State shows its hand on future local government
Mike Sutcliffe, The Mercury, Tuesday, March 10, 1998

Tough measures are needed for councils and ratepayers
Crispian Olver, Business Day, Friday, March 13, 1998

Creative vision for local government
Mark Swilling, Mail & Guardian, March 13-19, 1998

Just make it work
City View, Sunday Times Metro, March 15, 1998

Need for local democracy most pressing
Steven Friedman, Business Day, Monday, March 16, 1998

 

Mike Sutcliffe outlines the main thrust and significance of the ground-breaking White Paper on Local Government
The Mercury, Tuesday, March 10, 1998

WHILE most South Africans would probably recognise that the provision of local government services and facilities was historically, geographically and racially uneven across the landscape of South Africa, not all would agree on strategies and tactics to redress that uneven development.

The White Paper on Local Government is the most comprehensive document yet produced by the government, outlining a framework of developmental governance which seeks to create a framework for delivery, democracy and development at a local level.

These are some of the key features.

Section A suggests that municipalities should follow more closely the boundaries of functional human settlements rather than being simply the composite of administrations which emerged under apartheid.

Of course, such settlements include urban cores, urban fringes, small towns, dense rural settlements, “betterment" settlements, informal settlements, villages, agri-villages and dispersed or rural scattered villages.

Section B outlines the key requirements of developmental local government: to maximise social development and economic growth, to integrate and coordinate all development plans and to democratise the development process.

The White Paper recommends that municipal integrated development plans should become the vehicles through which all governmental plans are coordinated, irrespective of whether or not they are functions of national government (such as water plans) or provincial governments (such as transport).

Section C provides a comprehensive review of what exactly cooperative governance means. National and provincial governments have many roles and responsibilities with regard to local government: ensuring integrated development, promoting cooperative governance, providing regulations, assisting in institutional development and capacity-building, contributing to the municipal fiscus, monitoring and intervening under specific conditions where municipalities fail to perform.

No longer is local government a line function of provincial or national government, but a partner in the nation’s overall quest for peace, democracy and development.

Of course, this is a difficult pill to swallow for those who treat local government like an unwanted step-child of provincial government or the irresponsible grandchild of national government.

Most comment on the White Paper will be devoted to Section D which deals with institutional systems. The white paper envisages two systems: metropolitan and non-metropolitan government.

Metropolitan government is provided with significant powers, allowing it to organise itself administratively and politically. For example, each metropolitan council will be able “to decide on the extent of administrative decentralisation required for each function".

At the same time, metropolitan governments will be able to choose how to organise themselves politically, through either advisory ward committees or metropolitan substructures. The approach adopted will allow for real local empowerment, recognising, however, that metropolitan governance must operate as a single tier in order to ensure there is equitable and socially just governance, strategic land-use planning, a city-wide framework for economic and social development and enhanced economic competitiveness.

In most rural areas, there is almost no existing administrative or financial capacity. Hence, there is a need for an overarching district tier of government, which can act either simply to coordinate developments or to render services where there is no existing capacity.

The vexed question of the relationship of traditional leadership to local government receives significant coverage in the White Paper. The paper notes that a separate White Paper on traditional affairs is under way and will deal more comprehensively with the role and functions of traditional leadership.

In addition, a cooperative model is proposed which suggests that while there will be elected local government in all areas falling under traditional authorities, traditional leaders will have representation on councils.

However, "whether traditional leaders should exercise voting rights alongside the elected councillors, as well as other matters ... needs to be determined after further consultation and research into constitutional provisions”.

The White Paper clearly indicates that municipal boundaries should surround functional settlements and (in case of traditional authorities) take existing boundaries of traditional authorities into account.

Section E deals with municipal political systems. There is strong emphasis on the development of political leadership within municipalities. At the same time, flexibility will be allowed in determining whether executive power should be structured in executive committees or executive mayors.

The White Paper recommends that the existing system combining proportional party and ward representation of councillors be continued, but obviously the existing A and B wards will disappear with all wards being approximately the same size. However, in non-metropolitan areas, councils should be reduced in size to between three and 45 councillors in order to improve efficacy and allow for full-time councillors.

Section F details administrative systems, suggesting a more flexible approach to administration rather than one which simply contrasts the existing local government form of delivery with that of the private sector.

Section G provides the first really comprehensive suggestions regarding municipal finance. When one considers that the 1996-97 budgets of municipalities led to spending of R48 billion (some 21% of SA’s total public sector budget), municipal finance is set to become a major force in the future.

The White Paper covers the areas of restructuring municipal finance in terms of local revenue and policies; recommendations regarding inter-governmental transfers; gearing in private investments; and improving budgeting, accounting and financial reporting systems.

Section H deals with the transformation process. The 1999 or 2000 elections require that the national legislative framework for local government be in place. It ends with an injunction: “Transformation is not a choice - it is an obligation...”

Dr Michael Sutcliffe is an ANC MPL (KZN) and urban and regional planning consultant.

| Top of Section

The current system of local government is failing ordinary South Africans, writes Crispian Olver, deputy director-general of the constitutional affairs department. He looks at what the white paper on local government, released this week, offers the future system
Business Day, Friday, March 13, 1998

THROUGH the consultative process, we have had the privilege to meet and interact with people from all walks of-life in SA. What interests them is not grandiose schemes from government, or complicated institutional models that appeal to politicians and officials, but real improvements in their local services and development in their areas that benefit the quality of their lives.

Our analysis of the current system of local government has revealed some stark realities. Local democracy is not a reality for most South Africans. Many councillors are not accessible. People feel distant from their municipalities, and very few understand the choices made in their municipal budgets. Apartheid and the absence of democracy broke the crucial link that makes residents feel part of local governance and, on the whole, we have not been able to repair it.

That is why one of the central themes of the white paper is the rebuilding of local democracy. Politically, the white paper sets out to bring councillors closer to the people. We propose ward committees, which are subcommittees of councils involving community representatives. The committees will bring local stakeholders closer to the business of local government, and assist the ward councillor to deal with community issues more effectively.

Similarly metropolitan areas with substructures would have ward councillors that represent the interests of ward residents at substructure and metropolitan level. Residents will not have to deal with different councillors in addressing ward issues. They can rely on their ward councillor to fight for their rightful budget allocations at metro level, while securing proper administration of services or amenities at substructure level.

We propose more dedicated, and even full-time, councillors. We propose, too, giving local residents ways of measuring the performance of their councils. Local government will develop a set of performance indicators, measuring different aspects of the functioning of a municipality, and allowing residents to compare their area with other parts of the country on a yearly basis.

Through local integrated development plans residents can interact directly with the strategies their councils are developing and make input into key decisions affecting their local areas.

People want better services and responsive government that listens to them and deals with their complaints. They want the massive inequities of the past systematically addressed, and they want to see their communities progressively develop into decent environments able to meet their educational occupational and recreational needs.

The concept of developmental local government-a logical extension of the constitution's imperative for broadening the social and economic development functions of municipalities - is path-breaking.

It means that municipalities are much more than mere buyers and sellers of services such as water, sanitation, refuse collection and electricity. Indeed many of these engineering services are better provided by special purpose bodies or public-private partnerships. This would free municipalities to focus on integrating the activities of different service providers, including other government departments, to ensure a sustainable and holistic package of development for local residents.

To do this we need simple and effective government structures that are customer orientated, responsive and accountable, and which give ratepayers value for their money.

We have also proposed measures to make municipal finances more transparent. These include better accounting practices, proper reporting on municipal finances, more people-friendly budgets.

The object is not only to give residents a better insight into what their money is spent on, but to enable investors to more easily appraise risk, and hence lend money to municipalities.

These changes are linked to some tough measures. Where municipalities fail to improve service efficiency, they will be forced to bring greater competition into the service delivery process. Where corruption and financial mismanagement occur they will be dealt with swiftly, with full liability placed on the individuals concerned.

Where residents fail to meet their obligations in terms of service payments and rates, they will be cut off and prosecuted. Only in this way can we build a local democracy that works, and will continue working for the benefit of future generations.

| Top of Section

Mark Swilling
Mail & Guardian, March 13-19, 1998

The irony was not lost on Minister of Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development Valli Moosa when he unveiled the new White Paper on Local Government at a ceremony at the Castle in Cape Town this week.

As the fortress that housed South Africa's first colonial local government, it was a fitting venue to announce a policy framework that, if implemented, will lead to the end of our long violent history of race-based local governance.

The alternative model proposed in his White Paper combines a vision of strong, decentralised governance with sophisticated service-delivery mechanisms, a redistributive conception of economic growth, clear planning and performance-management tools, conservative financial provisions and a range of capacity-building suggestions. But, as Moosa pointed out, there is still a long road ahead and he insists that real implementation will only be possible after next year's national and local government elections.

Not many South Africans realise that we have nearly 800 local governments. During the 1996/97 financial year they budgeted for a total expenditure of at least R48 billion, just more than 20% of the country's Budget, or 7,5% of the gross domestic product.

But most remarkable of all is the fact that more than 90% of this revenue is collected from local tax bases. This attests to the high level of fiscal autonomy enjoyed by our local governments compared to those in most parts of the world, where nearly two decades of neo-liberal economic policies have resulted in the virtual decimation of democratic local governance.

It is common cause that our local government tax bases remain racially structured in favour of the developed areas of our towns and cities, mainly because local governments have not found a way of redirecting resources to meet the dire needs of the historically marginalised urban poor.

The drafters of the White Paper had to marry three things: improved democratic accountability, a role for local government in meeting the needs of the urban poor - who are the majority of voters - and the severe fiscal constraints imposed by the government's growth, employment and redistribution strategy (Gear).

The widening inequities that plague the urban system seem to be the primary concern of the White Paper. Hence the attempt at the outset to define what is referred to as "developmental local government".

The four characteristics of a developmental local government are seen as maximising social and economic growth; integrating and coordinating government/business non-profit sector activities; democratising development through empowerment and redistribution; and fostering "social capital" at the local level via a leadership approach committed to learning.

At the service delivery level, the White Paper proposes a wide range of options that thankfully go beyond the limited imagination of the privatisation missionaries. In addition to strengthening existing public sector capacities to deliver, it is proposed that local governments explore options such as corporatisation of existing utilities, public-public partnerships, partnerships with non-profits, contracting out, leases and concessions, and responsible privatisation (what the White Paper coyly refers to as "transfer of ownership").

In essence, the White Paper is telling local governments they must no longer assume that old-style bureaucratic delivery, or new-style simplistic privatisation, will do. Instead, it calls for strategic analysis of the costs and benefits to the fiscus and the citizen of each option given the unique conditions in each sector. This is not surprising given the severe fiscal constraints within which local governments must operate.

The chapter on municipal finance makes this very clear. No radical changes to the existing system are envisaged, other than what amounts to improvements to the way finances are managed. The local tax bases will remain intact and there is a healthy warning against what are referred to as "unfunded mandates" - functions given to local government without corresponding funds to do the job.

The debate about metropolitan government is far from over. Moosa needs to be congratulated for doing what very few developing countries have dared to do: saying that our big cities are important and they must be governed as coherent urban systems.

The White Paper says metropolitan areas must have metropolitan governments and all powers and functions must be lodged at that level. They can be decentralised to ward committees, special purpose committees or even substructures, but the metropolitan level is the point of departure.

This, however, is not what key actors in the Cape Town context have argued for. They argued for a single "integrated tier" which must not be a metropolitan government.

In other words, like quite a few North and South American cities, the city is governed by a multiplicity of smaller local governments who either agree (or are required) to co-operate with respect to matters such as land-use planning, bulk infrastructure and transport. This amounts to voluntary metropolitan governance without the risk of power becoming centralised in a large, distant metropolitan government.

The problem with the debate, however, is that it is about structures. And it is a debate that is heavily influenced by the cataclysmic governance disaster that has beset Johannesburg.

As this author argued in the Mail & Guardian at the time, incompetent boundary decisions by the Gauteng provincial government and fudged decisions about the allocation of powers and functions between Johannesburg’s metropolitan and substructure levels resulted in the creation of five unviable megacities in one city.

However, there is no guarantee that collapsing it all into one metropolitan government is going to work. In theory, Johannesburg is one of the most fiscally, developmentally and economically viable cities in the developing world. There is only one reason it went wrong: the 10 most powerful politicians and officials who run it have failed hopelessly to form themselves into a tight strategic team with a shared vision, clear programme and a functional modus operandi. No structure or policy will resolve this problem if they do not put together a process to resolve this problem themselves.

There are repeated references throughout the White Paper to the need for a new kind of leadership at local government level. Given the levels of corruption, tension and paralysis in local governments, this is a timely call. It will, however, not come from communities or political parties. It will need to be rebuilt once again.

But what goes for "councillor training" today is effectively a mass lobotomisaion aimed at destroying political imagination in order to ensure party discipline. lt's time to build a new generation of critically minded leaders.

| Top of Section

City View, Sunday Times Metro, March 15, 1998

THE long-awaited White Paper on local government was finally released this week by Valli Moosa, the Minister for Provincial Affairs and Constitutional Development.

The White Paper has been the result of intense political discussion about the future shape of local government, and there has been much heated debate over the proposed single-tier city or megacity model.

It is high time that new models for the running of cities and towns be put in place as local authorities across the country battle to survive.

The current two-tier system of metropolitan government in Johannesburg does not work.

In fact, it has failed and brought the city to the brink of bankruptcy.

Services are not being efficiently delivered and there is much confusion over the powers and functions of the metropolitan council and the four substructures.

As local authorities face new challenges, new solutions to new problems are urgently needed.

The White Paper tries to present answers to these dilemmas.

The options presented include some radical proposals to overhaul local councils.

Firstly, a massive reduction in the number of councillors and public representatives is called for.

While this may be one solution to the high costs of the large number of councillors, for Johannesburg it means that the number of elected public officials will drop to 60 - a quarter of its 240 representatives.

However, the question is: will fewer councillors make local government more efficient, more democratic and cheaper?

Will it significantly improve the level of services being provided and increase the number of people who will benefit?

These are some of the issues that will be debated in the public in the next few months before legislation on the White Paper is passed.

The minority political parties have always feared centralisation and the megacity option.

They have called for greater autonomy for the substructures and are opposed to cross-subsidisation across the city.

However, the ANC has touted the megacity model as an end to wasteful duplication of resources and a way to bring local government closer to communities.

There is merit in both arguments, and the White Paper proposals, addressing these concerns, have negative and positive aspects.

It is difficult to see how greatly reducing the number of wards so that one councillor will represent as many as 60 000 people will work, let alone bring local government closer to communities.

But the proposal to have one budget for the entire city rather than four separate ones could allow for a better redistribution of resources - and that must be in the interests of the city.

Johannesburg needs a workable, viable option that is cheap and democratic. The new structure must be affordable and realistic.

If the price to pay is fewer councillors, there will be few complaints, but there must still be room for smaller parties to be represented in the political structures of the city.

In the end, it will be a political decision that will determine how Johannesburg is run. However, the politicians must be warned that there is no time or money for any more mistakes.

| Top of Section

Debate on the megacity concept has obscured concern about other local government issues. Steven Friedman looks at the recently released white paper
Business Day, Monday, March 16, 1998

Do we need local governments which develop our local areas or local governments which represent them?

Both, say the authors of the constitutional development department's white paper on local government. Most citizens would probably agree. However, we will get real development only if we get real representation, and it is still not clear that the white paper promises us that.

The white paper has been largely ignored until now. When it is debated, most discussion will probably centre on the "megacity” issue. Both the lack of interest and the focus on one issue are a pity.

Strong representative local government can offer citizens a vehicle to influence decisions and can improve living standards. While the megacity is important, it is not the only key issue discussed in the paper.

The document acknowledges that local government badly needs change. Most municipalities are ineffective, many have growing debts, and an Idasa survey last year found that citizens hold it in lower esteem than other levels of government.

The paper's solution is a new concept -“developmental" local government. The adjective has a populist ring, conjuring up images of ambitious plans for local redistribution and re-engineering.

This could alarm not only those who feel local government should worry only about the leafy suburbs. It also sounds ominous to those, like me, who fear that its prime task - representing voters - may be lost as it is burdened with ever more tasks by a national government and provinces seeking an elected implementing agency for their plans.

The white paper chapter on developmental local government has much in it to fuel those fears. It lists an agenda for local government including reshaping settlement patterns, poverty alleviation, environmental protection, local economic development and “empowerment” of women and youth.

While these are important tasks for society, it is open to doubt whether they are within the grasp of municipalities, many of whom are still grappling with how to send out bills or, more important, communicate with voters.

A concern that the white paper is peddling a grand co-ordinated plan which will concentrate power, is heightened when it stresses the need for each municipality to adopt an “integrated development plan”.

Closer reading suggests the authors are far more aware of local government's limits - and its chief priority - than these phrases suggest. The plans seem to leave latitude for local government to decide its priorities, taking into account its limitations and the wishes of its electorate.

It is worth asking whether local voters rather than white paper authors should decide whether local government should be "developmental” but, within that, there does seem to be room for local governments to decide.

More than any other official document since 1994, it does take seriously the need for local government to respond to citizens, deepen its roots in the electorate and account for its actions.

Its proposals for an electoral system (the current mix of wards and proportional representation, changed to ensure that membership of the council more accurately reflects party support across the whole municipality) do show a serious concern for representation - including that of women, who tend to lose out in ward systems - and there are proposals for performance measurement and more open budgeting which give citizens opportunities to hold local councillors to account.

The paper also appears to give councils latitude in deciding whether they wish to provide services directly or in partnership with business or local "community” groups.

It is thus an advance on government thinking which has ignored local government's representative role. However, it is far too early to see it as endorsement of local government which will effectively represent - and win the trust of - local citizens.

At this early stage, two issues seem likely to decide this. The first is, yes, the "megacity”. The paper strongly endorses metropolitan government and proposes two forms - the choice is left to the provinces. The first is a single metropolitan council (the "megacity") in which each councillor will be a advised by a ward committee chosen from local voters. The second is a 'two-tier" system in which substructures are creatures of metropolitan government. It will decide their powers and their members will, it seems, not be elected separately.

Even in this option, the bias towards metro government will be far stronger. The argument for metropolitan government is strong. One need only look at some US cities to see the danger of a system in which the poor are unable to benefit from rates paid by the affluent. Ensuring that this does not happen is, as the white paper points out, essential if local governments are to serve all voters.

Nor is this likely to weaken minority parties if the voting system ensures that the outcome of the election accurately reflects voters' party choices.

The logical jump from the argument for metros to the system the white paper proposes seems flawed - and the result may be overcentralised and unresponsive city government.

According to surveys, local government's chief problem is not its capacity deficits - it is that citizens do not trust it, nor do they believe that it responds to them.

This shows that the present wards system is not enough to bind councillors to their voters, but it is precisely that system on which the white paper wants to build the new model. The only change is the “ward committees”, but these would neither have real power, nor would they be elected by voters. It is not hard to imagine councillors setting up compliant committees or ignoring them if they are not preselected.

There is no contradiction between a strong (and small) metropolitan government and a vigorous local council or "borough” system. Nor need this entrench privilege: the Greater London Council, long seen on the left as a successful example of “developmental local government", used just such a system.

While the white paper is worried about "race-based local politics", it is unclear why councillors elected in wards are likely to be less prone to this than boroughs. It will take more than a local government system to end racial politics.

Nor is it clear why municipalities should not choose their own system, if they can show it is non-racial and equitable.

The second worry is the white paper's stress on “co-operative governance" - obligatory co-operation between the three levels of government. While co-operation is a constitutional requirement and no bad thing in itself, there is more than enough in the white paper to suggest other levels of government will take an overactive interest in municipal affairs.

Given this, it remains possible that “developmental local government" will indeed become a slogan which will force local government into roles its voters do not want and implementation of programmes they have not chosen.

Much will depend on how the white paper is implemented - it could open the way for more democratic, responsive local government, but much in the document could be used to shackle municipalities and estrange them further from voters.

We need local development - but the need for local democracy is more pressing. Without it, local government cannot govern or develop. It will take active public debate, and citizens aware of their choices, to ensure that the white paper really is a step towards the local democracy it endorses.

Friedman is director of the Centre for Policy Studies.