Contemplating Ward Committees-Civil Society Alliances: Opportunities and Challenges
By Gugu Nuba Mgwebi
Introduction
The post-1994 South African Government committed itself to instituting wide-ranging participatory processes in the different spheres and institutions of governance in the country. The attempt to introduce participatory and direct democracy is evident in the formation of institutions and processes at national and provincial levels to participate in the planning processes and policy formulation in government structures.
Municipal authorities, for example, are legally committed to involving community organisations in the formulations of budgets, planning and developmental priorities. The Constitution of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) obliges local government to provide a democratic and accountable local government and encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.
Measures were introduced to entrench community participation and also to transform local government functions emphasising development rather than regulations as under the previous dispensation. As a result developmental Local Government is defined as “local Government committed to working with citizens and groups within the community to find sustainable ways to meet social, economic and material needs and improve the quality of their lives” (RSA 1998, section B).
The introduction of a democratic dispensation in South Africa in April 1994 brought the idea of public participation in public affairs into the spotlight. Public participation, also referred to as community participation, has been defined in various ways by different people, and for a variety of reasons. The National Policy Framework on public participation (2005) defines it as “an open, accountable process through which individuals and groups within selected communities can exchange views and influence decision-making.” It also views it as a democratic process of engaging people in deciding, planning, and playing an active part in the development processes that affect their lives.
The apartheid government created race-based municipalities and suppressed participation by African, Indian and Coloured communities in the governance processes. Under apartheid, much of the power resided at the centre with local government being the lowest tier with a strict hierarchical structure. Consequently, there was only minimal space for meaningful public participation in decision-making processes.
Despite the various pieces of legislation supporting participatory democracy in local government, genuinely empowering participation is still lacking in most local municipalities. There is a need to shift focus to explore and debate around how the current approaches adopted by local municipalities contribute towards promoting and bringing about people-centred participatory local governance.
The Introduction of Ward Committees
Since the new government took office, different expectations have been raised concerning policy on how government should relate with and to the community. However, there is a general agreement that participation is crucial to the success of local government development processes. Legislations in local government made provisions for the establishment of a system of participatory democracy at the local level in the form of ward committees (Houston et al, 2001:206). These ward committees were introduced in municipalities as community structures to play a critical role in linking and informing the municipalities about the needs, aspirations, potentials and problems of the communities. They were established to form the bridge between local municipalities and communities by facilitating proper communication. By working directly with the municipality, ward committees serve as a cord that articulates the new system of local government to the majority of the people, especially to previously disadvantaged groups.
Ward committees also have an important role to play in actively taking part and determining core municipal business, such as Integrated Developmental Planning, Budgeting and the Municipal Performance Management process. However, there is a need to continuously review and identify whether the committees have the necessary capacity and resources required for them to perform their roles as community voices or representatives. Furthermore, the ward committee structures need to be measured accordingly in terms of their effectiveness, their involvement in local government (identifying whether they have played a significant role in promoting and advancing citizen participation), and whether communities have had enough space and whether there is an established conducive environment for citizens to fully engage with the municipality in development-related processes.
Challenges Facing Ward Committees
According to Oldfield (2008) ward committees face three critical limitations:
1. The politics of representation.
2. The vagaries of councilor and party politics.
3. Structural limits to powers.
Representation and Vagaries of Councilor and Party Politics
The major concern is around how ward committees are constituted. In various instances the ward councilor, being the chairperson, usually has direct control in electing ward committee members in line with political affiliations. Ward committees, therefore, lack an independent voice and do not represent the community, but are used as mere tokens of party structures and politics. Community needs and aspirations are then not entirely served and, as a result, ward committees, including councilors, fail to comply with their political mandates, hence service delivery is severely affected. Another challenge lies with the relations between ward councilors and ward committees; often communication between the two is influenced more by interest in power relations and status than community representation. In other words, ward councilors having influenced the selection of particular ward committees exercise power and demand conformity from these specific ward committees.
Although ward committees are positioned to represent the broader community, their being politically aligned and not fully represented within the independent interest groups and sectors poses a major threat in their ability to fully represent the communities. There is a need for ward committees to have an independent voice, uninfluenced by political agendas. It is important to shift focus and strengthen the relations between ward committees and independent civil society formations as complimenting structures rather than competing structures.
Structural Limits to Power
The Municipal Structures Act (1998) clearly explains that ward committees have an essential role in giving advice to ward councilors and receiving inputs from communities during the consultation processes and forums. Within the Structures Act, municipalities are given provisions to delegate certain powers and duties to ward committees. Ward committees also play an essential part in monitoring and evaluating the municipal performance in their wards. However, they have been given little or no space to perform their mandates as suggested by legislation. Ward committee roles and responsibilities need not be limited to community engagements and providing feedback, but be clearly defined and implemented. Local municipalities have failed to identify ward committees as part of the municipality and they remain excluded in council decision-making processes; this therefore hampers their ability to become effective. As Oldfield (208:494) points out, “ward committees are functionally challenged if there is no explicit way in which ward committees’ concerns structurally become part of council agenda. Bound by the political party caucus processes and party structures, ward councilors often sit lower in political hierarchies with proportional representation councilors shaping party decisions.”
Other challenges that affect ward committee effectiveness range from limitations in terms of level of education, skills and expertise; this includes lack of access to resources, such as internet connections, computers to mention but a few. Afesis-corplan (2003) noted that “without a proper understanding of the targets and indicators for developments as set out in the IDP, and the ability to disaggregate these to their own ward areas, ward committees cannot be expected to provide any empirical feedback on municipal delivery strategies and performance.” A skills audit of 373 ward committee’s members in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality carried by the project for Conflict Resolution and Development 2008 (Bendle 2008) found that only 34 of the members (9%) had any post matric training or qualification and 59 members (16%) did not have a matric qualification. These results reflect on a metropolitan municipality; it is likely that ward committee members in rural municipalities will reflect much lower education and skills level. Municipalities therefore need to invest more towards capacitating both ward committee members, including ward councilors, particularly on their intended roles and responsibilities.
Promoting Partnerships With Other Structures
While it is acknowledged that ward committees are perhaps the most accessible forum for community participation, studies have repeatedly shown that this structure is not adequately facilitated to play a meaningful role. Observers have expressed the fear that ward committees have competed with, undermined or displaced other channels and spaces for community participation at local level (Schmidt, 2008; Oldfeild, 2008, Piper and Deacon, 2008). Municipalities continuously demonstrate dependency on ward committees when wanting to reach the communities; not much emphasise or focus is given to other civil society formations that can strengthen the effectiveness of ward committees through partnerships with municipalities. Afesis-corplan is currently using this initiative through two sub-programmes (Ward Key Performance Indicators and Civil Society Action Groups) under the Local Governance programme. Both projects are currently being implemented in Great Kei and Amahlathi local municipalities. Ward committees and independent organised civil society groupings are already in the process of working together and the municipalities are responsive where people’s needs and aspirations are concerned.
Conclusion
References
• Afesis-corplan, 2003. Municipal governance: Working of ward committees. Report for Hologram, East London
• Bendle,M.2008.Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality skills audit of ward committees, conducted by the Project for Conflict Resolution and Development, Port Elizabeth
• Constitution of South Africa (Act no. 108 of 1996)
• Houston, G, Humphries,R, Liebenberg,I. 2001.PublicParticipation in democratic governance in South Africa. Jacaranda Printers, South Africa
• National Policy Framework for Public Participation 2007: (Pretoria government printers)
• Oldfield, S. 2008.Participatory mechanisms and community politics:Building concensus and conflict in M.van Donk, M.Swilling, E.Pieterse and S.Parnell (eds), Consolidating developmental local government: Lessons from the South African experience.UCT Press, Cape Town
• Piper, L and Deacon R.2008 Partisan ward committees, elite accountability and community participation: The Musunduzi case. Critical dialogue, 2(2)2006
• Republic of South Africa, 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Pretoria: Government Printers).
• Schmidt, D.2008 Reflections on local government: Creating a more viable and relevant vision for local government. Local Government Bulletin,10(1),2008