NADEL

5 May 2000

Municipal Systems Bill - Public Hearings

Comrade Chairperson, on behalf of Nadel, Sangoco, Foundation for Contemporary Research and Sanco - Langa Branch, I wish to thank you for granting us this opportunity to make this oral submission on the Municipal Systems Bill. This bill, for us, represents a step towards making local government operational. This bill comes at a time where there is a need to provide mechanisms that will seek to entrench democracy and improve service delivery. The gap between the poor and the rich is being widened as more people are losing their jobs in an alarming rate. This scenario is directly contributing towards poor payment of services by poor communities.

The systems at local level are also collapsing and this has led to massive outsourcing of service delivery. The inadequate allocation of equitable share and shrinking of community base’s economic viability is contributing towards the destabilisation of local governance. The systems bill, for us, must take this and other considerations and must seek to improve the socio-economic conditions of communities. This bill should strive to realise the goals of developmental local government which underpin the Local Government Transitional Act (Second Amendment).

This bill should be grounded on the principles of developmental local government, which emphasise effective and efficient service delivery and public participation. These two are the features that are dominant within the global agenda that focus on governance and development. We, therefore, have a responsibility to map out a process that will lead to the construction and development of our municipalities. Most of our municipalities are in a state of decay and communities have lost confidence in these institutions of governance. Democracy is at stake and it needs to be protected at all costs. It is upon the basis that we make this submission on the systems bill. Our contribution focus on the need to realise the goals of community participation and social development.

Enabling Legislation

We accept the principle of having an enabling legislation, in which the goal is to create an environment that enables local government to work towards fulfilling its developmental mandate within its capacity. For us, this capacity is not narrowly defined to mean ability of councillors to champion the intentions of legislation and fulfil their responsibilities in a secular way. In contrast, it means the availability of skilled individuals within communities and commitment of communities to work together with the council so as to realise council goals. It is our feeling that there is not enough in this enabling legislation to address the question of what happens where the local government does not have the capacity to be developmental. And the fact of the matter is that, there are less than 30 (out of 300) municipalities, nationally, that meet the requirement of capacity - as defined in government documents - for the purpose of delivering services.

Chapter 3 - Public Participation

Public participation is a concept that was introduced to government through the Reconstruction and Development Program. From its introduction stage to the present era it has appeared almost in all pieces of legislation that have a direct bearing on public realm. Public participation is carelessly used to refer to council informing communities about certain activities. It has also meant, to some councils, involvement of communities in drawing u a ‘wish list’. The concept, globally, has developed to mean more than that. This development has been informed by the struggles waged by the poor against the privileged class, which have necessitated the involvement of poor communities in decision-making.

Research studies that have been conducted by Nadel and other research organisations, nationally and internationally, have proven that ‘token’ participation does not contribute towards social development. It is only through genuine participation of the poor that projects and programs that with focus on development become sustainable. This bill must therefore encourage the direct involvement of citizens in decision making. Participation should not be reduced to consultation as the latter is not equivalent to the former. This chapter should have an intention to introduce systems that will entrench democracy and public involvement in all policy matters. It is upon these basis that we make the following recommendations.

Recommendations

1. Section 2 must be deleted as it is subject to abuse by the council.

2. There must be a definition - minimum definition - of what public participation means for all councils so as to ensure even development.

3. The line reading; ‘except when time constraints make it impossible’ in section 10(b) be either deleted or defined.

4. All section 11 clauses - dealing with the right of council to exclude the public - be deleted as they are unconstitutional. For us that section refers to meetings that deal with matters of policy, as the public cannot be expected to attend meetings that deal with technical business of council.

5. There must be mechanisms that are put in place to capacitate the public so that it could participate effectively. These include, for example a civic education organised by council.

6. There is a need to define the role of this bill in addressing the plight of women and rural communities. These are sections in our population that need more attention from council.

Chapter 4 - Integrated Development Planning

We, at Nadel, are in a process of concluding our research on IDPs and community participation. There are many issues that are already evident in this research that we expected the bill to address. The first one, relates to the conceptualisation of IDPs by different councils. It should be noted that councils have decided to define IDPs in a manner that suits their individual interests. In most cases it is only used as a mechanism to solicit funding from the provincial and national government. We have observed that approximately 80 percent of existing municipalities have not drawn their IDPs and neither understand what they are all about.

Those that have been fortunate enough to draw their IDP documents are far from making them their actual planning tools. This is due to many factors, of which some of these include the outsourcing of IDPs, refusal of councillors to be part of IDP process as they view it as the responsibility of Planning Department, and lack of clarity about the relationship between IDPs and council’s daily activities.

The research that we conducted in the Eastern Cape, at Amatola District Council, has exposed that only leaders have knowledge and were involved in drafting IDPs and the communities were not directly involved and no report back was given to them. The IDPs that exist have costed municipalities millions of rands to draft as they used the expertise of ‘so-called’ experts. These documents today are part of ordinary papers lying on councils’ files that will never be attended to. We, therefore need to introduce systems that will transform this situation. It is our responsibility to facilitate the process of realising the goals of developmental local government.

We need an IDP that will integrate all the stakeholders - from national departments to an unemployed women in rural areas - and resources so as to build sustainable development. The IDP represents one of the progressive objectives that seek to improve the conditions of the poor by involving them in identifying, prioritising, planning, implementing, monitoring and financing of developmental projects and programs. The councillors have to realise that they are not only accountable to political parties but to communities that they are serving.

Recommendations

1. An IDP Council -constituted by council and all stakeholders at local government level- should be formed to play a central role in the IDP process.

2. This IDP Council should co-exist parallel to the executive committee of council to ensure effective checks and balances and monitor the process.

3. Section 24 must read: Each municipal council, after consultation with communities, must...

4. Section(s) 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the 1999 draft systems bill be included as part of this bill as they discuss participation in relation to the process. The provisions of this 2000 bill are vague and less committing.

5. Section 27 and s29 of the 2000 bill must include the submissions of a copy of the IDP to communities.

6. The bill needs to insert clauses that provide for the participation of civic associations and Non-governmental organisations on most matters of council . These two structures are playing a pivotal role towards social development.

7. The bill needs to discourage the outsourcing of IDP drafting to consultants as that proved too costly and anti-social development.

Chapter 6: Performance Management

1. There must be an inclusion of key role players in performance management, as per the provisions of the 1999 last draft bill.

2. The bill needs to define the actions to be taken if set standards are not met by council.

3. It must explain how will this performance management system link up with IDPs.

Code of Conduct

Councillors are brought to office through the party ticket but with the intention of serving communities that have diverse interests. It is upon this grounding that councillors have to be firstly accountable to communities before they account to their parties. It is the communities and not parties that provide resources and job to councillors and they need to be given a preferential treatment and respect. Most councillors have disregarded their communities and have acted in contrast to what communities desire. And they have in return gone without being punished. It is the responsibility of this bill to protect the communities against any form of abuse.

Recommendations

1. The bill must clearly provide how councillors will be held accountable by communities. For example, to what extent do communities have a right and power to recall councillors who are not delivering.

2. Councillors, at a Ward level must convene a community based forum at least once a quarter.

3. The council must convene, at least, one broad forum in the first semester (January to June).

4. The council must convene an annual meeting where it will give a yearly report and account for its activities and provide a proposed plan for the oncoming year and refresh its mandate.

5. All the resolutions of disciplinary hearing at council be published for public knowledge.

6. There is a need to define the role of communities in drafting, adopting and monitoring the application of the code of conduct.

Conclusion

Comrade Chair, it is our belief that if these and other submissions made by respective organisations during this process are taken seriously our intentions to develop our communities will be realised. The systems bill has to eliminate all the vagueness that could subject it to abuse by those who are anti- development. Our research has taught us that most councillors are anti- community involvement as they view this as a threat to their status quo. We have also observed that our communities are not informed about council activities, whilst they have displayed willingness to be part of council. We have to move away from community participation as a rhetoric into making it a reality.

Thank you.

Drafted by:

Major Kobese

Nadel-Human Rights Research and Advocacy Project

Cape Town