At the inauguration of the new democratically elected government of South Africa in 1994, poor and ordinary citizens had high expectations regarding improved service delivery. Political parties were in part responsible for the hype due to their numerous promises during the campaigns. The new government came to power and adopted a form of governance that was not suitable to deliver effective and efficient services in the country and immediately embarked on public service reform. All the three spheres of government (national, provincial and local) went through the reform process.

Nevertheless, public service reform and service delivery challenges turned out to be global challenges. Since the mid-1970s, governments have grappled with public sector reforms aimed at achieving greater efficiency, and more responsive and flexible services. During this period (1970s) these governments’ challenges were accompanied by economic crises which led to reduced public revenues. Under the circumstances, governments had to review their programmes and strategies of service delivery. Reviews tended to involve the examination of the existing programmes to determine their usefulness and whether there are alternative methods of service delivery that are more responsive to the client’s needs, as well as being more cost effective (Kaul 1998:1 and 6).

In our context, the local government sphere was handed the heaviest service delivery load. However, local government is not immune to local and international adjustments which tend to affect the rendering of efficient and effective services. President Jacob Zuma highlighted this in his address to Mayors and Managers forum in 2009:

“Firstly, we should be mindful of the fact that we are discussing service delivery against a background of a global economic crisis, which means we really do not have the type of resources we need to fulfill our goals” (Local government Bulletin, Vol. 11, Issue 4, October 2009). Consequently, although a considerable number of destitute citizens in the country blame the local government for service delivery failures the dent on municipalities’ credibility in the eyes of service consumers is easily traceable to factors largely external to local government.

Local Government A Credible Sphere To Cater Government Services

The Public Service reform in South Africa gave local government new shape and responsibilities.
Its mandate is to deliver basic services to the local communities. President Zuma said:

“The municipalities are the first door that our people knock on when they need assistance from government. When people are frustrated with the slow movement of the wheel of government they engage municipalities before other spheres. Citizens also blame municipalities for functions that they have no direct control over” (Local government Bulletin, Vol. 11, Issue 4, October 2009) The origin of government policies in a democratic society is the public opinion which comes from the local people and political visions which are drawn from political party manifesto for voter support. Once the party is elected to power, these statements may be adapted and translated to become national policy, subsequently requiring further adaptation for national and local implementation. Therefore when governments provide services to the people they are fulfilling economic and moral responsibility as promised in the manifestos (Gaster 2003:07).

The local government in South Africa is mandated by Section 6 of the Municipal Systems Act to perform its duties as enshrined in the constitutional principles of Public administration in section 195 of the Constitution (Local Government: Municipal Systems Act: 2000). The Municipal Structures Act, section 56 also gives powers of service delivery to the leadership of the local municipalities to make sure that effective and efficient services are delivered to the people (Local Government: Municipal Structures Act: 1998). Despite the powers given to local government by various policies and pieces of legislation, the South African local government is still struggling to fulfill its mandate - effective and efficient service delivery.

Reforming Public Service Put Local Government Under Performance Test

Goldstein (2008:01) argues that government’s service delivery is a response to moral obligation and is attached to the economic growth and the alleviation of poverty. To complement Goldstein argument, Shah (2005:40) emphasizes that as much as the government services affect the economic growth and poverty they also affect social and political status of citizens.

In trying to have a far-reaching service delivery, the new South African government introduced the White Paper on the Transformation of the Public Service (WPTPS), November 1995 - to effectively deal with service delivery challenges and also to comply with the National constitution. The White Paper lays down eight transformation priorities, amongst which Transforming Service delivery is the key. The WPTPS gives reasons why transformation is so essential - it shows that a transformed South African public service will be judged by one criterion above all: “its effectiveness in delivering services which meet the basic needs of all South African citizens”. Improving service delivery is therefore considered as the ultimate goal of the public service transformation programme (White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery - Batho PeleWhite Paper: 1997).

The criterion set by WPTPS to judge service delivery pace put more pressure on local government in the country as basic services are entrusted to this sphere of government and in addition, the majority of poor communities are expecting everything from this sphere. Many municipalities around the country have failed to meet the set standard while some were put under the provincial administration as per section 139 of the constitution. So far the expected effect from WPTPS is yet to be seen due to underperforming municipalities.

Shah (2005:63) maintains that in order to evaluate the level of local government service delivery you need to build on existing evaluations practice at the local level particularly by the developed countries. Shah’s argument introduces concerns about conformance, fiscal health, responsiveness, efficiency, and accountability. He argues in favour of decentralization and local level governance as being supportive of progressive improvement of local governance.

Service Delivery: A Privilege Or Legitimacy?

One of the most important duty of a developmental state is to ensure that all citizens - particularly the poor and other vulnerable groups - have access to basic services. According to chapter two of the South African National constitution (Bill of Rights) (Act 108 of 1996), it is the responsibility of government to ensure that such services are gradually received by all, within the limits of available resources. The majority of poor South Africans who also comprise the largest percentage of the country’s population cannot afford to pay the full price for essential municipal services due to their lowly material position. In recognition of this fact, government made provision for free basic services linked to an indigent policy which targets the poorest of the poor.

The WPTPS indicates that public services are not a privilege in a civilized and democratic society: but they are a legitimate expectation. That is why meeting the basic needs of all citizens is one of the five key programmes in the Government’s Reconstruction and Development Programme (African National Congress 1994:14). Gaster (1995:1) has a supporting argument to the effect that “quality in public services is also recognized as the right of all citizens”. However, there is a tendency of some South African communities to think that government services are a favour rather than a government responsibility to its citizens. The campaign by national government to enforce basic services led many municipalities developing and introducing local service delivery strategies to ensure that the poorest of the poor households get basic municipal services. Today, a number of municipalities have plans in place to provide certain amount of services to residents in their jurisdictional area. However, these plans and accompanying promises turn into nightmares as municipalities around the country are struggling to work according to the set targets.

In the South African Bill of Rights, citizens have a in right to take action against the state if they believe their constitutional rights have been infringed upon. Indeed, as service delivery is not a privilege but legitimate right, drastic actions by communities have in the past resulted in some court cases at local government level where some communities took local municipalities to the courts of law due to service delivery failures. Unfortunately some of these municipalities are yet to comply with the court orders in favour of communities. These municipalities even have even challenged court judgments.
These actions and counter-actions tend to worsen relationships and diminish possibilities for meaningful engagements in the future.

Gaster (2003) argues that there is a tendency by many governments to assume what the needs of citizens are and take steps to supply such needs without consulting or involving them. As a result many governments find themselves at the bottom of the score cards because they fail to work with the necessary beneficiaries of government services. People need to be directly involved in planning, shaping, evaluating and improving them. This helps to define who should be involved in debating and developing quality improvements, and it helps to define the process which itself needs to be democratic.

However, some research findings in South Africa reveal that many people lost confidence in participating in local government processes; the perception is that their participation is not recognized. Citizens lament that they are merely used as a rubber stamp to help municipalities to comply with the participation procedures as required by legislation. Goetz (2001:31) maintains that consultation is a good barometer for public opinion on an extensive choice of service-related issues, from the quality of service delivery to current prospective policies. As such, it can provide both a source of information on public perception and a way to assess the acceptability of planned interventions in policy practice by affected user communities. However Beresford et al. (1997:78) in Gaster (2003:175) argue that user involvement is not an end in itself but a means of effecting change both in the outcome of services and in the behaviour of government staff.

Local Government Under Mob Justice

The chaos created by underperforming municipalities has left the country under a haze of service delivery protests by both poor and wealthy people, both violently and peacefully. Almost invariably, people in the poor townships protest violent means while in the affluent areas protests were in the form of withholding service rates. One can not argue that the protests are elements of a third force as claimed by government. In any case, issues that are subject of these protests are similar in both wealthy and poor communities.

They all point to a lack of effective and efficient service delivery. In the early stages of community protests municipal officials used to deny the genuine concerns voiced by local people until the provincial and national governments stepped in to rescue the situation. The poor performance is linked to lack of skills, corruption, political interference in public administration, political power struggles, lack of political will, intergovernmental relations  challenges and weak basic administrative systems.

Conclusion

Many people have been sidelined from participating in government planning and implementation processes and as a result the gap between local government and citizens has been widening. Trust between the communities and their councilors or a municipal government has declined tremendously. Things will, hopefully, improve once a new crop of councilors are elected.

References: African National Congress. 1994. The Reconstruction and Development Programme: A policy framework. Umanyano Publications. Johannesburg | Department of Public Service and Administration. 1997. White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery (Batho Pele). Government Gazette. No. 18340. Pretoria. South Africa| Gaster, L. 1995. Quality in Public Services: Manages’ Choices. USA. Bristol | Gaster, L & Squires, A. 2003. Providing Quality in the Public Sector: A practical approach to improving public services. USA. Philadelphia. | Goetz, AM & Gaventa, J. July 2001. Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery. Working Paper 138. IDS. University of Sussex. UK. Brighton | Goldstein, M. 2008. Are you being served? Introduction: Why Measure Service Delivery? The international Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington DC | Kaul, M. 1998. Introducing New Approaches: Improved Public Service Delivery. Managing the Public Service Strategies for Improvement Series: No. 5. Commonwealth Secretariat. London. | Local government Bulletin, Vol. 11, Issue 4, October 2009 | Republic of South Africa. 1998. Municipal Structures Act No. 117 of 1998. Cape Town: Government Printer. | Republic of South Africa. 2000: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. Cape Town: Government Printer | Republic of South Africa. 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act 108 of 1996. Cape Town: Government Printer | Shah, A. 2005. Public Services Delivery: Public sector, governance and Accountability Series. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington DC