Apologies for Minister not being available, cooperative governance may be changed, not scrapped.
We shaped through massive struggles and adroit negotiations an innovative system of cooperative governance. In many respects we broke out of the tired mould of unitary versus federal systems of state, and drew on the best elements of both. But if we are a cooperative governance system, with the three spheres of national, provincial and local government, we are not, certainly, a federal state. Nor can we ever afford to be. It’s just not for us. Not given our nation building, service delivery and development tasks.
But it’s not, either, as if we can afford to be a unitary state with a strong centralised government with other tiers of government being its adjuncts. No, we need a system of cooperative governance, but its precise features may need to change to take account of changing conditions and needs. After all, we shaped our cooperative governance system in a particular context. A crucial part of this was a highly inclusive give and take negotiations process sensitive to a particular balance of forces in our country at the time and the need to secure stability and consolidate our infant democracy. And if it was a highly consultative process, it was also a rushed process.
We are now 13 years later. Are we in the same context as in 1994 to 1996? Are we under the same pressures? Which features of our cooperative governance system should endure and which are contingent, having been shaped largely to meet the needs of a different context? We need a debate about this, a huge public debate.
And our department, the Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs department, will facilitate this. We are finalising a policy paper on the review of the powers and functions of the three spheres of government. This will be taken to cabinet before the year is out.
The ANC, at our Polokwane conference, also took a resolution that we will hold a national summit to discuss the powers and functions of the three spheres. Once the ANC has shaped its policy framework on the powers and functions of the three spheres of government and the cabinet processing of the policy review is finalised, parliament will facilitate public participation. Our Constitution was shaped through massive public participation. We will not change significant features of the cooperative governance system without the fullest involvement of the public.
This talk is offered to facilitate your engagement. They reflect my personal, tentative views. The ANC and government have come to no final conclusions yet, and so I do not express views mandated by either. And as this is an academic forum, I feel freer to express tentative views, and am especially keen to hear your views. I will certainly take them back to Minister Sicelo Shiceka and the department.
Practical, not ideological, imperatives for change
Most of us will probably agree that we are currently in a different context from that of 1994 to 1996. But we may not agree on to what extent this is the case and how this influences the need to review our system of cooperative governance.
However, it’s important for us to carefully examine our cooperative governance system to see what is working and what is not. There are features of the system that may well be mainly the outcome of the need to strike certain balances in the 1994 to 1996 period that are not necessary any more. Yet they contribute to making the system complex and inefficient.
The system of cooperative governance is certainly not working effectively. There is a need for greater coordination and cohesion between and across the three spheres of government, and also between government and the people. We are seeking to shape a developmental state that meets our specific needs as a country. We need to considerably improve service delivery and development. We are under greater pressure than ever before. We simply have to review our Cooperative Governance system and ensure that it is more efficient and effective and more developmentally-oriented.
Huge capacity and resource constraints afflict our country. This too challenges us to review our system of cooperative governance. We face, moreover, a major economic crisis that flows from the global financial and economic crisis. Yes, we have not been hit as hard as other countries, but hit we have been. And just how so is not altogether clear yet. But the signs are bad enough. To better withstand the crisis and manage the global terrain effectively, we need a stronger, more effective state. We need therefore to review our cooperative governance system to take account of fundamental shifts in the global and domestic economic and political terrain.
There are reasons enough for us to now review our system of cooperative governance. But it’s not as if we will make changes lightly or without the fullest consultation with the public. These are not just empty words. After all, there are vested interests deep inside the ANC and the broader alliance in the current system of cooperative governance and we will have to carry most of them if we are to make any significant changes to the system. Just think of the response of our Premiers and Members of Provincial Legislature (MPLs) if we to do away with the provincial system. Or district councillors should we want to dispense with districts. So you can be assured there will be full and robust debate about any changes to the current Cooperative Governance system.
Also we are clear! We are still a developing democracy with the need to consolidate a national consensus and sense of belonging to this country. We need to keep certain crucial balances we struck in the 1994 to 1996 period intact. And we are clear too that the Constitution is the founding document of our new democracy. We will not change it lightly. But at the same time, we, as a people, with our disparate interests, shaped this Constitution. It did not fall from the skies. And we, with our disparate interests, can, through the fullest discussion and engagement, change aspects of the Constitution if it is in our national interest.
But we do not intend to dismantle the cooperative governance system that is at the heart of our Constitution. We are considering changing the form of the cooperative governance system. Essentially, underlying our review of the current cooperative governance system are practical, not ideological, imperatives. Our review is not, as suggested by some opposition political parties and commentators, dictated by abstract ideas of a strong monolithic centralised commanding state, or by a desire to crush the Democratic Alliance (DA) Western Cape or Cape metropolitan governments.
In any case, the first steps to begin a formal review of the current cooperative governance system were taken before the DA assumed power in the Cape metropolitan municipality and the Western Cape government. Our review is dictated by the need for a more developmental, efficient and effective cooperative governance system. The more, indeed, we entrench an effective Cooperative governance system, the more we will build the developmental state, and the more we build the developmental state, the more we will entrench effective Cooperative Governance. There is a mutually reinforcing relationship between effective cooperative governance and a developmental state.
Need for greater coordination of the national sphere
While we have made important strides in securing cooperation among national government departments we still have a long way to go. An unhelpful and wasteful silo mentality still persists. We just cannot afford this. Now more than ever! What with the ravages of the economic crisis! And our commitment to a developmental state!
It is towards ensuring effective cooperative governance and a productive developmental state that government departments were reorganised and the posts of National Planning Minister and the Monitoring and Evaluation Minister were created, and, crucially, located in the Presidency. It is towards these goals too that our department has been reconstituted as a Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs from the old Department of Provincial and Local Government. This is not just a name change. We have, indeed, a new expanded mandate. And a crucial part of this is to work with the Ministers of Planning, and Monitoring and Evaluation to ensure greater coordination not just across the three spheres of government, but within the spheres, not least national government.
Unless we ensure there is significantly greater coordination within the national sphere of government, we will not be able to ensure a substantial improvement in coordination across the three spheres of government, and, indeed, between government as a whole and the people. An important test, clearly, of the new administration of President Zuma will be the extent to which we have achieved more effective cooperative governance as part of a developmental state, for clearly, without this, we will not be able to significantly improve service delivery and development.
Provincial system may be reformed, not likely to be scrapped
Much is being made of the ANC wanting to abolish the provinces. Of course, it’s no secret that we didn’t want provinces before 1994 and gave in on it as a compromise. But the provinces are here now. They’re 15 years old. But the interests entrenched in them; power, turf, material and identity are almost as old as time. Even if we wanted to, we will not be able to easily dislodge the provinces. But we have not, in any case, taken any decision to dissolve the provinces.
Whatever individual ANC and the alliance leaders say, and whatever the interpretations and misinterpretations of this in the media, where is there a Polokwane resolution calling for the dissolution of the provinces? Or where is there such a cabinet decision? The ANC summit on the cooperative governance system has yet to be held. Cabinet has not processed our department’s policy review paper.
Powerful provincial and local government stakeholders in the ANC and alliance haven’t been heard yet. The debate, frankly, has barely begun. In my view, it will not end with the dissolution of the provinces, but a possible reform of the provincial system. And this reform will not be based primarily on ideological considerations but pragmatic ones. It will be directed at ensuring a more effective system of cooperative government that is more consistent with our service delivery and developmental goals for the foreseeable future.
But, of course, we must have an open mind. And we must engage in rigorous debates in the spirit of the give and take process between 1994 and 1996. There are at least the following broad possibilities:
* The nine provinces can be retained with essentially the same powers and functions, even if they are refined and integrated into a more cohesive cooperative governance system
* The nine provinces can be retained but with substantially reduced powers and functions
* The number of provinces can be reduced. There could be various forms of this. This includes reducing the number of provinces, with essentially the same powers and functions, even if they are refined and integrated into a more cohesive cooperative governance system. Or it could be that the number of provinces are reduced with substantially reduced (or, unlikely though it may be, increased?) powers and functions. Provinces could just be merged using the existing boundaries or new boundaries can be determined for all provinces. And the form that the boundaries take can be accompanied by different possibilities of powers and functions
* Provinces, whatever their number, can be retained simply as administrative units
* Provinces can be phased out over time.
Of course, there are various permutations of the above possibilities. And there may be other possibilities too. The point for all of us is not to just whinge and whine and be fatalistic. We need to become actively involved in the debate. And you in this audience in particular! As you have so much to offer and the resources to do so, for our part as the politicians, we must create the space for you to do so and take what you say seriously.
Local government is just not working
Not four months ago we had successful provincial and national elections. But just how successful, is too soon to say. We must wait for 2011 for the local government elections. For given the crucial role of local government in our Cooperative Governance system, particularly in democracy, service delivery and development, provincial and national government cannot function effectively without a strong local government sphere. And for local government to be strong, it’s vital that sufficient numbers vote in the 2011 elections.
But let us be clear! The challenges of local government must be addressed by all three spheres of government, not just local government and not just government, but civil society too, not least ordinary citizens, we are all in it together! We sink or swim with local government. It’s as simple as that! Yes, there are many, many difficulties in local government! And the persistent service delivery protests are a glaring reflection of this. But, no, these difficulties are not insuperable. We can, working together, sensibly, sensitively, over time, overcome most of these difficulties. We have no choice. We simply must!
The first task in addressing the challenges is to recognise just how challenged we are. There’s no need to hide it. We all know it anyway. We live it daily, even those of us from the middle classes. And lest we forget, there are the glaring media images of the protests raging in our townships to remind us. It’s clear that local government is in a state of severe distress. And we are all collectively responsible for this, not least those of us who shaped this model of local government.
We came out of the civic movement of the 80s, and we romanticised what was possible at local government level. We were right to stress that municipalities should not just provide services but also be responsible for the economic and social development of communities. So we pushed for a developmental local government model. How right we were, given especially the renewed interest in government planning and the need for a developmental state in our country. And while recognising the constraints, we structured a redistributive two-tier model, with districts fulfilling this key function through co-ordinating local municipalities.
And we were right too to constitute municipalities as a distinct sphere of government with constitutionally enshrined powers and functions, as we were right too to stress the importance of active community participation in local government. But we were wrong in many other respects. We overestimated the political depth, governance experience and technical capacity available at local government level. We underestimated the resources, including financial, required for municipalities to fulfil their functions. We didn’t see the need to sufficiently balance the independence of municipalities with the need for provincial and national government to, early enough; proactively intervene in municipalities that show signs of failure.
We didn’t anticipate the extent to which power struggles within municipalities would paralyse service delivery, and power struggles between local and district municipalities would undermine the two-tier model. And we didn’t, just didn’t, foresee the extent to which municipalities would become the soft underbelly of patronage and corruption in our country. Yet we should have known better. What, after all, were the lessons from other third world post colonial national liberation movements? It’s just that we thought we’d be different.
We had a towering national liberation movement, strong civil society movement independent trade union movement, vigorous media, activist intelligentsia and much else that made for a vibrant, community based local government system.
But it hasn’t turned out like we planned. Yet we are different from other third world national liberation struggles. Not as different as we thought we were, but different nevertheless. And it is on this difference from, on being better than, other national liberation movements than we must draw to address the challenges of local government.
And in the best traditions of that difference we must honestly admit our challenges at municipal level. Of course, municipalities vary considerably in their performance, with some doing very well and others failing dismally. But in general they are greatly challenged.
Response to service delivery protests part of ensuring effective cooperative governance
And just how so is starkly conveyed by the recent, and no doubt, pending service delivery protests. How we respond to the protests will be a crucial test of our cooperative governance system. Our response, in fact, must serve to advance our goals of strengthening the system of cooperative governance and building a developmental state. Yes, we need immediate and short-term responses, but unless we integrate these responses into an overall strategy to strengthen cooperative governance and build a developmental state we will not be able to significantly reduce service delivery protests over time.
In any case, several of the issues raised by the protesting residents do not fall within the competence of local government, but provincial and national government instead. They are failures of these other two spheres of government and the cooperative governance system. And unless the national and provincial spheres also play their full role, the issues raised by the protestors will not be adequately addressed, which is why our Minister has been so stridently intervening.
He has been to many of the municipalities facing protests, and has appointed task teams to assist in developing plans to address the concerns of the residents. The first report, which is on municipalities in Mpumalanga facing protests, has been released to the media. But much more work is being done and a clearer understanding of the protests and immediate, short and long term responses are being developed.
Glib explanations for the protests and easy, light responses will not do. We need to fully understand the reasons for, and meaning and implications of the protests in all their complexity. Of course, the protests are mainly about municipal service delivery failures and municipalities have, with the support of provincial and national government, to get their act together. But they are not just about service delivery. They are about a range of other issues too and the protests have structural, systemic, governance, political, economic and other dimensions. Very briefly, among the reasons for the protests:
* Most of all, the protests reveal the failure of local democracy. Most-not all certainly-of the people are protesting because they do not have adequate access to councillors, council officials, and ward committees and other municipal structures. Clearly, the ward committee system is failing dismally, even where there is service delivery, sometimes it’s too structural and people do not feel that they have been consulted adequately
* There is a marked absence of communication between councillors and residents
* Despite significant advances, there is inadequate delivery of basic services such as water, electricity, sanitation, sewerage and refuse removal. Increases in service fees have also fuelled protests, especially in the context of the economic recession and job losses
* The protests are also about many issues that do not fall within the competency of local government or are not its core responsibilities. They are also about housing, jobs, health, crime and other issues.
The protests are not just about municipal service delivery, but about the failures of service delivery of all three spheres of government, even if municipalities are being targeted. Municipalities, after all, are the easy targets; they are the immediate sphere of government to the people and are experienced most directly by them, not that municipality are not to significantly blame, of course.
* Protests have also been spurred by decisions to move people living in informal settlements. People prefer to stay where they are because of proximity to workplaces or access to transport. But some are shack lords with tenants renting shacks on their sites, and they don’t want to move because they will lose their businesses. In some cases, the shack lords want to move, but their tenants will lose out, and so the tenants take part in protests. People also refuse to move because they feel they have not been consulted adequately or at all. There has also been rapid migration to the urban areas causing huge stress on infrastructure and services and further accentuating the backlogs.
* Many municipalities are not being governed effectively and are driven by political divisions that undermine delivery
* There is significant fraud, nepotism and corruption in municipalities. The appointment of staff and allocation of tenders and houses have been raised by the protestors
* There are also internal power struggles within the ANC led movement. This includes key activists positioning themselves to become councillors in 2011 by mobilising residents against the current councillors. Of course, their ability to do so is linked to the poor performance of many councillors. But the struggles are also about access to tenders and other opportunities for individual profiting. The power struggles are also, in some cases, residues of the Polokwane battles. The power struggles also relate to other issues
* During the election campaign this year people were mobilised and expectations created. The protests could well be an outcome of this momentum. Commentators in the media have observed that there was a spate of municipal service delivery protests after the 2004 elections as well. They also suggest that with the onset of winter, people’s lives become more intolerable and their frustrations deepen
* The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) consultation process with residents is managed in a way that encourages undue expectations. Wish lists are decided on through engaging with residents and then very little delivery follows
* Criminal elements are exploiting the situation and also stirring people to protest
In some cases the protests are taking place because of service delivery; those in the queue for delivery are not prepared to wait any longer as they see others around them receive services, thereby reinforcing their sense of marginalisation. It’s, as often in similar situations, relative deprivation that spurs protests. Of course there are many other reasons for the protests, but it’s clear that the protests are more than just about failure of service delivery in the narrow sense.
And the rage of the protestors and the extent of violence and destruction reflects a far more fundamental alienation of people from the state as a whole, not just local government, and municipalities on their own cannot be held responsible for this. Of major concern also is the outpouring of xenophobia, particularly its violent aspects; of course, we are working on immediate and short term responses. But we also need to locate our response in terms of the broader underlying challenges that confront local government and are the more general reasons for the protests. These include:
* a local government model that is too complex and not sensitive enough to our capacity and resource constraints
* the lack of clarity on the respective powers and functions of the three spheres of government
* the lack of clarity on the respective powers and functions of district and local municipalities, and tensions between these two categories of municipalities
* inadequate national and provincial government support for municipalities
* lack of coordination among national departments in dealing with municipalities
* poor corporate governance
* highly complex legislation, and differing and too many reporting requirements
* inadequate Integrated Development Plans that bear poor relationships with national and provincial plans, and do not align with budgets
* a limited fiscal capacity and inadequate national funding
* weak financial management
* astonishing levels of fraud and corruption
* a major lack of administrative and technical skills
* poor infrastructure planning and maintenance
* the blurring of the distinction between the roles of councillors and administrators
* the crude subordination of municipal structures to party political structures, and especially the needs of political factions
* inadequate community participation
* poor communication between councillors and communities
* inexperience of councillors, with 67 percent of the ANC’s councillors serving their first term
* huge turn-over of senior managers
* poor labour relations
Addressing the local government challenges
Now this list of challenges just mentioned may seem daunting, it is, but not all the challenges apply to all municipalities, and where they apply, it’s to different degrees and in different forms. And the list of challenges is presented in a crude, short hand way, without proper contextualisation in view of limitations of time. These challenges, moreover, are inter-related and addressing some of them can, if approached properly, serve to address others.
None of these challenges is insuperable. In any case we have to tackle them. We have no choice. We need the will and we’ll find the way! And with the global economic crisis having reached our shores, we are under more pressure than ever to find the way.
We need consultative, innovative, phased and decisive strategies and programmes to turn around municipalities; the department, in conjunction with key stakeholders, is working on just this. The work has only just begun, but by the end of this year we hope to have developed a consensual turn-around strategy.
The first phase of the strategy will begin early next year and be carried through to the 2011 local government elections. A further phase will open out after the elections.
The process of developing the strategy and aspects of it are to be made public soon. The Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs has already raised some of these issues in public. Obviously, no final decisions have been made, but aspects of the turn around strategy that could be considered for discussion include the following:
* Immediate and short-term responses to the service delivery protests as part of an overall strategy to strengthen cooperative governance and build the developmental state
* Greater national and provincial government support for local government and more effective coordination of this support. This could include categorising municipalities according to their capacity and providing specific and targeted support for different municipalities
* More effective IDPs that link more clearly with provincial and national development plans, with local economic development (LED) being emphasised more
* More effective service delivery strategies and programmes
* A massive and far more effective training programme for councillors and officials
* More active community participation, including through restructuring ward committees to ensure that they are more rooted in communities and have more powers and resources
* Greater clarity on the respective powers and functions of the three spheres of government, following massive public consultation
* More active intervention of national and provincial government in municipalities unable to function
* Re-demarcation of municipalities which are not financially viable
* A review of the district to local two-tier model in local government, as well as other aspects of the model
* A major anti corruption strategy
* Clarifying the role of traditional leaders
* Drawing on appropriate private sector support
* Shaping a more appropriate relationship between political party structures and municipal structures
* Finalising issues related to creating a single public service
* A new remuneration model for councillors.
Whatever the system, the ANC led movement has to be more effective
Clearly, the protests reveal the weakness of ANC branch and other structures, and emphasise the need for these structures to be strengthened. But there is also a need to review the relationship between political party structures and municipal structures. From the mid 90s until the Polokwane conference the state structures increasingly took over the responsibilities of the party. That was wrong! But we must also guard against the opposite extreme: the party assuming the responsibilities of the state.
Of course, the party must provide the framework for restructuring the state and for the policies of government. But the party should not substitute for the state, any more than the state should substitute for the party. At municipal level, there is emerging a mutually destructive relationship between the ANC regional executive committees (RECs) (and, to a lesser extent branch executive committees) and municipal structures. Power struggles within the party are translated to municipalities and serve to undermine good governance and service delivery in municipalities. But, also, power struggles within municipalities get transferred to party structures and serve to weaken the party. There is a need to develop a relationship between party structures and municipalities that recognise both the inter-relatedness and distinctiveness of these respective structures and that serves to ensure a mutually reinforcing relationship that strengthens these respective structures.
The party decides on the election manifesto and other policies. It also chooses the candidates for election to councils. The party must, of course, provide political and strategic oversight over the councillors. Obviously, councillors must be accountable to their political parties. And given the tendency of some councillors to be lax or errant, it’s important that the party monitors councillors.
But it’s not for the party structures to micro-manage councillors, especially as this has sometimes less to do with ensuring that councillors perform effectively and more to do with influencing tenders and narrowly interfering in appointment of staff. Why should party structures nominate councillors to serve in municipalities if they do not have confidence in them? If a councillor undermines the principles, values or policies of a party, or fails to perform, or is in other ways errant, the party should recall the councillor.
Municipal structures should not be treated almost like sub-committees of party structures. Of course, what I am saying here is somewhat condensed and crude. But I think we need to debate this matter of the relationship between the party and municipal structures and more broadly the state. But it’s reasonable to suggest that no matter how good a model of local government we shape, unless the party structures are strong and effective, and develop an appropriate relationship to municipal structures, the model will not succeed. Let’s discuss this further.
New space for public engagement on major issues opening up
But let’s also discuss other issues raised in this talk further. And issues not raised also. We are in a crucial, introspective phase of our developing democracy. We are reviewing the past 15 years of our democracy. We need new insights. We need new answers. Most importantly, we need new, more effective action. You can help, in all these respects. Please do! With the Zuma administration, a new, more inclusive, space is opening up for debate and action. Use this space! You owe it to yourselves, not just as academics, but as citizens too!
Issued by: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
17 September 2009
