by Bonginkosi Masiwa

If ward committees are to contribute to the promotion of local democracy and community-driven development, they must be properly capacitated to do so. Yet the silence on government’s plans to breathe life into the structure has been deafening.

The ward committee system was launched in 2000. It has since met numerous challenges resulting in it barely functioning. As the main forum for community participation, it has been overwhelmingly neglected.

In many instances, ward committee members have had no influence whatsoever on ward processes. Their roles remain largely ceremonial and reliant on powerful ward councillors. The animosities between ward committee members and ward councillors are real, especially in rural areas where the geographical spread makes it difficult for the councillor to have “wall-to-wall” coverage of the area, such that residents have to rely on the proactiveness of the closest ward committee member to have issues resolved.

Ward councillors often view ward committee members as “ward councillor hopefuls”. Incidentally, few ward committee members have denied having the ambition to dislodge their councillor. In a situation where there is mistrust and divisions, frustrations mount as a result of lack of recognition and appreciation. Volunteerism is unlikely to thrive under unrealistic conditions. 

Recently in Stutterheim, MEC for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Traditional Affairs Thokozile Xasa indicated that “ward committees are recognised as a governance structure which we ought to implement with zest and passion as a presidential imperative. There should, in the same vein, be synergies and harmonious working relations between the ward councillors, ward committees and other relevant public participation institutions”.

Ward committees generally believe that the councils and municipalities do not take them seriously. There is often truth in this belief.

Municipalities seem to do just the bare minimum for their ward committees in an attempt to score an acceptable rating on the government-stipulated key performance area of the promotion of public participation. The inherent lack of political will towards the empowerment of ward committees is evident in the kind of tasks the ward committees have been given under some municipalities.

Some municipalities’ council resolutions on ward committees are still not fully developed, and are hence unclear, leaving the structure vulnerable to bureaucratic or political expediency.

The structure’s participation into processes such as the IDP and budgeting has been very limited across the country. Besides the need for them to participate, ward committees need to play a pivotal role in the budget processes of their wards. That would inculcate a sense of ownership and responsibility which are good for motivation.

However, the structure has been more visible when used by the municipalities for such menial tasks as the renaming of streets. The little that is done to capacitate them goes a long way in making the responsible municipalities look good, as it will be splashed in reports bringing “complying” municipalities an inch closer to winning a prestigious Vuna Award for the commitment shown to the promotion of good governance.

It would indeed be unrealistic to expect the structure to perform miracles in isolation and without the necessary support from the three tiers of government. In the Eastern Cape, ward committees have been severely hit by resignations as members seek and find employment, leaving them with no option but to co-opt new, often very green members that might lack a passion for community development.

The structure is hence left in a weakened state – the price paid for heavy reliance on “volunteerism”.     

There has been ongoing talk by the DPLG on how the communication system between ward committees, councillors and communities was going to be improved by at least providing ward committee members with cellphones and a small allowance for their use.

The manoeuvre has been overshadowed by bureaucratic bungling – reliable sources opine that the cellphones are neatly sealed in an office in Pretoria where they have been lying for months.
In the meantime new structures have continued to sprout in the communities. The call by ANC president Jacob Zuma for the formation of street committees as part of a crime-fighting strategy has been hailed by the SACP as important.

Ironically most communities already have Community Policing Forums (CPFs). One could ask if a properly capacitated and well-resourced ward committee would not suffice in this regard. The structure has simply not been allowed to function.

Despite other committees that are sprouting in communities, ward committees must play the leading role in fighting crime and other pressing local challenges. Their involvement in issues faced by the communities such as crime must be traceable in their ward action plans. 

The Municipal Structures Act (1998) Chapter 4. 74 (b) states that “a ward committee … has such duties and powers as the metro or local municipality may delegate to it in terms of section 32”.

The empowerment of ward committees should precede the formation of other community structures/committees, which should strengthen and support the ward committee system meant to represent the entire community and highlight the community’s needs and aspirations.

If municipalities are serious about bridging the gap between themselves and communities, they must make use of ward committees while initiating any community programme or project. The ward committee must be a pivot for the municipality in communities.

The creation of numerous toothless “loose” structures could continue to be a bone of contention in the near future, as it would compromise the role of ward committees – some structures might be perceived as substituting or running parallel to the ward committee. Working with ward committees has revealed that there are further animosities between some ward councillors/ward committees and local Traditional Leaders, who at times feel undermined by municipal structures. 

The structure’s full potential to safeguard good governance and ensure service delivery has not been tapped into. Government’s set development targets would sooner be realised if it alluded to real community involvement in various pieces of legislation such as the Municipal Systems Act (2000), Municipal Structures Acts (1998) and the Municipal Finance Management Act (2003).

Surprisingly communities still find themselves ill informed with regards to municipal processes that can heighten municipal accountability, thereby unlocking the delivery of services.

Thus a simultaneous debate needs to be launched regarding the character, tasks and challenges in building other structures such as street, village and block committees in order to foster harmony between such groups and the ward committees.

Unfortunately in numerous cases ward committees hardly ever meet. Even if members want to meet it becomes almost impossible as they are not allowed to call a meeting without the ward councillor’s consent.

Research has shown that ward councillors are often on the move, yet they are very territorial as a result of the fear of the usurping of power by ward committee members. The “synergy” hoped for by the MEC thus becomes merely a valued ideal.

The support that ward committees receive has a direct impact on the work they are able to do. The structure is still relevant and hence needs to be revived. Entrusting ward committees with some ability to make decisions, limited as it might be, would be a step towards real community involvement and ownership.

The formation of numerous committees and community structures does not guarantee better service delivery. The ward committee option of addressing pressing community issues remains the best option as the structure works within a properly constituted legislative framework.

The structure, above everything else, simply needs proper facilitation of its work and skills development.

First published in The Transformer Vol. 14. No. 4 August - September 2008