by Nontando Guwa

From March to June 2008, various local municipalities throughout South Africa will be adopting their budgets.

The Local Government Municipal Management Act (MFMA, Act 56 of 2003) puts at the centre of this process the voice of the people. The MFMA calls for active participation and input from the public in the budgeting process as well as the alignment of the budget to the IDP.

In order to ensure public participation in local governance, government has over time put in place various pieces of legislation and policies. The following are some of the legislative and policy provisions aimed at fostering public participation at local government level:

• The Constitution – 1996
• Batho Pele – 1997
• Municipal Structures Act & White Paper on Local Government – 1998
• Municipal Systems Act – 2000
• Municipal Finance Management Act – 2003
• Municipal Property Rates Act – 2004
• Guidelines for Operation of Ward Committees – 2005
• National Policy Framework for Public Participation – 2007

Furthermore, in an effort to enforce accountability of local councils, Parliament has passed the following legislation:

• Promotion of Access to Information Act – detailing the right to have access to information
• Protection of Disclosure Act – protection of whistle blowers against corruption
• Promotion of Administrative Justice – right to be given reasons for decisions taken

Despite all the legislation in place, public participation is still not effectively achieved, more so in local government budgeting processes. Recently, Afesis-corplan hosted a seminar titled “Understanding Local Government Budgeting Processes”. It was aimed at bringing local government officials and the public together to look at issues impacting on public participation in local government budgeting processes. The seminar drew participants from civil society organisations (CSOs), local government, academics and members of the public.

Speaking at the seminar Mr Justice Matlala from the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG) stated that Section 152 of the Constitution of South Africa obliged local government to involve communities and community organisations in their matters. Furthermore, Chapter 4 of the Municipal Systems Act is devoted to community participation. The Municipal Systems Act prescribes to local government what needs to be done in order to encourage public participation.

A major challenge highlighted by most of the local government officials present at the seminar was that public participation costs a lot, and that with municipalities’ limited resources, not enough money is committed to public participation. This is despite the fact that government, through the National Policy Framework on Public Participation, already calls for municipalities to institutionalise public participation. Exactly how municipalities will achieve effective participation without the necessary resources is uncertain.

In attendance at the seminar were officials from the budget section of Amathole District Municipality (ADM) led by Cllr Sivuyile Mkebe. He shared the ADM’s strategy and approach in encouraging community participation in budgeting, explaining that part of their approach as a district was to ensure that all the various local municipalities within the district aligned their community outreach programmes with those of the district to encourage integration of programmes.

He also alluded to the fact that it was important to the ADM Council to ensure that the budget was aligned to the IDP. To this end, the ADM Council passed a resolution that both the IDP and the budget process plans be presented to council for approval at the same time. This is done to ensure that the budget planning cycle coincides with that of the IDP and that the two remain in tandem.

Cllr Mkebe lamented that even with all the forums the ADM had put in place to encourage community participation, they still struggled to get the general public to participate in local government processes, particularly the budget.

He observed that quite often during the ADM’s roadshows and other community outreach programmes, members of the public were only concerned with immediate issues affecting them at that particular time. Matters are complicated by the fact that the public do not understand which functions and services belong to which sphere of government.

He cited the example of housing as a service, and stated that as a district, they rarely knew how many houses would be built at a particular point in time, nor did they have any influence over the quality, procurement and speed of delivery of such houses – but the community did not understand this.

It was noted by participants at the seminar that the efforts and to some extent success of the ADM in involving the public in its budgeting process were not replicated by the local municipalities within the ADM.

The odd poster announcing a budget meeting at a city hall at 18h00 on a day in the middle of the week was said to be the norm in local municipalities in their effort to involve the public in the process. This was in no way adequate in attracting the public to the event.

Budgets by nature are technical and difficult to understand, more so to those with limited literacy skills. The manner in which these budgets are presented to the public is done in a monotonous manner in a language that most people do not understand. This does not in any way encourage effective public participation in the process.

A grim example of how local government closes public participation spaces was narrated by Charles Pellew of the Port Alfred Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association (Parra). Pellew gave details of failed attempts to engage the Ndlambe Municipality on issues affecting the public. He gave a long list of correspondence that had not been responded to by the municipality, some of which was submitted by attorneys and some by members of the public.

Pellew made reference to Ward 7 Committee meetings held every six weeks, which he said had delays of more than a month before the ward could consider certain urgent matters.

It turned out that these meetings were not synchronised with council and executive meetings, further aggravating the delays. Any items that this community wanted to bring to the attention of the council through the ward committee were subject to these delays. A letter submitted by the residents to the municipal manager regarding this matter was – according to Pellew – ignored. This was a clear case of non-compliance with the Promotion and Access to Information Act on the part of the Ndlambe municipal manager.

It is clear that while government envisages seeing effective and meaningful public participation in local government processes, local municipal officials are sometimes not committed to seeing this through.

As observed above, budgeting is a highly technical exercise, and explaining budgets in a simple manner can be rather difficult; therefore municipalities need committed officials who can break this data down for the general public.

Participants at the seminar pointed out that in terms of the budget process, the public were more interested in knowing the following:

• How much income does the municipality have?
• From which sources is the income derived?
• How will the money be spent?
• Is the budget linked to the prioritised IDP issues?

Speaking at the seminar Cllr Costa Gazi of Buffalo City Municipality said that what seemed to be taking place in local government when it came to budgeting, was that municipal officials tended to have more power than politicians. He said the manner in which the budget was presented to council was sometimes too technical even for the councillors to comprehend, let alone the ordinary local citizen.

Participants agreed that public participation was at the core of local government, and that all municipalities should make a meaningful effort to facilitate by, among other things, making resources available.

At the same time it was agreed that the onus was on members of the public to take an interest in local government processes and to participate.

As various municipalities prepare to present their draft budgets, it is our hope that extra effort be put in by both local government and the public to ensure that participation in these processes is truly meaningful, and not just an illusion.

Local Government Transformer Apr/May 2008