by Bonginkosi Masiwa

If the South African state is to be truly developmental, it must be a people-centred one that strives to establish an open society.

Public accountability as a central tenet of good governance practice must prevail at all levels, and freedom of expression and access to information are prerequisites for an accountable governance system. Silence by any government equals discrimination.

The good news is that, to date, people from 65 countries across the globe have enacted laws that provide mechanisms for them to request and obtain information from their governments whenever they need.

Through passing pieces of legislation such as the Promotion of Access to Information Act (2002), the South African state acknowledged that access to information was critical in enabling citizens, particularly the poor and marginalised, to use their rights to entrench a people-centred, participatory democracy that would undo the inequalities of apartheid that continue to haunt local government.

The South African government has rightfully identified the need for local government transformation. Non-governmental groups such as the Cape Town-based Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC), Afesis-corplan and broader civil society have an important role to play in promoting access to information as a right in South Africa.

The Open Society Justice Initiative published the book Transparency & Silence, which documents how various countries respond to the right of access to information. In analysing over 1 900 requests for information filed in 14 countries, Transparency & Silence found that countries with access to information laws performed better than those with no law or with administrative provisions instead of a law. The study found that government failure to provide information was common: 47 percent of requests received no response, with South Africa, Chile, and Ghana performing especially poorly.

The book also highlights widespread inequality in the provision of government information. It documents significant discrimination against ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups, who consistently received less information than other requestors, even though their requests were identical. The type and quality of information disseminated to various groups in the society also needs to be different as per the socio-economic backgrounds of the different groups.

In South Africa municipalities have not paid particular attention to the way information is disseminated across the social spectrum. Yet the ability of citizens to request and receive information on the workings of their government is one of the hallmarks of an open society.

The book confirms some findings that Afesis-corplan and other civil society organisations have obtained through various research endeavours, to the effect that government responses to requests are either non-existent or highly inconsistent. According to ODAC, the experience is not unique to the Eastern Cape. For instance, Durban’s Abahlali Basemjondolo had similar experiences in dealing with the Ethekwini Municipality in 2007.

Also shocking in the Transparency & Silence report was the finding that identical requests received different responses 57 percent of the time. This high level of inconsistency suggests municipal ineptitude and the need for more training of office bearers around clearer procedures for handling requests. Municipal officials seem to lack capacity even in basic public relations.

At home the SALGA National Conference Cape Town Declaration (2004) stated that “Municipalities shall ensure that they achieve the Presidential targets by identifying blockages to delivery, measures to address blockages, capacity and support required and early warning monitoring mechanisms.”

“Blockages” to delivery may take many forms. The lack of proper communication and information can block delivery. Furthermore administrative egoism can be an impediment to delivery. According to Dr Pearl Sithole in a paper presented at an IDP workshop in 2007, an attitude of self-importance by officials (administrative egoism) could be inherent in the South African local government sphere. Such attitudes choke the ability of residents to take an active role in the way they are governed at local level. The bureaucratic nature of the way municipalities function and implementation plans impact negatively on the responsiveness of municipalities.

During a recent seminar hosted by Afesis-corplan on municipal budgeting, the Port Alfred Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association (Parra) presented examples of unanswered correspondence with Ndlambe Municipality, where there is an alleged “breakdown” in this simple process of communication.

This is evidenced by the apparent unwillingness by the Municipal Manager’s Office to respond to numerous requests for information. The Residents’ Association had in its possession a sample of 23 unanswered letters that were sent over a period of almost four years. The analysis shows that no matter who wrote the letters, whether individuals or attorneys, the outcome was the same: a total disregard for even the courtesy of acknowledging receipt.

Parra had also submitted four letters of comment on the Ndlambe Spatial Development Plan (SDP) that were all ignored. Could that be a case of ineptitude or just raw exemplification of arrogance?

More often than not, structures such as ward committees are not taken seriously by the local authorities because of their powerless state. They have to depend on the willingness of the local authorities’ provision of information to help them perform functions such as monitoring performance management better.

The right legislation might be in place but reality seems to show that systems are not functioning as visualised in national legislation. SALGA has declared that it will develop and implement what it calls a series of “hands-on” interventions targeting all member municipalities, aimed at improving knowledge and understanding of the legislative regime in which they operate as a way of boosting aptitude.

SALGA has indicated the need to develop a set of principles that must inform and guide the development and implementation of legislation for and affecting local government. These principles should relate to all legislation, including legislation that at first glance does not appear to impact on local government. How such declarations transform themselves to policy on the ground remains a challenge.

According to President Thabo Mbeki’s 2004 State of the Nation Address, government was in the process of refining the system of Monitoring and Evaluation to improve its performance and the quality of outputs in line with the development plans and programmes. An effective Monitoring and Evaluation system can be the basis for an early warning system and the establishment of a mechanism to respond speedily to problems as they arise. This also necessitates an improvement of the country’s statistical and information base, and enhancing the capacity of the Policy Co-ordination and Advisory Services Unit.

Former President Nelson Mandela once stated that “by our own pronouncements and actions, we could relate to these citizens as passive recipients of government delivery, as if government were a force on high. Worse still, we could turn some constituents into passive critics, their own rationality drowned in the chorus of regret that the past has passed. On both counts, this would be a recipe for sure failure”.

Global experience shows that governments tend to be most responsive where non-governmental groups are most active.

Civil society needs to continue to maintain an undying march for pro-poor policies and a partnership with municipalities in making the freedom charter a reality.

The challenges of transforming policy into reality present an opportunity to forge partnerships towards an open society. In most cases civil society organisations have the capacity to assist government in its transformation endeavours.

Source:
http://www.sangonet.org.za/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5673&Itemid=389

Local Government Transformer Apr/May 2008