2006 Local Government Manifesto
Inspiring Delivery: The Independent Democrats Pledge
The Independent Democrats maintain that all communities in South Africa
should have access to quality social services and infrastructure, live
in safe, healthy and environmentally sound local communities and enjoy
secure employment. The key to successful local governments depends on a
multi-pronged approach that strengthens the capacity of municipalities
to deliver whilst increasing oversight and accountability of our local
leaders. Above all, the success of local communities rests on a new
perspective in the way South Africa envisages successful local economic
development. This policy document presents a range of solutions that
focus on empowering our municipalities whilst removing obstacles and
challenges to efficient and effective delivery and development.
The Context of Local Government
Local government is the ‘delivery arm of government’. The Constitution regards local government as a distinct and important sphere of government and has enhanced its status to be the primary instrument of state delivery of essential services and resources to South Africa’s citizens. The Constitution assigns local government executive powers over the following: air pollution, building regulations, child care facilities, electricity and gas networks, fire services, local tourism, municipal planning, health, public transport and public works, storm water management, trading regulations, water and sanitation services.
To ensure the delivery of basic services to citizens, local government has been vested with powers to spend public funds and award tenders and contracts to the private sector (public-private partnerships are regulated by the Municipal Systems Act, No. 32, 2000). Municipalities possess significant powers to corporatise their services, establish utilities for service delivery, and enter into partnerships with other service-providers. National government has also financially empowered local government in recent budget allocations to carry out its role effectively.1
Moreover, the system of local government is designed to act as a developmental vehicle for local communities in order to promote local economic development and address the challenges of poverty and inequality, the lack of infrastructure, HIV / AIDS and ensure general improvements in the quality of life for all. Municipalities are therefore regarded as the foremost development agencies within the governmental system.2 The concept of a ‘developmental local government’ is provided for in both legislation and the Constitution. 3 The Municipal Structures Act embraces the vision for local government as a developmental organ when it describes local government in its Preamble as of ‘fundamental importance to democracy, development and nation-building’ in South Africa. Local government is therefore intended to promote and encourage social and economic development among local communities.
A host of legislation and policies have been enacted to help the institution of local government prioritise delivery of basic services and deal with the numerous socio-economic and developmental challenges.4 Reforms aim at transforming previously racially divided local authorities into single and united municipalities; rationalizing the local government sphere and turning municipalities into effective and efficient service-oriented entities. Furthermore, since municipalities are ‘closest to the people’ they should also promote democratic participation directly with communities, be community-focused and democratise development.
Local government is undoubtedly unique – it is the only sphere of government that has a mandate to bring together a variety of sectoral issues in one developmental programme and be the primary vehicle for local development and the sustainable delivery of services to our communities. It is therefore vital that local government works and can deliver to all communities effectively.
Yet local government faces a growing dilemma: while municipalities are regarded as the key delivery vehicles they are currently the weakest sphere of government, lacking both the resources and capacity necessary to meet developmental and socio-economic challenges. At the same time, the functions and responsibilities that local government is required to undertake, as listed in the 1996 Constitution, have been increasing in number and have become more complex. With new functions and responsibilities applicable to a range of public services being added, both through assignments and delegations from the provincial and national sphere and through new legislation, municipalities face the added challenge of meeting multi-faceted developmental objectives for the state. And despite the political and institutional reforms that have taken place since 1994 many local authorities still face severe capacity constraints and institutional weaknesses in delivering basic services effectively and efficiently. Municipalities are therefore confronted with the task of not only extending the quantity but also improving the quality of basic services.
The Independent Democrats Alternative Vision of Local Government: Bringing the developmental state back
To date the government’s policy of extending essential services and addressing poor living conditions experienced by the majority of South African households has focused primarily on local service delivery models that emphasise a minimal role for the state. This is due partly to the slow process of transformation and capacity building at municipal level but also to a significant shift in political and ideological thinking globally on the role of the state in the provision of basic services. A framework of policies, regulations and incentives have recently been introduced to encourage other nongovernmental or non-state actors with the necessary institutional capacity, technical expertise and financial resources to get involved in the direct provision of services. The increased use of non-state actors has led to many types of partnerships (ie public-private, public-public, etc) being introduced by local authorities throughout the country to try to improve the quantity and quality of services being delivered in their jurisdictions. The shift towards public/private partnerships in South Africa has therefore to some degree addressed the tension between the need to extend and improve the quantity and quality of services to the poor and the inability of the state to do this task.
However, this shift has not gone uncontested and with good reason. While efficiency and sustainable fiscal practice are characteristics that private sector partners can bring to service delivery, South Africa has also experienced some negative spin offs, such as a lack of equitable access to services, particularly as a result of the complete passing of responsibility to the private sector. Critics dispute the benefits of full privatization and even public-private partnerships, particularly the notion of municipalities ceding service delivery responsibilities to independent providers. This is because they maintain that the socio-economic rights and entitlements of the poor will be compromised by commercially oriented service providers concerned only with profit making.5
The Independent Democrats believe it is time to consider a shift in the way government defines its role by exploring a wider range of alternative service delivery options that entail a more involved (and interventionist) state, where service delivery arrangements are properly regulated by the state.
A number of key issues arising from a withdrawal of state responsibility over service delivery are of serious concern to the Independent Democrats:
1. The implications of the ‘cost recovery approach’ on poor households, in terms of cut-offs from basic essential services, evictions and the installation of tricklers.
2. The unfair treatment of indigents and the infringement of their rights to free amounts of water and electricity and other basic services.
3. Higher user fees in poorer areas, where costs are inflated to cover infrastructural costs.
4. Corruption opportunities that arise from tendering and contract drafting processes.
5. Inflated salaries of private contractors and wide scale retrenchments of public officials.
In addition, the lack of managerial capacity and sectoral and developmental experience in municipalities often means that they are unable to enforce compliance of private sector partners with regulatory frameworks to ensure that service delivery targets are met.
The Independent Democrats understand that given the current constraints and limitations of local municipalities, service delivery arrangements involving the private sector are potentially beneficial and often necessary. Drawing the private sector into partnering agreements must be done in a way that empowers and strengthens local government and does not lead to the abdication of its responsibilities to the people, particularly the vulnerable and poor.
The Independent Democrats maintain that while local governments should be the primary implementers of development and service delivery to communities, this should take place within the context of a wider developmental state. The Independent Democrats want the developmental state to prioritize the developmental agenda and intervene to create local economic opportunities. It must influence the direction and pace of economic development through various interventions, rather than relying on the un-coordinated influence of market forces to allocate resources. It is also better placed to concentrate on people-centred development, tackle poverty and inequality whilst providing quality public services to all. Sole reliance on private sector forces only brings temporary relief at best.
Local government is perfectly positioned to achieve a more progressive developmental role but new policies and platforms are required to realise this vision. This manifesto outlines the four main policy areas that will strengthen our municipalities so that they can deliver real local development and better services, whilst democratising and improving the overall institution of local government.
The Extent of the Challenge
One of the main purposes of municipalities is to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner. Service delivery is achieved through the direct provision of a range of services to citizens and businesses by the local authority or indirectly by other public or private bodies and/or through the regulation of external service providers.
However, there is broad consensus that the capacity, resources, skills and systems required to deliver services efficiently and effectively vary dramatically across municipalities. This includes a severe lack of human resources and experience, inadequate managerial skills and technical expertise, and a lack of service-orientation in many municipalities.6 These factors also cause institutional poverty by acting as obstacles to dealing with the huge service backlogs in many poor communities.
Years of restructuring as well as the inheritance of decades of under-investment in infrastructure has meant that many municipalities are in a weak position in trying to manage services sustainably.7 Some metros have large staff compliments while other smaller and rural municipalities serving large areas often have only a few relatively inexperienced officials.8 Moreover, many municipal managers and councillors are still adapting to their new roles and responsibilities.
At the same time, municipalities have experienced a huge transition since 2000, particularly during the new demarcation process, which has attempted to integrate several previously distinct local municipal units. As municipalities struggle to face the huge task of administrative amalgamation this process has also led to huge organisational changes in many municipalities. The entire integration process (of administrative, financial and information systems) has left many municipalities unable to deliver services.9
Furthermore, despite the new developmental mandate local government has been afforded by legislation it has not been accompanied by any substantial financial resources. Many municipalities struggle to raise or generate sufficient revenue to meet their service provision and developmental objectives.
Municipalities in South Africa on average generate about 86 percent of their income from their own revenue sources by trading services such as electricity, water and sanitation, with property taxes making up another significant portion, while around 14 percent of municipal budgets consist of national and provincial transfers to municipalities. However, some municipalities in poorer areas of South Africa can be dependent for over half of their budget (up to 92 percent) on allocations from national revenue.10 Usually the same municipalities face non-payment for services rendered which means that they cannot always raise required capital to reinvest and provide services. They therefore face a fiscal crisis and problems in extending economic development to the previously under-serviced areas. In addition, the transfer of funds from national to local level has been insufficient to deal both with backlogs as well as the delivery of a wide range of services. Inefficient services, in turn, have caused many communities to refuse to pay for these services, acting in tandem with the general lack of affordability among poor households.11
Despite the capacity and resource-based variations and the effects of demarcation, all municipalities are expected to undertake and deliver the same range of functions!
It is within the context of these continuous difficulties confronting local authorities that public-private partnerships have been touted as the answer for increasing service delivery efficiencies. Yet, the experience of private sector participation in the delivery of essential services has not had a very successful track record in South Africa.12 Firstly, most South African local authorities are not ready to adequately regulate or monitor the private sector in the delivery of essential services. Secondly, the corporatisation of water and electricity has led to financial losses and insufficient attention to maintenance, which raises issues regarding council oversight. Moreover, balancing cost recovery with extending equity to impoverished households has made it difficult for local authorities to meet their constitutional obligations. As the Centre for Policy Studies states,
“The weak capacity of local authorities to monitor contracts leaves them vulnerable to the commercial risk incurred by the private sector as well as to meeting their constitutional obligations to deliver services to all.”
The ID recognises the myriad of complexities and challenges that municipalities face, which is why ID’s first priority is to enhance their institutional capacity, and thereby their ability to deliver services. The ID believes that institutional failures that affect the delivery of essential services at a local level are unacceptable – they undermine the developmental role and objectives of local municipalities; they breach constitutionally enshrined socio-economic rights, and place an additional burden on the lives of poorer communities.
Essential basic services should not be regarded as commodities or as an unaffordable but necessary state expenditure. Instead, free or affordable access to basic services must be regarded as the engine for development and growth. Essential public goods cannot be measured by their ability to spurn profits as they are also resources for development and hold wider socio-economic benefits and lead to social sustainability.13
ID Solutions
State regulation versus cost recovery
The Independent Democrats maintains that the final mandate or accountability for basic services must rest with the state. This means that basic municipal services should be provided for or managed by the state.
Privatisation of essential services is a threat to the poor, as it can lead to higher tariffs for the poor and a decrease in the quality of services.14 Cost recovery models are flawed in that they employ narrow accounting methods. Full cost recovery is paramount and necessary if the private sector provides basic services to the poor because profit maximisation is their goal. The primary objective of the state, however, is not to make a profit and can therefore deliver services more affordably. Profit seeking motives also mean that services will not be provided to those who cannot afford to pay. This leads to evictions and cut offs, constituting a fundamental violation of human rights and in some cases unconstitutional actions. ID also believes that cost recovery models only include direct financial costs in their analysis leaving out many of the less tangible but equally important costs and benefits of service delivery, such as gender equity, health, safety and the environment. Accounting for all the social and environmental costs would substantially change the cost recovery equation.15 A prime example of this is the water cut off in KwaZulu Natal, which led to a Cholera outbreak requiring millions of Rands being spent to deal with it – whereas it would have been cheaper to simply provide free tap water in the first place. Diarrhoea and other waterborne diseases continue to cost the state millions in healthcare.
The Independent Democrats calls for more focus and attention to be paid to alternative service delivery models that can meet both the constitutional obligations of servicing the poor and indigents whilst continuing to provide quality services in a financially sustainable manner. As conditions and contexts differ in each municipality, it is important that flexibility is shown in terms of the precise service delivery model that is utilised.
Public/public partnerships (PUP’s)
There has been very little attention paid to the value of public/public partnerships (PUP’s) as a viable service delivery alternative. However public sector models have been touted as a better option for South Africa because they are better able to integrate equity issues into the institutional design of a partnership rather than private sector models.16
Most local authorities struggle with the difficulties in balancing equity principles with the need to recover costs in order to provide services sustainably. In terms of service delivery options, privatization or public/private partnerships tend to prioritize cost recovery principles while a public/public partnership can put greater emphasis on equity issues with the recognition of the wider social and public benefits that come with access to essential services regardless of ability to pay.
ID believes however, that a few issues need to be resolved in terms of the public sector model such as ethically sound cost-recovery mechanisms that do not disenfranchise poorer households (cut-offs and tricklers); ensuring that on-going contracts continue to attract support from new councillors after an election, and lastly, capacity building where capacity must come from the process of partnering. This puts the local municipality in the position of choice to take over the task at a later stage or manage and oversight a partner.
Subsidies for poor households
It is clear that the full costs of basic service provision are unaffordable to poor households across South Africa. This means that if services are to be made accessible to the poor, further subsidies are required.
In 2001, the national government unveiled the Free Basic Services (FBS) policy whereby municipalities would have to subsidise and provide a free basic level of service to poor households. The provision of FBS to poor households requires massive service extension, especially in rural areas, and the creation of subsidy pools within municipalities. Yet, many subsidy pools are limited across poorer municipalities, which impacts negatively on their ability to provide free or affordable services.
The ID calls for improved access to free basic services and a more equitable pricing system for the poor in both their infrastructure and operating dimensions. These services should be financed through subsidisation plus increased taxes and transfers from the national and provincial spheres of government. This includes cross-subsidisation, where large-scale users will be required to pay more than small-scale users to ensure the expansion and upgrades of services for everyone.
The ID also supports a number of alternative solutions to ensure financial sustainability when providing services to poorer communities.17
These measures do not affect the competitive edge of the market economy nor do they detract from municipal objectives to attract private sector investment. Instead, they are designed to compliment such initiatives by ensuring that local communities and their municipalities are empowered and are therefore able to add value to local economic initiatives.
Increasing Free Basic Services
The ID will double the amount of free basic water and electricity – ID believes that the current level of free basic water and electricity is inadequate to meet the needs of poor households and the current free allocations per household per month should be doubled to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) standards.
Water: while the minimal amount of water of 6kl to poor households is a very important beginning studies show that 6kl of water per household per month offers little financial respite and is insufficient for indigent and low-income households, which normally house a relatively high number of occupants.19 Several studies have effectively called for a doubling of the minimum level of water per month to 12kl, which is part of the RDP medium term framework and is in line with the World Health Organization recommended lifeline limit.20
Electricity: the free 50-60 kWh per household per month will provide some financial relief but again it is insufficient, especially for larger families who are poor, as it will only run a light bulb and a few small appliances for one month.21
Indigency Policy
The ID believe that how Free Basic Services are targeted and rationed in terms of a national Indigents Policy is a key concern for the next five years. To ensure all indigents have access to free basic services by 2012 it is crucial that all local municipalities adopt procedures that are accessible to the poor. Key challenges that must be dealt with as a matter of urgency include establishing a working definition of an indigent that can be applied nationally and that ensures access to a minimum Free Basic Services threshold, and the establishment of functional local registers.
Capacity-building
The lack of capacity is identified as a crucial block in service delivery with many municipalities dealing with sectoral functions in an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion.22 The ID will create a support system for municipalities to enhance their institutional capacity to deliver services, which is outlined in the next section. ID believes that these changes will lead to more effective and efficient municipalities that are able to deliver to the people and bridge the divides that still exist in our communities.
The Extent of the Challenge
The system of local government is designed to act as a developmental vehicle for local communities. The concept of a ‘developmental local government’ is envisaged in both legislation and the Constitution.23
Integrated Development Plans [IDP’s] are meant to provide each municipality with a single, inclusive and strategic multi-sectoral plan that guides and informs all decisions with regard to management and development in that municipality.24 Although most municipalities now possess such a plan several problems exist. The quality of IDP’s vary enormously across municipalities. Second, municipalities lack the capacity to implement them.25 Third, IDP’s are often not financially or operationally viable.26 In addition, new legislation requires sector development plans for water services, transport and waste management to link into IDP’s, which further complicates their implementation. Moreover, municipalities are also mandated to promote local economic development (LED) to create an attractive and enabling environment for investment and economic growth. .
The developmental challenges faced by municipalities are therefore enormous. Unfortunately, despite well intentioned laws and polices many municipalities still fail in this important task, due mainly to the severe lack of capacity in many of our municipalities, but also because little clarity exists over what a developmental municipality should look like.
ID Solutions
For local governments to meet their developmental objectives the level of project management capacity within municipalities must be addressed, as well as the overall design and functions of municipal organisation. In addition, municipalities require a more sophisticated support system.27 The following measures, designed to target capacity-building and support, are proposed:
Prioritise the developmental agenda
Linking the centre and the periphery
Local government must address the challenges of administrative amalgamation to ensure they are connected to their communities in outlying areas in order to implement successful developmental functions. Attention must be given to front-line staff in outlying areas and the creation of strong branch offices to provide outreach and a developmental focus.30
Proper information management, monitoring and evaluation systems
Information sourcing and management is required to implement complex developmental agendas. Local governments require additional computers, hardware, and relevant staff to collect, collate and provide information on baseline conditions and on the implementation and impact of developmental programmes.
Strengthen the role of the South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
To enhance development and improve capacity it is also vital to strengthen the role of SALGA to ensure that it can provide:
Fostering an Interdepartmental Approach
To realise development and capacity-building, municipalities’ relationships with other spheres of government are also important. The ID believes that the entire intergovernmental order must prioritise the developmental objectives of municipal government in order to build municipal capacity and unblock obstacles to development and delivery.
Since IDP solutions depend on improvements to internal management (developmental department and staff) and inter-governmental relations (more budgetary and capacity assistance).31 the measures outlined thus far in terms of capacity-building at local municipalities will help the IDP’s to achieve their goals.
However several additional measures are proposed by the ID:
The extent of the challenge
Local government is characterised by un-funded mandates, destructive turf wars and confusion over who is responsible for delivery and development. Some also argue that local government needs to be redesigned to accommodate the increasing responsibilities of meeting the people’s needs.32 These key budgetary and organisational issues also hamper the operation of municipalities to meet their delivery and developmental objectives.
ID Solutions
More Funds for Local Government
The ID will change the national funding formula to ensure that municipalities have the money to implement their mandates.
Currently there is insufficient money for local government’s new developmental mandate to provide IDP programmes and projects, and development personnel and branch offices. Funding should cover general development capacity and sectoral support.33
The adequacy of each equitable share allocations for individual municipalities depends on the accuracy of the data applied in the formula for each municipality. It is, however, clear that many municipalities do not have such data or struggle to assess the cost of basic service delivery and infrastructure upgrading to be incurred. Therefore the formula (indicators) that is used to determine the equitable share for local government must be reviewed.34
Aligning finance and functions is a priority: Municipalities face serious problems when they are allocated functions without having the powers to raise revenue to cover the cost of providing the service associated with the function. With increasing functions and responsibilities the fiscal framework should ensure that municipalities receive the additional funding from national revenue that they need with respect to the costs of basic service delivery, taking into account the revenue that they can raise themselves. For proper functioning of local government, the adequacy of funding will be critical and needs to be carefully analysed and monitored for each municipality.35 The misalignment of functions and finance may occur for a number of reasons.36 Usually it occurs when an activity or function is delegated or assigned to a local municipality without the allocation of (sufficient) funds/finance. Municipal policing is an example. The solution to these misalignments lies in improvements in the way assignments are made and in an equitable share policy.
Redefining Powers and Functions of Local Government
The Extent of the Challenge
Local governments are not only delivery vehicles. They are also political systems in their own right and act as a means through which citizen’s interests are represented at the local level. Ensuring transparent and accountable government is dependent on effective relations between councillors and officials and strong links between local communities and their municipalities.
Local government has been targeted as the first point of contact by which citizens can engage with government and this philosophy is intended to enhance the capacity of citizens to engage and effectively guide and influence the political process as it applies to their specific circumstances.39 Therefore, effective political representation is essential at the local level. Public participation is important for democracy for two reasons: it strengthens legitimacy of local governance and advances the realisation of socio-economic rights.
Party politics therefore plays an important role in municipal governance. Yet the appointment of candidates for councils based on criteria other than merit or their developmental skills has led to councils becoming arenas for political patronage, factionalism and turf wars.40 Political leaders do not always communicate to local officials which results in confusion. Ward Committees have been created at a local level to close the gap but research has shown that there are difficulties here too, where ward committees are perceived as extensions of the ruling party in that locality.41
The Problem of Corruption
Moreover, a combination of factors has created potential opportunities for political corruption to occur as local government goes through its institutional and developmental transition. The following, for example, are fraught with corrupt opportunities:
The effects of political corruption are likely to be costly in both democratic and socio-economic terms.42 First, any instances of corruption only serve to deepen people’s cynicism of politicians and politics. It promotes distrust in political institutions and undermines the legitimacy of elected local representatives. As a political institution local government is in its infancy and has only recently acquired the Constitutional, legislative and financial provisions to meet its objectives. Instances of political corruption may undermine the trust and credibility of citizens in this important but vulnerable institution.
Second, political corruption can also interfere with the core functions of local government such as the allocation of resources, the stabilisation of localised economies and the redistribution of income. Third, political corruption can result in skewed socio-economic development thereby reinforcing existing levels of poverty and inequality in society.
Public sector corruption is associated with low levels of investment and growth and poor economic performance because it reduces the effectiveness of polices; undermines the efficient delivery of services and creates inefficiencies and inequities in public policy.43
Corrupt activities at local government level can therefore act as a tax on developmental objectives by redirecting resources away from grassroots communities and distorting the allocation and redistribution of resources. Particularly in countries where socio-economic inequality and poverty is prevalent, such as South Africa, the effects of political corruption can have disastrous consequences for these communities by affecting the general socio-economic well being of poorer communities.
The Municipal Structures Act, 1998 complements existing ethics regulations such as the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, 2000 by extending ethics requirements to councillors at local government level in Schedule 5: Code of Conduct for Councillors. Thus, the Act’s purpose is also to act as a watchdog over the conduct of every member of the municipality’s administration and is designed to promote transparency and accountability and expose undemocratic practices at local government through disclosure of financial and other interests. However, a recent study shows that the compliance and implementation across municipalities is slow. This leaves scope for actual conflict of interests to develop and pass unnoticed. It also suggests that councillors themselves are not protected from allegations of corruption that may arise as a result of a lack of disclosure enforcement.44
ID believes that in South Africa public officials are more than bureaucrats meeting procedural objectives and deadlines – their purpose is to improve the quality of life for people, and they should regard themselves and be regarded as the direct champions of the poor. Their purpose is clear: they are constitutionally obliged to assist with socio-economic development.
While popular expectations of service delivery are high there are increasingly signs of public dissatisfaction with municipalities, with many losing credibility since 2000. The ID is particularly concerned about the impact on the legitimacy of this vital but vulnerable democratic institution.
For all these reasons rooting out corruption at the local level is a priority for the ID.
ID Solutions
Take politics out of local government
Root out Corruption and hold leaders accountable
Increase genuine public participation
Inspiring Delivery in our Communities
The Independent Democrats believes that the policy changes in this document will lead to a strengthened local government sphere that is able to truly deliver on the needs of South Africa’s people. This will form an important component in realising ID’s vision of bridging the divides in South Africa. Our vision is one where communities are empowered to drive their own development and where the needs of the most vulnerable in our society are met. In particular ID will ensure that every community is able to enjoy:
* Housing – The backlog on housing will be reduced as a matter of urgency.
* Water and Sanitation – ID will ensure that people are given quality access to these services so their health is not compromised.
* Electricity – Blackouts will be reduced and ID will ensure new renewable generation options are explored.
* Waste – ID will ensure that our waste is reduced and disposed of in an environmentally sustainable way.
* Local Economic Development – ID will ensure that economic development takes place in an equitable manner and meets the needs of all South Africans.
* Community Tourism – The benefits of tourism will be spread to all our communities.
* Transport – ID will direct resources at improving the public transport system to make it safe and accessible to all.
* Environment – ID will place emphasis on greening our communities and providing public spaces where people can come together.
* Policing and Security – ID will increase the security presence in our communities so as to make them safer particularly for women and children.
* Health – ID will provide more clinics in under-serviced communities.
The challenges facing local government and our communities are great and should never be underestimated. The Independent Democrats is committed, however, to working with all the people of South Africa to ensure that we build strong communities and bridge all of the divides in this nation.
The Context of Local Government
Local government is the ‘delivery arm of government’. The Constitution regards local government as a distinct and important sphere of government and has enhanced its status to be the primary instrument of state delivery of essential services and resources to South Africa’s citizens. The Constitution assigns local government executive powers over the following: air pollution, building regulations, child care facilities, electricity and gas networks, fire services, local tourism, municipal planning, health, public transport and public works, storm water management, trading regulations, water and sanitation services.
To ensure the delivery of basic services to citizens, local government has been vested with powers to spend public funds and award tenders and contracts to the private sector (public-private partnerships are regulated by the Municipal Systems Act, No. 32, 2000). Municipalities possess significant powers to corporatise their services, establish utilities for service delivery, and enter into partnerships with other service-providers. National government has also financially empowered local government in recent budget allocations to carry out its role effectively.1
Moreover, the system of local government is designed to act as a developmental vehicle for local communities in order to promote local economic development and address the challenges of poverty and inequality, the lack of infrastructure, HIV / AIDS and ensure general improvements in the quality of life for all. Municipalities are therefore regarded as the foremost development agencies within the governmental system.2 The concept of a ‘developmental local government’ is provided for in both legislation and the Constitution. 3 The Municipal Structures Act embraces the vision for local government as a developmental organ when it describes local government in its Preamble as of ‘fundamental importance to democracy, development and nation-building’ in South Africa. Local government is therefore intended to promote and encourage social and economic development among local communities.
A host of legislation and policies have been enacted to help the institution of local government prioritise delivery of basic services and deal with the numerous socio-economic and developmental challenges.4 Reforms aim at transforming previously racially divided local authorities into single and united municipalities; rationalizing the local government sphere and turning municipalities into effective and efficient service-oriented entities. Furthermore, since municipalities are ‘closest to the people’ they should also promote democratic participation directly with communities, be community-focused and democratise development.
Local government is undoubtedly unique – it is the only sphere of government that has a mandate to bring together a variety of sectoral issues in one developmental programme and be the primary vehicle for local development and the sustainable delivery of services to our communities. It is therefore vital that local government works and can deliver to all communities effectively.
Yet local government faces a growing dilemma: while municipalities are regarded as the key delivery vehicles they are currently the weakest sphere of government, lacking both the resources and capacity necessary to meet developmental and socio-economic challenges. At the same time, the functions and responsibilities that local government is required to undertake, as listed in the 1996 Constitution, have been increasing in number and have become more complex. With new functions and responsibilities applicable to a range of public services being added, both through assignments and delegations from the provincial and national sphere and through new legislation, municipalities face the added challenge of meeting multi-faceted developmental objectives for the state. And despite the political and institutional reforms that have taken place since 1994 many local authorities still face severe capacity constraints and institutional weaknesses in delivering basic services effectively and efficiently. Municipalities are therefore confronted with the task of not only extending the quantity but also improving the quality of basic services.
The Independent Democrats Alternative Vision of Local Government: Bringing the developmental state back
To date the government’s policy of extending essential services and addressing poor living conditions experienced by the majority of South African households has focused primarily on local service delivery models that emphasise a minimal role for the state. This is due partly to the slow process of transformation and capacity building at municipal level but also to a significant shift in political and ideological thinking globally on the role of the state in the provision of basic services. A framework of policies, regulations and incentives have recently been introduced to encourage other nongovernmental or non-state actors with the necessary institutional capacity, technical expertise and financial resources to get involved in the direct provision of services. The increased use of non-state actors has led to many types of partnerships (ie public-private, public-public, etc) being introduced by local authorities throughout the country to try to improve the quantity and quality of services being delivered in their jurisdictions. The shift towards public/private partnerships in South Africa has therefore to some degree addressed the tension between the need to extend and improve the quantity and quality of services to the poor and the inability of the state to do this task.
However, this shift has not gone uncontested and with good reason. While efficiency and sustainable fiscal practice are characteristics that private sector partners can bring to service delivery, South Africa has also experienced some negative spin offs, such as a lack of equitable access to services, particularly as a result of the complete passing of responsibility to the private sector. Critics dispute the benefits of full privatization and even public-private partnerships, particularly the notion of municipalities ceding service delivery responsibilities to independent providers. This is because they maintain that the socio-economic rights and entitlements of the poor will be compromised by commercially oriented service providers concerned only with profit making.5
The Independent Democrats believe it is time to consider a shift in the way government defines its role by exploring a wider range of alternative service delivery options that entail a more involved (and interventionist) state, where service delivery arrangements are properly regulated by the state.
A number of key issues arising from a withdrawal of state responsibility over service delivery are of serious concern to the Independent Democrats:
1. The implications of the ‘cost recovery approach’ on poor households, in terms of cut-offs from basic essential services, evictions and the installation of tricklers.
2. The unfair treatment of indigents and the infringement of their rights to free amounts of water and electricity and other basic services.
3. Higher user fees in poorer areas, where costs are inflated to cover infrastructural costs.
4. Corruption opportunities that arise from tendering and contract drafting processes.
5. Inflated salaries of private contractors and wide scale retrenchments of public officials.
In addition, the lack of managerial capacity and sectoral and developmental experience in municipalities often means that they are unable to enforce compliance of private sector partners with regulatory frameworks to ensure that service delivery targets are met.
The Independent Democrats understand that given the current constraints and limitations of local municipalities, service delivery arrangements involving the private sector are potentially beneficial and often necessary. Drawing the private sector into partnering agreements must be done in a way that empowers and strengthens local government and does not lead to the abdication of its responsibilities to the people, particularly the vulnerable and poor.
The Independent Democrats maintain that while local governments should be the primary implementers of development and service delivery to communities, this should take place within the context of a wider developmental state. The Independent Democrats want the developmental state to prioritize the developmental agenda and intervene to create local economic opportunities. It must influence the direction and pace of economic development through various interventions, rather than relying on the un-coordinated influence of market forces to allocate resources. It is also better placed to concentrate on people-centred development, tackle poverty and inequality whilst providing quality public services to all. Sole reliance on private sector forces only brings temporary relief at best.
Local government is perfectly positioned to achieve a more progressive developmental role but new policies and platforms are required to realise this vision. This manifesto outlines the four main policy areas that will strengthen our municipalities so that they can deliver real local development and better services, whilst democratising and improving the overall institution of local government.
1: Servicing our communities
The Extent of the Challenge
One of the main purposes of municipalities is to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner. Service delivery is achieved through the direct provision of a range of services to citizens and businesses by the local authority or indirectly by other public or private bodies and/or through the regulation of external service providers.
However, there is broad consensus that the capacity, resources, skills and systems required to deliver services efficiently and effectively vary dramatically across municipalities. This includes a severe lack of human resources and experience, inadequate managerial skills and technical expertise, and a lack of service-orientation in many municipalities.6 These factors also cause institutional poverty by acting as obstacles to dealing with the huge service backlogs in many poor communities.
Years of restructuring as well as the inheritance of decades of under-investment in infrastructure has meant that many municipalities are in a weak position in trying to manage services sustainably.7 Some metros have large staff compliments while other smaller and rural municipalities serving large areas often have only a few relatively inexperienced officials.8 Moreover, many municipal managers and councillors are still adapting to their new roles and responsibilities.
At the same time, municipalities have experienced a huge transition since 2000, particularly during the new demarcation process, which has attempted to integrate several previously distinct local municipal units. As municipalities struggle to face the huge task of administrative amalgamation this process has also led to huge organisational changes in many municipalities. The entire integration process (of administrative, financial and information systems) has left many municipalities unable to deliver services.9
Furthermore, despite the new developmental mandate local government has been afforded by legislation it has not been accompanied by any substantial financial resources. Many municipalities struggle to raise or generate sufficient revenue to meet their service provision and developmental objectives.
Municipalities in South Africa on average generate about 86 percent of their income from their own revenue sources by trading services such as electricity, water and sanitation, with property taxes making up another significant portion, while around 14 percent of municipal budgets consist of national and provincial transfers to municipalities. However, some municipalities in poorer areas of South Africa can be dependent for over half of their budget (up to 92 percent) on allocations from national revenue.10 Usually the same municipalities face non-payment for services rendered which means that they cannot always raise required capital to reinvest and provide services. They therefore face a fiscal crisis and problems in extending economic development to the previously under-serviced areas. In addition, the transfer of funds from national to local level has been insufficient to deal both with backlogs as well as the delivery of a wide range of services. Inefficient services, in turn, have caused many communities to refuse to pay for these services, acting in tandem with the general lack of affordability among poor households.11
Despite the capacity and resource-based variations and the effects of demarcation, all municipalities are expected to undertake and deliver the same range of functions!
It is within the context of these continuous difficulties confronting local authorities that public-private partnerships have been touted as the answer for increasing service delivery efficiencies. Yet, the experience of private sector participation in the delivery of essential services has not had a very successful track record in South Africa.12 Firstly, most South African local authorities are not ready to adequately regulate or monitor the private sector in the delivery of essential services. Secondly, the corporatisation of water and electricity has led to financial losses and insufficient attention to maintenance, which raises issues regarding council oversight. Moreover, balancing cost recovery with extending equity to impoverished households has made it difficult for local authorities to meet their constitutional obligations. As the Centre for Policy Studies states,
“The weak capacity of local authorities to monitor contracts leaves them vulnerable to the commercial risk incurred by the private sector as well as to meeting their constitutional obligations to deliver services to all.”
The ID recognises the myriad of complexities and challenges that municipalities face, which is why ID’s first priority is to enhance their institutional capacity, and thereby their ability to deliver services. The ID believes that institutional failures that affect the delivery of essential services at a local level are unacceptable – they undermine the developmental role and objectives of local municipalities; they breach constitutionally enshrined socio-economic rights, and place an additional burden on the lives of poorer communities.
Essential basic services should not be regarded as commodities or as an unaffordable but necessary state expenditure. Instead, free or affordable access to basic services must be regarded as the engine for development and growth. Essential public goods cannot be measured by their ability to spurn profits as they are also resources for development and hold wider socio-economic benefits and lead to social sustainability.13
ID Solutions
State regulation versus cost recovery
The Independent Democrats maintains that the final mandate or accountability for basic services must rest with the state. This means that basic municipal services should be provided for or managed by the state.
Privatisation of essential services is a threat to the poor, as it can lead to higher tariffs for the poor and a decrease in the quality of services.14 Cost recovery models are flawed in that they employ narrow accounting methods. Full cost recovery is paramount and necessary if the private sector provides basic services to the poor because profit maximisation is their goal. The primary objective of the state, however, is not to make a profit and can therefore deliver services more affordably. Profit seeking motives also mean that services will not be provided to those who cannot afford to pay. This leads to evictions and cut offs, constituting a fundamental violation of human rights and in some cases unconstitutional actions. ID also believes that cost recovery models only include direct financial costs in their analysis leaving out many of the less tangible but equally important costs and benefits of service delivery, such as gender equity, health, safety and the environment. Accounting for all the social and environmental costs would substantially change the cost recovery equation.15 A prime example of this is the water cut off in KwaZulu Natal, which led to a Cholera outbreak requiring millions of Rands being spent to deal with it – whereas it would have been cheaper to simply provide free tap water in the first place. Diarrhoea and other waterborne diseases continue to cost the state millions in healthcare.
The Independent Democrats calls for more focus and attention to be paid to alternative service delivery models that can meet both the constitutional obligations of servicing the poor and indigents whilst continuing to provide quality services in a financially sustainable manner. As conditions and contexts differ in each municipality, it is important that flexibility is shown in terms of the precise service delivery model that is utilised.
Public/public partnerships (PUP’s)
There has been very little attention paid to the value of public/public partnerships (PUP’s) as a viable service delivery alternative. However public sector models have been touted as a better option for South Africa because they are better able to integrate equity issues into the institutional design of a partnership rather than private sector models.16
Most local authorities struggle with the difficulties in balancing equity principles with the need to recover costs in order to provide services sustainably. In terms of service delivery options, privatization or public/private partnerships tend to prioritize cost recovery principles while a public/public partnership can put greater emphasis on equity issues with the recognition of the wider social and public benefits that come with access to essential services regardless of ability to pay.
ID believes however, that a few issues need to be resolved in terms of the public sector model such as ethically sound cost-recovery mechanisms that do not disenfranchise poorer households (cut-offs and tricklers); ensuring that on-going contracts continue to attract support from new councillors after an election, and lastly, capacity building where capacity must come from the process of partnering. This puts the local municipality in the position of choice to take over the task at a later stage or manage and oversight a partner.
Subsidies for poor households
It is clear that the full costs of basic service provision are unaffordable to poor households across South Africa. This means that if services are to be made accessible to the poor, further subsidies are required.
In 2001, the national government unveiled the Free Basic Services (FBS) policy whereby municipalities would have to subsidise and provide a free basic level of service to poor households. The provision of FBS to poor households requires massive service extension, especially in rural areas, and the creation of subsidy pools within municipalities. Yet, many subsidy pools are limited across poorer municipalities, which impacts negatively on their ability to provide free or affordable services.
The ID calls for improved access to free basic services and a more equitable pricing system for the poor in both their infrastructure and operating dimensions. These services should be financed through subsidisation plus increased taxes and transfers from the national and provincial spheres of government. This includes cross-subsidisation, where large-scale users will be required to pay more than small-scale users to ensure the expansion and upgrades of services for everyone.
The ID also supports a number of alternative solutions to ensure financial sustainability when providing services to poorer communities.17
- Ensure that large-scale users pay for their services – In many municipalities there are large scale users who have amassed enormous arrears. ID will ensure that these arrears are recovered so as to ensure the financial viability of our municipalities.
- Introduce more progressive Block Tariffs to ensure they play a meaningful role in cross-subsidisation. The current structuring of tariffs still penalises the poor.18
- Encourage pre-paid technology for bulk users such as large-scale corporate and industry users to generate massive interest income for local municipalities with which to reinvest in local infrastructure.
- Improve the sharing of municipal resources. Currently wealthy areas have better equipment, facilities, and skilled services.
- Demand equity in costs for basic services across municipalities – it is a huge injustice that many poorer areas in South Africa are forced to pay higher prices for their basic services, due mainly to prices reflecting the full capital costs of new infrastructure, which is greater in areas that have been historically underdeveloped.
- A more compassionate arrears policy – While ID strongly believes people need to pay for the services they receive above the free basic level, municipalities will also need to show more compassion in how they deal with arrears, particularly in the context of wide-scale poverty and unemployment.
- Protect our people’s dignity by putting a stop to the Red Ants – ID will ensure that our people are treated with dignity and compassion and that the draconian measures employed by the Red Ants are stopped. ID will also ensure that anyone who is evicted is provided with the constitutional right of adequate shelter.
These measures do not affect the competitive edge of the market economy nor do they detract from municipal objectives to attract private sector investment. Instead, they are designed to compliment such initiatives by ensuring that local communities and their municipalities are empowered and are therefore able to add value to local economic initiatives.
Increasing Free Basic Services
The ID will double the amount of free basic water and electricity – ID believes that the current level of free basic water and electricity is inadequate to meet the needs of poor households and the current free allocations per household per month should be doubled to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) standards.
Water: while the minimal amount of water of 6kl to poor households is a very important beginning studies show that 6kl of water per household per month offers little financial respite and is insufficient for indigent and low-income households, which normally house a relatively high number of occupants.19 Several studies have effectively called for a doubling of the minimum level of water per month to 12kl, which is part of the RDP medium term framework and is in line with the World Health Organization recommended lifeline limit.20
Electricity: the free 50-60 kWh per household per month will provide some financial relief but again it is insufficient, especially for larger families who are poor, as it will only run a light bulb and a few small appliances for one month.21
Indigency Policy
The ID believe that how Free Basic Services are targeted and rationed in terms of a national Indigents Policy is a key concern for the next five years. To ensure all indigents have access to free basic services by 2012 it is crucial that all local municipalities adopt procedures that are accessible to the poor. Key challenges that must be dealt with as a matter of urgency include establishing a working definition of an indigent that can be applied nationally and that ensures access to a minimum Free Basic Services threshold, and the establishment of functional local registers.
Capacity-building
The lack of capacity is identified as a crucial block in service delivery with many municipalities dealing with sectoral functions in an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion.22 The ID will create a support system for municipalities to enhance their institutional capacity to deliver services, which is outlined in the next section. ID believes that these changes will lead to more effective and efficient municipalities that are able to deliver to the people and bridge the divides that still exist in our communities.
2: Developing our Communities
The Extent of the Challenge
The system of local government is designed to act as a developmental vehicle for local communities. The concept of a ‘developmental local government’ is envisaged in both legislation and the Constitution.23
Integrated Development Plans [IDP’s] are meant to provide each municipality with a single, inclusive and strategic multi-sectoral plan that guides and informs all decisions with regard to management and development in that municipality.24 Although most municipalities now possess such a plan several problems exist. The quality of IDP’s vary enormously across municipalities. Second, municipalities lack the capacity to implement them.25 Third, IDP’s are often not financially or operationally viable.26 In addition, new legislation requires sector development plans for water services, transport and waste management to link into IDP’s, which further complicates their implementation. Moreover, municipalities are also mandated to promote local economic development (LED) to create an attractive and enabling environment for investment and economic growth. .
The developmental challenges faced by municipalities are therefore enormous. Unfortunately, despite well intentioned laws and polices many municipalities still fail in this important task, due mainly to the severe lack of capacity in many of our municipalities, but also because little clarity exists over what a developmental municipality should look like.
ID Solutions
For local governments to meet their developmental objectives the level of project management capacity within municipalities must be addressed, as well as the overall design and functions of municipal organisation. In addition, municipalities require a more sophisticated support system.27 The following measures, designed to target capacity-building and support, are proposed:
Prioritise the developmental agenda
- Introduce Developmental Departments – Each municipality must have a development department that coordinates all developmental projects. This would act as a one-stop shop that would ensure that all development projects are given the highest priority in the municipality.28
- Employ Development Specialists – Developmental municipalities need developmental staff with qualifications and experience in development management, or project management.29 Each development department must hire the relevant personnel to manage and oversee projects such as a Head of Development or Project managers.
- Employ competent Municipal managers - Municipal managers must have extensive experience and training in leadership and management skills. Skill and experience in meeting development challenges will be the overriding criteria for the employment of both management and staff in municipalities while current managers should receive extensive training and be evaluated by performance ratings. We will put an end to political patronage employment.
Linking the centre and the periphery
Local government must address the challenges of administrative amalgamation to ensure they are connected to their communities in outlying areas in order to implement successful developmental functions. Attention must be given to front-line staff in outlying areas and the creation of strong branch offices to provide outreach and a developmental focus.30
Proper information management, monitoring and evaluation systems
Information sourcing and management is required to implement complex developmental agendas. Local governments require additional computers, hardware, and relevant staff to collect, collate and provide information on baseline conditions and on the implementation and impact of developmental programmes.
Strengthen the role of the South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
To enhance development and improve capacity it is also vital to strengthen the role of SALGA to ensure that it can provide:
- A platform for municipalities to share ideas and experiences
- A storage bank of information and knowledge
- A site where technical and knowledge resources can be shared across rich and poor municipalities.
Fostering an Interdepartmental Approach
To realise development and capacity-building, municipalities’ relationships with other spheres of government are also important. The ID believes that the entire intergovernmental order must prioritise the developmental objectives of municipal government in order to build municipal capacity and unblock obstacles to development and delivery.
- Provincial and national government must provide more technical advice, policy guidance and training on various sectoral areas.
- Call for increased development grants from national government with a view to building capacity and resources among staff and managers.
- Ensure that all partnerships lead to skills and capacity transfer to local government.
- Integrated Development Plans [IDP’s]
Since IDP solutions depend on improvements to internal management (developmental department and staff) and inter-governmental relations (more budgetary and capacity assistance).31 the measures outlined thus far in terms of capacity-building at local municipalities will help the IDP’s to achieve their goals.
However several additional measures are proposed by the ID:
- Encourage Social Enterprise – ID will seek to institute a model of social enterprise whereby communities will be paid to deliver on essential social needs such as child care, school nutrition and other services. This will lead to both economic and social development.
- Use the mandated annual reports submitted by each municipality to monitor and evaluate the implementation of IDP’s across municipalities
- Develop guidelines to encourage quality (not necessarily content) standardisation
- Bring local municipalities, the local private sector and civil society organisations together frequently to find ways that they can contribute to local development.
3: Improving the Institution of local government
The extent of the challenge
Local government is characterised by un-funded mandates, destructive turf wars and confusion over who is responsible for delivery and development. Some also argue that local government needs to be redesigned to accommodate the increasing responsibilities of meeting the people’s needs.32 These key budgetary and organisational issues also hamper the operation of municipalities to meet their delivery and developmental objectives.
ID Solutions
More Funds for Local Government
The ID will change the national funding formula to ensure that municipalities have the money to implement their mandates.
Currently there is insufficient money for local government’s new developmental mandate to provide IDP programmes and projects, and development personnel and branch offices. Funding should cover general development capacity and sectoral support.33
The adequacy of each equitable share allocations for individual municipalities depends on the accuracy of the data applied in the formula for each municipality. It is, however, clear that many municipalities do not have such data or struggle to assess the cost of basic service delivery and infrastructure upgrading to be incurred. Therefore the formula (indicators) that is used to determine the equitable share for local government must be reviewed.34
Aligning finance and functions is a priority: Municipalities face serious problems when they are allocated functions without having the powers to raise revenue to cover the cost of providing the service associated with the function. With increasing functions and responsibilities the fiscal framework should ensure that municipalities receive the additional funding from national revenue that they need with respect to the costs of basic service delivery, taking into account the revenue that they can raise themselves. For proper functioning of local government, the adequacy of funding will be critical and needs to be carefully analysed and monitored for each municipality.35 The misalignment of functions and finance may occur for a number of reasons.36 Usually it occurs when an activity or function is delegated or assigned to a local municipality without the allocation of (sufficient) funds/finance. Municipal policing is an example. The solution to these misalignments lies in improvements in the way assignments are made and in an equitable share policy.
Redefining Powers and Functions of Local Government
- The two-tier system of local government:
- Assignment and delegation:
- End Conflict between Spheres of government
4: Taking Politics back to the People
The Extent of the Challenge
Local governments are not only delivery vehicles. They are also political systems in their own right and act as a means through which citizen’s interests are represented at the local level. Ensuring transparent and accountable government is dependent on effective relations between councillors and officials and strong links between local communities and their municipalities.
Local government has been targeted as the first point of contact by which citizens can engage with government and this philosophy is intended to enhance the capacity of citizens to engage and effectively guide and influence the political process as it applies to their specific circumstances.39 Therefore, effective political representation is essential at the local level. Public participation is important for democracy for two reasons: it strengthens legitimacy of local governance and advances the realisation of socio-economic rights.
Party politics therefore plays an important role in municipal governance. Yet the appointment of candidates for councils based on criteria other than merit or their developmental skills has led to councils becoming arenas for political patronage, factionalism and turf wars.40 Political leaders do not always communicate to local officials which results in confusion. Ward Committees have been created at a local level to close the gap but research has shown that there are difficulties here too, where ward committees are perceived as extensions of the ruling party in that locality.41
The Problem of Corruption
Moreover, a combination of factors has created potential opportunities for political corruption to occur as local government goes through its institutional and developmental transition. The following, for example, are fraught with corrupt opportunities:
- The process of privatisation.
- Major government projects and programs that involve procurement contracts and the awarding of concession to private companies.
- Local government officials have the power to allocate scarce resources and benefits and impose onerous costs.
- A personnel system based on patronage and political loyalty.
The effects of political corruption are likely to be costly in both democratic and socio-economic terms.42 First, any instances of corruption only serve to deepen people’s cynicism of politicians and politics. It promotes distrust in political institutions and undermines the legitimacy of elected local representatives. As a political institution local government is in its infancy and has only recently acquired the Constitutional, legislative and financial provisions to meet its objectives. Instances of political corruption may undermine the trust and credibility of citizens in this important but vulnerable institution.
Second, political corruption can also interfere with the core functions of local government such as the allocation of resources, the stabilisation of localised economies and the redistribution of income. Third, political corruption can result in skewed socio-economic development thereby reinforcing existing levels of poverty and inequality in society.
Public sector corruption is associated with low levels of investment and growth and poor economic performance because it reduces the effectiveness of polices; undermines the efficient delivery of services and creates inefficiencies and inequities in public policy.43
Corrupt activities at local government level can therefore act as a tax on developmental objectives by redirecting resources away from grassroots communities and distorting the allocation and redistribution of resources. Particularly in countries where socio-economic inequality and poverty is prevalent, such as South Africa, the effects of political corruption can have disastrous consequences for these communities by affecting the general socio-economic well being of poorer communities.
The Municipal Structures Act, 1998 complements existing ethics regulations such as the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, 2000 by extending ethics requirements to councillors at local government level in Schedule 5: Code of Conduct for Councillors. Thus, the Act’s purpose is also to act as a watchdog over the conduct of every member of the municipality’s administration and is designed to promote transparency and accountability and expose undemocratic practices at local government through disclosure of financial and other interests. However, a recent study shows that the compliance and implementation across municipalities is slow. This leaves scope for actual conflict of interests to develop and pass unnoticed. It also suggests that councillors themselves are not protected from allegations of corruption that may arise as a result of a lack of disclosure enforcement.44
ID believes that in South Africa public officials are more than bureaucrats meeting procedural objectives and deadlines – their purpose is to improve the quality of life for people, and they should regard themselves and be regarded as the direct champions of the poor. Their purpose is clear: they are constitutionally obliged to assist with socio-economic development.
While popular expectations of service delivery are high there are increasingly signs of public dissatisfaction with municipalities, with many losing credibility since 2000. The ID is particularly concerned about the impact on the legitimacy of this vital but vulnerable democratic institution.
For all these reasons rooting out corruption at the local level is a priority for the ID.
ID Solutions
Take politics out of local government
- The ID will depoliticise local structures and appointments, particularly key positions that require skills and capacity to drive delivery. People must be recruited and promoted on merit to ensure best management and delivery practises. The deployment of candidates for councils based on criteria other than merit or developmental potential has led to councils becoming arenas for political patronage, factionalism and turf wars. Therefore merit recruitment must replace political patronage.
- Clarify, structure and institutionalise the relationships between the following positions: mayors, elected councillors, senior officials, ward committees and municipal officials; and also between district and local municipalities (at political and official levels).
Root out Corruption and hold leaders accountable
- The ID will identify and introduce a range of performance-based incentives for municipal officials and councillors to remove incentives for corruption.
- Elected officials must both disclose and be held responsible for their actions. The Code of Conduct for councillors will be properly implemented and monitored more stringently by municipal managers to control the private financial interests of politicians. Civil society organisations and the media will be encouraged to assist with monitoring.
- The ID will insist on transparent and competitive tendering practises to ensure contracts are awarded to the most suitable private firms and to ensure that patronage and payoffs do not dominate the award of contracts.
- Enhance oversight and accountability to improve the calibre of performance by councillors.
- The ID will work relentlessly to install a culture of ethics, values, service and professionalism in public life, particularly among their local councillors and officials.
Increase genuine public participation
- The ID will work to empower Ward Committees so as to broaden the representation of voices in a community and to strengthen community participation.
- The ID will encourage greater public participation efforts around the development and implementation of the Integrated Development Plans, particularly by bringing citizens together to consider the relative needs of their communities.
- The ID will hold the local executive branch and municipal managers accountable for ensuring public participation. Traditional leaders will also be more involved in participation and service delivery at the local level.45
- Realising effective democratic public participation relies on the willingness of citizens to engage in political discourse and dialogue with local government. The ID will promote and motivate communities to engage effectively with government officials.
Inspiring Delivery in our Communities
The Independent Democrats believes that the policy changes in this document will lead to a strengthened local government sphere that is able to truly deliver on the needs of South Africa’s people. This will form an important component in realising ID’s vision of bridging the divides in South Africa. Our vision is one where communities are empowered to drive their own development and where the needs of the most vulnerable in our society are met. In particular ID will ensure that every community is able to enjoy:
* Housing – The backlog on housing will be reduced as a matter of urgency.
* Water and Sanitation – ID will ensure that people are given quality access to these services so their health is not compromised.
* Electricity – Blackouts will be reduced and ID will ensure new renewable generation options are explored.
* Waste – ID will ensure that our waste is reduced and disposed of in an environmentally sustainable way.
* Local Economic Development – ID will ensure that economic development takes place in an equitable manner and meets the needs of all South Africans.
* Community Tourism – The benefits of tourism will be spread to all our communities.
* Transport – ID will direct resources at improving the public transport system to make it safe and accessible to all.
* Environment – ID will place emphasis on greening our communities and providing public spaces where people can come together.
* Policing and Security – ID will increase the security presence in our communities so as to make them safer particularly for women and children.
* Health – ID will provide more clinics in under-serviced communities.
The challenges facing local government and our communities are great and should never be underestimated. The Independent Democrats is committed, however, to working with all the people of South Africa to ensure that we build strong communities and bridge all of the divides in this nation.
