Like many townships in South Africa, Duncan Village in East London has suffered major service delivery backlogs owing to many years of neglect.

Local authorities have had to face the challenge of meeting growing demands for the delivery of affordable, good quality and widely accessible services, while having to cope with simultaneous cuts in fiscal transfers from national government. As a result, a common perception among the public, particularly towards government management and administration, is that the municipality is too steeped in useless politicking which hampers delivering services in an affordable, reliable and efficient manner.

In a recent survey conducted by the Amatole District Civil Society Support Programme (CSSP), a project funded by DED (the German Development Agency) and spearheaded by the Eastern Cape NGO Coalition assisted by Afesis-corplan, it was discovered that there are 29 blocks of toilets in Duncan Village serving approximately 58 000 people. This means 2 000 people have to share one block of six toilets or put another way, 333 people need to use one toilet.

Furthermore, the survey revealed that the appalling condition of public amenities in Duncan Village has greatly contributed towards the continued use of the bucket system as it is easier to maintain. The condition of the toilet blocks is extremely hazardous in terms of security, health and hygiene.

The survey findings highlighted specific challenges faced by the Duncan village community, including glaring gaps in service delivery. Despite Buffalo City Municipality promises, the situation in Duncan Village is not improving.

A further study by Afesis-corplan involving in-depth interviews reveals further frustrations among members of the public, especially at their being marginalised from the public participation processes. The findings reveal that:

•    There is little information dissemination around local government initiatives;
•    Residents feel like they are mere rubberstamps of decisions made elsewhere;
•     Ward committees and councillors are ranked as highly ineffective, because they fail to do their jobs;
•    Community members are completely unaware of their legal rights to participate in local government development processes;
•    There is a general lack of transparency on the part of the municipality;
•    There is no clear relationship between the municipality and civil society structures; and
•    The community members are unaware of existing systems and mechanisms to contribute to local governance within their areas.
The reality of the situation is taking its toll on Duncan Village. In July 2009, community members demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the performance of councillor Nozandile Rhoqo by engaging in acts of violence. While violent protests are an inappropriate way to voice disapproval, community members seem to believe this is the only way to make their concerns heard. Many of them are completely unaware they have a right to get involved in public participation and that the municipality is obliged to facilitate such participation.

Public participation is a relatively new phenomenon in South Africa. The National Policy Framework on public participation (2005) defines the concept 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, deciding, planning, and playing an active part in the development and operation of services that affect their lives.

The South African Government has committed itself to instituting broad 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 planning processes and policy formulation of government structures. However, local municipalities are not prioritising the involvement of community organisations in the formulations of budgets, as well as planning and developmental priorities, as required by law.

It is clear there is a need for collective ownership of the development process and the need for meaningful engagement between local government and community members in Duncan Village. Citizens need to be made aware of the developments taking place and that they have a say in what is being done, which will result in a positive attitude towards the local government and the development taking place in their communities.

An empowered community thinks pro-actively and views itself as partners of the municipality rather than passive bystanders who only receive what the municipality hands out, but rather they start to think about what they can do for themselves in order to lift themselves out of poverty. Duncan Village residents, like all communities across the country, need to make use of all platforms intended for the betterment of their community, and make use of legislation to ensure their voices are heard.

[Box]
BCM’s commitment to Duncan Village
On a positive note, the Buffalo City Municipality (BCM) has turned its focus towards Duncan Village and Mdantsane in an effort to improve the living conditions in the two townships. R133 million was allocated to the Duncan Village Redevelopment Initiative (DVRI), which was started in early 2004, and R215 million to Mdantsane. The DVRI initiative is an ambitious long-term programme to redevelop and revitalise Duncan Village, incorporating BCM and the Provincial Department of Housing, targeted for completion in 2014.

Additionally, BCM has committed to undertake an extensive consultation process where ordinary citizens will get an opportunity to make suggestions regarding the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) for the 2009/10 financial year. BCM politicians, management and officials will embark on ward visits to conduct IDP/Budget hearings.

During the hearings, city officials will explain to community members what the ward development plans are, what has been achieved in terms of their priority areas, and the challenges involved. Residents will get an opportunity to interact, ask questions and make suggestions. The BCM has adopted a process to guide the planning, drafting, adoption and review of its integrated development plan, as required by legislation. This process is set to include a programme specifying time frames for the different steps or phases of the IDP, an outline of mechanisms, processes and procedures for consultation of key stakeholders, institutional arrangements, roles and responsibilities as well as identify all plans and planning requirements by the municipality.

IDP manager, Simphiwe Seti has been quoted as saying that the BCM is “devoted towards improving the lives of our people and transforming them from their current unjust socio-economic conditions to positive development and ultimately prosperity. This is clearly demonstrated by our vision which states that we want: A people-centered place of opportunity where the basic needs of all are met in a safe, healthy and sustainable environment”. (Buffalo City Municipality newsletter April/May2009)