by Bonginkosi Masiwa

Municipalities need to improve information dissemination in their jurisdictions, it was decided at a recent seminar hosted by Afesis-corplan.

Many municipalities still view the public dissemination of information as a privilege, not a right, despite the fact that the Promotion of Access to Information Act explicitly entitles citizens the right to information. Indeed, access to information is a prerequisite for real citizen participation in a democratic society, and the importance of the link between information dissemination and public participation cannot be overemphasised.

The Access to Information Act (2002) gives right of access to any information held by the state and any information held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights. The Act is a clear attempt to improve the responsiveness of both public and private institutions thereby enhancing transparency, accountability and service delivery.

According to Melvis Pietersen of the Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC), the administration of the state must be an open book. Citizens have the right to know information such as departmental staff numbers, particulars of senior officials, expenditure as well as performance against standards. At a local level, residents need to be told how national and provincial departments are run, how much they cost, and who is in charge.

However, access to information – especially for the poorer segments of the population – is curtailed by a number of factors like literacy levels, as well as barriers deliberately erected by politicians and council officials who often ignorantly flout rules while making references to obscure laws that touch on privacy and the treatment of classified information.

Speakers during the Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN)-sponsored seminar stressed the need to redefine public participation. It was argued that as much as the Access to Information Act deserved applause, information dissemination did not equal empowerment, and knowledge on its own was insufficient. Merely gaining access to information is not equivalent to rights guaranteed.

In their quest for participatory local governance systems, South African municipalities face huge challenges, amongst them a thirty percent adult illiteracy rate (statistics acquired from the Early Learning Resource Unit ), and many others not confident readers and writers. Relatively few South Africans read in their spare time, and reading is not often seen as an empowering skill. Strategies need to be devised to overcome the culture of not reading.

“Information dissemination by itself is not sufficient as it simply lets people in on what is happening and helps preserve the status quo,” argued Wits University PhD candidate Luke Sinewell at the seminar. Often local authorities comprise an “elite” who can use information to their advantage, he said, and it may not always be in the political heads’ interest to disclose “sensitive” information. 

“Public participation is a very expensive exercise,” says Alderman John Badenhorst of Buffalo City Municipality in the City’s 2007 Development Strategy. Furthermore, it has been proven that the very nature of timed and structured participation is in itself disempowering.

Planning development programmes is often easier than implementing them, with challenges such as administrative egoism hampering their smooth rollout. According to Dr Pearl Sithole of the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), development is still locked in numerous frames that ironically are meant to ease rollout, and in the process, meaningful development is lost in the corridors of bureaucrats.

Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) remain rigid and unsuccessful in fostering effective public participation. They are often regarded as “token” in nature, and residents rarely have a say in when and how IDP exercises are conducted. IDPs are still not as responsive to residents’ needs as they should be.

There is a need for a policy environment that is open to the promotion of era-specificity and area-based development. “IDPs lack that aspect,” argues Dr Sithole. This policy environment must also promote a bottom-up instead of the less responsive top-down approach.

Complex systems that are meant to heighten performance and accountability by officials and political heads tend to do little for effective participatory development as individuals tend to rate success more by performance than impact. Municipal officials are often so busy trying to avoid being censured that they forget to focus on ensuring delivery, and budgets are “locked” to effect good year-end Auditor-General reports. This kind of practice often guarantees output but not necessarily the much-needed impact.

Although Dr Sithole acknowledges that women, as a previously disadvantaged group, have been ushered into local leadership positions, she avers that this has not necessarily transformed into impact. As is found in many municipalities across the country, representation does not automatically translate into gender inequalities being addressed.

Sinewell argues that citizens need more than just information and numbers: They need the power to veto decisions. In fact it is crucial for government to have the political will to delegate some of its powers to the people if the dream expressed in the Freedom Charter is to be realised.

On their part, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have a role to play in partnering with municipalities in the promotion of access to information. Ultimately, until such time as all residents begin to view themselves as rightful partners in development and not just consumers and receivers, civil society must continue to push for the free flow of education on rights-based information.

Transformer Vol. 14 No. 5 Oct-Nov 2008