managers and political representatives at all levels of government as an allembracing planning tool which will allow municipalities to address wide ranging
developmental challenges, through public participation, in a systematic and sustainable
manner. In addition to general provisions for participation municipalities are also given
specific obligations to consult in a prescribed manner through legislation. The advertising
of the annual tariffs and rates, forming part of the budget is prescribed. When
municipalities are considering alternative service delivery mechanisms they must consult
the community. Land use planning decisions are commonly advertised in the press in a
prescribed manner. Some decisions must be advertised for comment and be made
available in public places; etc. In addition extensive use are made of ward participatory
systems in terms of municipal by-laws and mandated by notices published by the MECs
for local government.
However, it is only when all the statutory provisions are stripped away, and the underlying
public participation processes and mechanisms are exposed, that a good impression
emerges of the health of participation.
Organisation Development Africa
14
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
3.2
Experience with participatory mechanisms and processes
The most common mechanisms in South African municipalities relating to participation are:
o Formal advertising in the press, complying with the minim legal requirement for
eliciting and considering views of communities;
o Dialogical forums, IDP forums, sector forums and/or area-based forums. Experience
with forums indicates a variety of organisational set-ups, ranging from sophisticated
constitutions, organised into complex committee structures and having clear
accreditation criteria for membership; to simple equivalents of town-hall meetings that
is called occasionally;
o Ad hoc meetings, almost all municipalities make use of ad hoc meetings around
specific issues, for example a controversial town planning application.
o Market research and opinion polls, still somewhat in its infancy, some of the larger
municipalities have conducted proper stratified and diversified market research on
community priorities;
o Ward participatory structures, set up through formal Provincial notices and requiring
by-laws, ward participatory systems exist in many municipalities. In other
municipalities informal versions and configurations of ward participatory systems
functions.
o e-Government, although larger municipalities are actively beginning to provide on-line
service options, very few if any provides real time on-line voting to gain a measure of
public opinion on issues yet;
o Communication, many municipalities have created communication capacity within the
administration, often linked to the Mayor’s office, to provide a press liaison and
corporate communication service. Almost all municipalities make use of the
occasional news letter, sometimes producing glossy publications to reach
communities. The use of community radio and community news paper media are fairly
widespread and even television, on occasion.
o Customer relations and Citizen Charters, driven by the need to manage
expectations and reflect service delivery accountability municipalities increasingly
establish ongoing customer relations measures. Typical strategies employed by
municipalities include:
o Single window principles (also called one-stop-shops) where a range of services
are combined in one area for maximum convenience;
o Introduction of self-service facilities and electronic services such as payment of
accounts through the internet;
o Providing e-government services, such as on-line rezonings and building plan
approvals;
o Establishment of help desks where all inquiries can be lodged through a single
portal;
o Increasing the number of service points to maximum convenience, either by
literally locating facilities in more areas or simply using shops as additional pay
points for municipal accounts;
Organisation Development Africa
15
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
o Simplification of procedures (Red Tape initiatives) and supporting people making
use of municipal services through pamphlets and help desks;
o Creating call centres through which inquiries and complaints can be lodged;
o Introducing single number facilities for emergency services;
o Appointing an ombudsman to investigate complaints; etc.
Services Charter Building Blocks
Planning
Framework
Spatial Development
Framework
Water Services
Plan
Disaster
Management Plan
IDP
Environmental
Management
Plan
Economic
Development Strategy
Other sectoral
plans
Financial
Framework
Service Delivery
Framework
Performance
Management
Governance &
Accountability
Framework
MTIIF
Tariff Policy
•Package of services
•Service levels
•Service standards
•Equity policy
•Targets and Milestones
•Investment requirements
•Service provision
arrangements
Rates Policy
•KPAs
•KPIs
•Performance standards
•Measurement
•Reporting
•Improvement
Structures
Procedures
Processes
Indigent Support
Framework
Credit Control
Institutional Framework
Organisation
Technology
Systems
3.3
Towards a critique of current participation in practice
3.3.1
Is participation too strongly associated with the development planning process?
Participation, in order to properly reflect its good governance intentions, is not only
something that should be associated with IDPs. Almost all municipalities associate
participation too strongly with their corporate planning initiatives. This trend is exacerbated
by the tendency of NGO’s and development academics to fixate on the application of
participation within the development planning environment. However, in practice
municipalities often have a surprisingly wide array of participatory structures, initiatives and
mechanisms in place. On the one hand municipalities undersell their commitment to
participation while overemphasising its role in development planning, while on the other
hand participation can suffer when exclusively being conducted through the IDP.
3.3.2
A too narrow emphasis upon creating participatory structures?
A plethora of organisations emerged during the late 1980’s and 1990’s to challenge the
legitimacy of the local state by engaging it on issues such as rent boycotts, land release,
housing developments, infrastructure provision and political representation in a variety of
forums. Such forums, in a similar manner to other transitional societies, i.e. Brazil, popular
urban resistance movements became the vanguard of the wider political struggle. In lieu
of legitimate local government, civics, and the forums through which they started to
engage the state, emerged as proxy representative bodies and successfully occupied
Organisation Development Africa
16
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
political space prior to the 1994 election. During the run-up to the lection and immediately
thereafter after, a fierce debate was sparked around the future of civics. SANCO, in
particular, became under scrutiny as widespread reports emerged of conflict with the ANC
on issues of representation.22 The future of the urban resistance movements, in their
pursuance of national political objectives through local political mobilisation seemed
doomed after the UDF’s disbandment. Yet, despite their problems, civics, ratepayers’
organisations, home owners associations, business associations and similar organisations
remained actively part of the scene. They never lost their grip on local issues.
Although the role forums played in the political reforms was transitional in nature, the
culture of this type of participation became entrenched.23 The local state retained forums
as its key vehicle for participation, partly because the ANC retained commitment to the
principle of participative decision-making. In fact, the country became somewhat saturated
with participatory forums as probably the most prevalent participation mechanism. A
councillor once remarked: “when in doubt create a structure”. In some provinces, i.e. the
Western Cape, legislation was passed which, together with national forums such as
NEPAD, created statutory parallel structures to organs of the state. In politically contested
provinces such as the Western Cape, a degree of conflict between the forums and elected
representatives became a predictable result. Heymans anticipated correctly that forumbased decision making would decline as formally elected representative structures
becomes established and gains legitimacy.24 Decision-making has firmly moved back into
the realm of elected structures and forums relegated to play advisory roles.
Yet, the notion that participatory structures needs to be established whenever an IDP
process needs to be rolled out dies hard. The creation of structures as a central approach
to participation remains strong, despite evidence that this type of mechanism may not be
an appropriate response in all contexts.
What then are the problems associated with participatory structures/forums? The creation
of forums creates five important risks:
o Firstly, forums allows elites and special interest groups which have neither
been mandated by election or other means nor having accountability to the
broader community, to exert disproportionate influence in decision making.
The risk is that forums acquire disproportional powers of decision making similar
to and sometimes in addition to elected representatives. Ward committees can
indeed take delegated decisions, despite their unelected status. Political parties
can thus use participation structures as a crude mechanism to legitimise their
actions.
o Secondly, forums run the risk of by-passing and short circuiting the political
system.
The risk is that a strong relationship develops between the
bureaucracy and forum leadership through placing issues to management and
See Friedman and Reitzes, 1995: Democratic Selections? Civil society and development in South Africa’s new
Democracy. DBSA Development paper no. 75. for a discussion of this policy debate.
23 Heymans C. 1994: Forums as statutory bodies? DBSA Policy Working Paper 27.
24 Ibid.
22
Organisation Development Africa
17
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
not councillors. This, indeed, was often the situation prior to the first democratic
local elections.
o Thirdly, forums can very easily become an arena for opposition political
mobilisation.25 The risks are two-fold; firstly a municipally sponsored
organisation can provide a false legitimacy to leadership figures outside council
to undermine elected councillors. This situation sometimes happen subtly, but
often is expressed quite aggressively (and occasionally physically!) by attacking
councillors for not accepting forum recommendations out rightly or for not
participating in forum activities – creating the impression that councils decisions
are subject to forum endorsement. “Popcorn civics” are a common pre-election
occurrence; they pop up before the election to disappear shortly thereafter.
People use the nature of civic organisations to position themselves for
candidateship and election (in one famous incident a political party discovered
that the leader of the civic it elected onto its candidate list represented a civic that
was entirely made up of family members). Forums are political platforms and
they do engage elected councillors between elections in power struggles.
Secondly, the power of forums and community organisations for that matter, is
often not in what they can achieve, but in what they can stop. Forums and other
organisations often use participation to frustrate development, partly to display
power and partly to undermine elected councils. The often experienced risk is
that developments can be seriously delayed without sound reason simply
because organisations mobilise opposition.
o Fourthly, forums do not guarantee social inclusivity and consensus. Forums
cannot, by definition, be gatekeepers of public opinion. The risk is that social
exclusion of marginalised groups can be exacerbated by forums; a problematic
notion in all societies but brought into stark perspective when also confronted by
the need to conduct nation building. It follows that participative structures cannot
be the only mechanism facilitating participation.
o Lastly, participative strictures are incredibly resource, time and energy
sapping. Community empowerment depends for its success on the existence of
the state-community duality and is based on the assumption that a healthy,
mutually beneficial relationship exists between the state and the community.
Ideally this would imply knowledge of agreed roles and responsibilities, adequate
resourcing, sufficient administrative and logistical support, institutional
arrangements conducive to participation and a myriad other elements to sustain
public participation processes. It is reported in the IDP Guide Packs 26 that many
municipalities fail in their participation effort simply because they stand helpless
to formulate a process corresponding to their administrative capability. The risk
is that participatory structures demand and receive so many resources that
development becomes impeded. There is a widely held view that at government
level that too much participation may be considered to undermine the capacity for
development by putting too much strain on resources and institutions, particularly
where mechanisms and structures are not sufficiently institutionalised. This
perspective then argues that there might be too much participation i.e. a point
25
26
Friedman & Reitze.
DPLG: IDP Guide Pack: Guide I, page 46.
Organisation Development Africa
18
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
beyond which community participation becomes self-defeating and fails to meet
broad objectives. A call has been made that this has indeed been the case in the
most recent round of IDPs.
3.3.3
Is participation adequately executed?
It is expected that effective public participation includes at least the following elements:
o allocation of adequate resources to the community participation programme, and
meaningful use of these resources;
o promotion of legitimacy of and public support for policies and programmes of the local
authority; and
o appropriate mechanisms and training to enable members of communities to contribute
meaningfully to the IDP.
The central feature of the participation process in a multi-sectoral, project-based
perspective is a duality between the community and the state, as earlier discussed. Within
this approach, the definition becomes “community participation is a process designed to
increase control over resources and regulative institutions, on the part of groups and
movements of those hitherto excluded from such control” (Abbot, p.31). Stated in another
way, “participation as an active process by which beneficiary/client groups influence the
direction and execution of a development project with a view to enhancing their well being
in terms of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish”. In the
South African context, this would be seen as one of the primary objectives of the IDP
process. However, its success has been variable due to a number of reasons.
Communities can become involved in decision-making processes in the following ways:
o Information-sharing
o Consultation
o Decision-making
o Initiating action
Thus far, there has arguably been an overemphasis on information-sharing and
consultation as the most suitable forms of public participation and a lack of understanding
of the elements needed to engage communities in decision-making and initiating action as
forms of public participation.
It is vital to recognize that by involving communities in the decision-making process around
a project, and giving them responsibility for the ongoing management of the project, a
sense of ownership is instilled, opportunities for wider community contributions are opened
up and the likelihood of long term success for the project is enhanced. Given the
importance of the IDP process, the decision-making component of participation should not
be under-estimated and certainly should not be an add-on but rather be integrated into the
entire participation process.
A major requirement of the participation process is that public participation has to be
coupled with the ability to implement the projects arising from the process. Lack of
financial resources often prevent implementation of the objectives of IDP, resulting in a
Organisation Development Africa
19
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
failure to meet the expectations of many communities. Again, this relates to a lack of
transparency in the participation process due to inadequate involvement of communities in
decision-making processes.
It has long been known that allowing communities to participate in decision-making
processes, especially in relation to budget allocation and prioritisation, requires a
focussed, structured approach. Despite the developmental value embedded in community
centred resource allocation processes, it cannot be assumed to result in more efficient
decisions, rational outcomes and increased development.
From this perspective, public participation is seen as an important tool to facilitate
democratic activities. Ideally, it is used to enhance understanding of the impact of policy
and programmes and promote the development of priorities. However, the use of public
participation in an ad hoc and unstructured fashion often does not lead to the achievement
of these objectives.
3.3.4
Is there too much emphasis on participation?
Because of its political legacy, public participation has been a prominent feature of South
African society for quite some time. But given the nature of current society, there is a
widely held view that at government level too much participation may be considered to
undermine the capacity for development by putting too much strain on national resources
and institutions, particularly where mechanisms and structures are not sufficiently
institutionalised. This perspective then argues that there might be too much participation
i.e. a point beyond which community participation becomes self-defeating and fails to meet
broad objectives; participation fatigue sets in. A call has been made that this has indeed
been the case in the most recent round of IDPs. An evaluation of participation processes
will shed light on this situation, although this is not appropriate for the purposes of this
paper.
3.3.5
Who gets to set the agenda?
One strong remnant of the project-based participatory tradition is that communities should
take over control at the project level. A World Bank official’s quote 27 articulates this view
fairly well by stating: “Through participation we lost control over the project, and in doing so
gained ownership and sustainability, precious things in our business”. The need to play a
neutral or value free part in facilitation follows strongly in this tradition. The question is,
acknowledging the need for community control within the project environment, does high
level participatory processes require the same degree of community control? Should
elected representatives not be allowed to articulate and push their electoral mandate by
setting the parameters of the participation process?
In many participation exercises around IDPs communities are engaged without setting a
strategic agenda; in other words, articulating what communities are being consulted about.
As a result a common question is to “tell us your needs” without the moderation of explicit
resource constraints. The implicit assumption is that communities can make a long list and
27
World Bank Participation Sourcebook
Organisation Development Africa
20
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
that the Council will be able to deliver on those demands. One or both of two types of
participative results emerge from this kind of process. Firstly, the community wish-list
becomes so extensive and unrealistic that the council disengage the process and
effectively determine set the strategic agenda through the budget with scant notice to the
IDP. A crisis of expectation then requires management. It is interesting to note that the
City of Cape Town, in a paid radio advertisement, listed not a single issue for which it is
functionally responsible. The entire add, and the expectations it articulated, was depended
on National and Provincial Departments for delivery. Secondly, IDP managers tend to
capture the results of participation process in vague terms and statements of intent without
making explicit budget and without programme links. Typical of the genre are vision and
mission statements about quality of life, safe and quality environments, economic growth
and job creation, being nice place to work, stay and play etc.; but without a single
substantive implementation link. The result lays the foundation of disengagement and
community perceptions of councillor powerlessness that only serves to undermine local
democracy. In some Restructuring Grant processes Councils came to the conclusion that
their IDPs do not actually articulate their municipal strategies at all; it simply articulated the
outcome of some participative process. Allowing control over the participatory agenda to
slip away from elected representatives can easily turn the process of participation into a
mechanistic exercise.
An alternative approach is to recognise that locally elected political representatives have a
legitimate mandate. The process of participation is therefore not value free, but informed
by the policy agenda of the party in power. Participation is then about the best way to
implement such a mandate within the confinement of resource constraints. The operating
question is thus about determining the priorities within the broad strategic agenda and
resource constraints. The strategic agenda of council should thus shape the participative
agenda. This approach breaks the traditional mould of value free deductive participation
and calls for a more inductive consultative method. The agenda should be set by strategy;
the strategy would be weakened if it is expected to emerge from an unfocused
participation processes.
3.3.6
Is participation dealing adequately with increasing institutional complexity?
The notion that the local state only consists of and is responsible to influence matters
under the control of the municipality is under pressure. In realty municipalities influence
decisions and priorities through its own service delivery, but also through arms length
organisations, municipal entities, multi-jurisdictional service structures, utility companies,
section 21 companies and through participation on boards; to name a few. The
institutional environment interfacing with communities at the local level is rapidly becoming
more complex. Do municipal participatory responses adequately reflect this complexity in
creating a conduit for community participation?
Organisation Development Africa
21
ODA Occasional Paper: Public Participation
3.3.7
Are social exclusion and nation building being addressed?
The most important aspect pertaining to participation is arguably the role of the local state
in legitimising itself. On a practical level municipalities have an incredibly important part to
play in creating robust communities as part of the development process. This requires
municipalities to engage head-on with issues of social exclusion
The outcome of the municipal demarcation process created far more complex local
government communities than previously existed. Municipalities now presides over larger
areas with complex rural/urban interfaces, combining several urban nodes in many places
and integrating historically segregated communities, language groups and cultures. The
context within which participation has to play itself out has never been more complex. Do
participative processes adequately address these challenges?
Arguably participation practice still over-emphasizes the legitimization of the local state
and neglect to address issues of social exclusion adequately. In time one would begin to
expect participation to explicitly become more nuanced in dealing with issues of youth, the
aged, women; but also with racial, political and language minorities. South Africa never
was a mono-cultural society. Now the need to reflect a wider emphasis on inclusiveness
that extend beyond the majority constituencies of the ruling parties to also cover opposition
supporters, immigrants and other groups without a voice in formal government. This will
be the challenge for the future.
The current emphasis on a basic needs approach in municipal developments may result in
avoidance of the community building aspect of participation. Often programmes are turned
into a series of physical development projects with a quantifiable output which may lose
sight of the softer issues and other external forces (Abbot, 1996:p.29). It has been argued
that this has been a feature of the IDP process. Given the need for adequate conditions to
facilitate public participation, it is important to note that the approach must be appropriate
for specific situations if it is to succeed.
4.
Conclusion
Participation is a simple concept, but on closer analysis can drown in complexity. In this
paper awareness of some of the complexity in participation is exposed without loosing
sight of the practicality. Participation is rapidly becoming embedded in the culture of local
government and local political engagement. It is therefore to be expected that the
implementation of participation is set to improve and become increasingly more
sophisticated. Awareness of pitfalls, current weaknesses and best practices can only help.
Organisation Development Africa
22