Abstract
While the questions of governance and community participation are distinct, their operationalisation in the context of local government is not always mutually exclusive. As a result, issues of governance and community participation have continued to be of interest in most developing countries. For local government as an important sub-national government structure within the Southern African Development Community, there are a myriad of both opportunities and problems associated with the decentralisation of their powers. This article argues for a need to reconfigure governance and community participatory models so as to maintain the relevance of local government structures in African countries. Anstein’s public participation model is propounded for the purpose of analysing these participation models. Embedded in the discussion is the legislative and functional consideration regarding configuration and governance of local government. The examination of the ward committees in South Africa and village development committees in Botswana as institutionalised and legitimate participatory fora for local community members remains a key focus. In the final analysis, an analogue and critique regarding opportunities and challenges for local governance and participation issues in South Africa and Botswana are provided.
Introduction
Issues of governance and community participation continue to be of great interest in most developing countries. In particular, the operationalisation of governance and community participation is based on providing local communities with a platform from which to influence the administration functions and priorities of local government mandate, vision, planning and budgeting. This article explores the local governance and community participation structures of the ward committees and the village development committees (VDCs) as institutionalised and considered legitimate participatory fora for local community members in South Africa and Botswana, respectively.
This article is divided into sections. The first section starts by contextualising participation within local government contexts and discussing the function of local government and the meaning and uses of participation in determining societal needs. Arnstein’s public participation model is then used to understand the different shades community participation takes in the local government context. In the second section, the article undertakes an analogue and critical analysis of community participation structures in terms of ward committees and VDCs in South Africa and Botswana. The approach focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of both structures (ward and VDCs) and recommends a possible reconfiguration of the structures.
Local government functions
The function of local government could be considered to be a political institution of a sub-national structure or system that supports local communities. The basic communal daily needs serve the basis for optimisation of government resources. These resources are necessary for local government to maximise the provision of these localised public services. It is necessary that the function of local government be premised on the Constitution, which is underpinned by democratic values with a developmental mandate. Often the main features of local government functions are developmental and require specific plans to advance the agenda. However, inherent contradictions in this concept and function are also expressed in the general expectations to account to higher government structures (especially national and provincial) and to communities for its plans and service deliveries. This kind of arrangement facilitates the provision of services, interaction and access to public institutions by their communities. In many developing countries, such as South Africa and Botswana, the defined services and activities offered at this level (sphere in South Africa) of sub-national government serve a critical functional interaction with their communities. The nature of local government as a sub-national or decentralised arrangement of the government system ideally supports this notion and requires that even within the framework of service delivery activities, there is a need to ensure that services and other key activities are realised accordingly to support social, economic and political activities for local communities. A key feature for local government functioning encapsulates public participation to guide its policies on key municipal deliverables.
The question of participation serves as a focus for this article in describing the South African and Botswana local government systems in place to show how communities are brought in to determine and prioritise their needs. This system of governance is recognised as an effective mechanism for ensuring that communities are meaningfully involved in the decisions that affect them at local level. The question of meaningful participation endeavours to consider a legitimate institution whose activities are mainly focused on the interests and basis of the localised needs and services as required by the Constitution and human rights. This is also expressed by the former Republic of South Africa (2005), which argues for local government as a sphere best placed to give practical meaning to basic political and democratic participation. Accordingly, the rationale behind government being closer to the people and people governing themselves is generally based on two assumptions. First, as posited by Shah (2006), the closer a government is to the people, the better it responds to the felt local needs because it understands the concerns of local residents. Second, decentralised government is seen to improve accountability and accessibility to decision-making power by communities (Dipholo and Gumede, 2013).
The challenges facing local government in incorporating and understanding the needs of the people could be fundamentally flawed in that the questions of political power play come to the fore. The institutional make up of local government as a sub-national government structure in essence could also mean that reporting and accountability often need to be balanced between community, local government administration and politics as well as national/provincial structures. Thus, the internal and external environment affecting local government is critical in determining its success and sustainability.
Societal needs and community participation
Constitutional democracies such as South Africa and Botswana are considered to be open societies where participation in governance processes serves as a necessary legislative requirement. That means for public institutions to be considered legitimate, they are expected to ensure that their functions and processes are accountable. In this way, a reason for community needs and participation are entrenched to facilitate and strengthen platforms for participation and input in the decision-making processes. The developmental nature of local government is expected to reinforce the process of participation. Such a reason for community needs and participation requires a balancing act with other elements influencing municipal functioning.
The balancing act regarding a determination of community and participation needs remains a contentious and power relations issue. The key considerations capturing these contentions and power relations issues include the following questions: whether community needs are identified by local officials and politicians on consultation with the community; whether the needs are generated from within the community and communicated to local officials and politicians; whether the needs are jointly developed by communities and local officials and politicians simultaneously; if the forms of participation are meaningful and are properly legitimised by communities; and what the minimum criteria are for community members to participate optimally (community capacity). With a global phenomenon of declining public participation on governance matters, optimising the understanding of community needs remains a priority. Thus, apathy need not be considered lack of interest in local government services, especially in African countries where developmental issues need attention.
Raising the foregoing questions is necessary for each local government structure in order to gauge the commitment of the institution to other competing components of government, which could be either the local government institution itself or the higher levels of government that are often responsible for funding, monitoring and evaluation. Thus, for a local government structure to achieve its goals, it becomes necessary to determine whether it is able to balance its accountability to both the community and other levels of government. Community representatives and activists are necessary to hold the officials and political representatives to account on the local government plans and overall usage of resources. Without such, the lack of legitimacy of such a political institution would lead to distress.
Contestations for local government influences could also be explained in the context where relations with other spheres (or levels) of government matter. The role of national and/or provincial government structures in supporting local government functions, systems and processes needs to be carefully considered. This is mainly due to the reporting processes both in terms of planning and funding for the local government’s approved plans. In the case of South Africa and Botswana, reporting is mainly based on policy compliance rather than impactful initiatives. This is often the case during the processes of community participation, which are considered window dressing and unable to make any meaningful impact on the manner in which service delivery plans and their implementation are undertaken.
The complexities surrounding the necessity for a balancing act are also premised on local government’s capacity to realise development and implementation of plans. If a shortage of skills and employees abound, the developmental agenda of local government is likely to be eroded. The conditions regarding South Africa and Botswana, where the majority of local governments are rural, have reinforced this view that the focus has increasingly been on regulatory compliance and not on the improvement of the social and economic development of the local communities. Thus, issues of compliance are mainly based on whether certain procedural aspects, such as community consultations, have been undertaken rather than whether an improvement in the living conditions has been realised by community members.
The meaning and use of community participation
Community participation in local government decision making and planning has gained increased usage as it is believed to strengthen democracy, good governance and facilitation of bottom-up development interventions. As such, many governments the world over have given local governance a pivotal role in creating functional structures to realise community participation. The local government’s role to strengthen participation is thus commonly operationalised by means of decentralising power from central government to local government institutions. The common theoretical argument for decentralisation is that it promotes responsiveness and accountability of policy makers to local communities and their needs. Sharma (1999) explains that decentralisation is intended to promote greater involvement of citizens and civil society in decision making with a view to facilitating sustainable locally induced development. For this reason, participation is an essential factor in local government contexts. Within this context, Penderis (2013) distinguishes participation as an end and participation as a means to an end. As an end, participation concentrates on empowering people at grassroots. Participation as an end is of interest to this article as it promotes empowerment of communities. Participation as a means to an end focuses more on using participants to achieve the objectives of a particular initiative in the form of a project or programme.
Although participation within the local government context promises an active involvement of the local communities in decision-making processes, it is contested and fraught with ambiguities in its interpretation. As such, the literature on participation contains varying definitions. According to Molosi and Dipholo (2016), participation simply means engaging and involving the local community in decision-making processes. Molosi (2015) explains that at times participation comes in the form of consultation, where communities are simply informed of the decisions already taken. Mohan’s (2002) view is that with this form of participation, decision-making power is often concentrated in the already dominant level, which is central government, in this instance. As such, the community voice under these circumstances may not be acted upon. It is therefore essential to consider participation as a means of ensuring that communities are organised on a politically institutionalised question in maintaining their developmental objectives. In this case, the decision making considers collective action and consensus among the various stakeholders.
Cobbinah (2011) argues that participation sometimes comes in the form of physical representation whereby community members are invited to meetings to witness the decision-making process taking place. In this context, participation is only understood in terms of physical presence in decision-making meetings even though the community members are not given a chance to contribute. Based on these different views of participation, Arnstein (1969), in presenting what he refers to as a ladder of participation, argues that participation should be seen in terms of a continuum with information provision on one end and empowerment on the other end. It is important to note that all these interpretations of participation differ in terms of the context as to where decision-making power and control lie. In fact, according to Arnstein (1969), some levels of participation are nothing but tokenistic. Figure 1 provides the composition of the Arnstein (1969) ladder of participation.
Public participation ladder. Source: Arnstein (1969).
From a rights-based approach, participation should not be a simple invitation offered to communities. Participation needs to be recognised as a democratic right that allows input from different members of the community, leading to a particular shared view. Such input could influence the collective decisions that are eventually incorporated into municipal activities, projects and programmes. In this case, a municipal agenda is being formulated. The rights-based approach argues that participation is a basic citizenship right that helps to protect and guarantee all other political, social, economic and cultural rights through the empowered agency of citizens (Gaventa, 2004). The aim of community participation within a local government context should be premised on the promotion of transparency and accountability (Tshabalala and Lombard, 2009). It is through community participation that people at grassroots can be involved in matters pertaining to local governance and render government accountable and committed. However, several factors may make this difficult in a local government context. First, if community participation is not supported through a legal framework, it could easily deflect the impact onto citizens. Countries such as Botswana are considered to have weak local government participatory structures because there is no constitutional mandate that binds central government to ensure participatory local government, although a country such as South Africa has a constitutional mandate and a binding legal framework for community participation. However, a lack of proper implementation of these policies stifles effective participation in municipal affairs (see Chapter 7 of the Republic of South Africa, 1996; Republic of South Africa, 2000).
In local government contexts, community participation is seen as a mechanism through which communities can be engaged in planning, managing and implementation of local development plans. With the weaknesses of top-down development approaches, community participation is seen as a critical factor in ensuring development actions and activities that make people at grassroots central to development processes. The main assumption is that if people at grassroots have an active voice in their development, there is likely to be more success in development projects as communities will tend to accept ownership and commitment towards the projects (Molosi and Dipholo, 2016), thus there will be improved service delivery. However, the assumption that participation can serve as a counterweight to the traditional top-down development approach has its own problems. First, genuine participation can sometimes be stifled even in instances where local government participatory structures are availed, which can take away the decision-making power from the local government structures. For instance, the calibre of some local government structures may limit them in engaging and, as such, take the decision-making power back to national government levels. In Botswana, for example, the VDCs sometimes fail to engage the central government on issues because they are provided with documents and/or reports such as the village development plans to comment on or verify facts. However, due to their poor educational levels and a lack of training, these committees are often ineffective (Ngwenya, 2008).
Second, the national (and provincial) government is considered the main financier of development initiatives and other key local government projects. This kind of situation often places the community in a position of being simply a recipient. This is a serious distortion because primarily, national and provincial government are disbursing taxpayers’ money entrusted to them on behalf of the community. This scenario does not weaken national (and provincial) government power, but maintains the status quo. According to Kapoor (2005: 1207) ‘pretending to step down from power and privilege, even as one exercises them as a master of ceremony, is reinforcement, not a diminishment of such power and privilege’. As questioned by Cobbinah (2011: 49), how can central government bureaucrats transfer power to grassroots when they remain in control of financial resources? In light of this, Gaventa (2004) cautions that development projects and programmes could become participatory when the ideas of grassroots people are aligned to those of the financier.
Participation structures and institutional value-add
The reason for participation of community members is to ensure that their needs relating to municipal services are addressed. This is an important consideration for any governmental system because governments have a responsibility to satisfy the needs and promote the welfare of their citizens.
In many African countries that are considered to be developing, illiteracy levels are serious features for most members of the community. For legitimate public participation, it is necessary to ensure that irrespective of local government sophistication, a need exists for a balancing act to accommodate the population in policy and decision-making processes. For South Africa, the requirement for participation is legislated in local government in the form of ward committees. There is abundant literature that highlights the fact that the ward committee system in South Africa is designed to fail to carry the hopes of community members in placing community needs at the centre of municipal councils (Buccus et al., 2007; Heydenrych, 2008). In many instances, ward committees are mostly politicised to serve the agenda of both politicians and their local parties. This situation represents a failure of both policy initiation and implementation because in the main, municipal programmes without community influence serve as a window-dressing exercise. This means resource allocation for municipalities promotes a different political agenda rather than addressing the basic community need. The Auditor-General (2011/2012: 14–15) report considers the three main problems of municipalities to be lack of political leadership, lack of competencies and skills, and lack of consequences management by officials and politicians. In the context, the institutional theory as advanced by Selznick in 1957 highlights the fact that municipal structures and intended value-add should not be considered mutually exclusive (Peters, 2000) as is currently the case in both South Africa and Botswana. The question of value-add is often considered on the basis of community influence in municipal decisions, systems and processes. In essence, the influence and role of ward committees on decisions seek to determine the value of these legislated structures. As evidenced by the literature, the value of these ward committee structures is seen in South Africa to be lacking, thereby rendering ward committees redundant and unable to mobilise impactful participation as intended. This is necessary to highlight a consideration for political leaders to either modify or change to a public participation system that focuses on citizen power in accordance with Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen’s participation (see Figure 1). In essence the notion of a citizen power level means that centrality of citizens in the functioning of a municipality needs to be considered a prerequisite. This could contribute positively in constituting ultimate accountability for community aspirations and needs.
Institutional arrangements within local government are usually made up of appointed officials and elected political office bearers. This make up of local systems and processes is important for maintaining communal livelihood. Accordingly, De Vries (2016) argues that the legitimacy of any government is based on the fact that the needs of communities are taken care of. This argument is an important departure point and basis for local officials and politicians who undertake to understand and address the local needs in an effective and efficient manner. The practical challenges for public participation emanating in this case are often varying. These local governance and community participation challenges need to be addressed through some of the following key considerations:
What are peculiarities for a politics–administration dichotomy within a particular local government structure? What is a configuration of the legislative and executive functions within the local structure? Do communities find this local structure accessible and accountable? What are the accountability channels of a local institution to local community? What are the minimum criteria for both officials and politicians to participate in the process (institutional capacity)?
The key is that these considerations are required in a local government structure, especially with regard to addressing local administration and politics. The basic mandate for any local government structure should be the provision of services to communities. Issues of budgeting and participation are meant to ensure that municipalities undertake this responsibility in the best way possible. Broadly speaking, these questions highlight the fact that it could be easy for a local government structure to pay attention to its administrative and/or political processes while ignoring communal needs that should form the raison d’être for its existence.
Municipal institutions have a responsibility to ensure that their structures and processes are resilient and geared towards ensuring the delivery of mandated services. This is a necessity since institutions need to maintain their sustainability and be strengthened in order to maintain relevance in meeting the service needs of communities and not those of individuals and elites. In this regard, a set of values, norms and standards is required for the sustainable functionality of a municipality. In this way, important attributes, such as the expertise, experiences and skills sets of municipal employees that are merit based, need to be prioritised. Again, without strong political institutions for South Africa and Botswana, issues of values, ethics and accountability are often found to be deflected due to political expediency. Once municipal systems and processes are not properly institutionalised and accountability eroded, there is certainty about the fact that the interests of the community members continue to be subverted. This has often been found to be the case of most local governments in African countries, including South Africa and Botswana (Auditor-General, 2016/2017: 3).
Configuring local government participation in South Africa and Botswana
As highlighted earlier, many governments in Africa and elsewhere embrace local government as a structured system of government closest to the people. This is to ensure that government actions find resonance with the aspirations and activities of local communities. A proper context is necessary to understand the place of public participation in the context of local government in South Africa and Botswana. Local government in South Africa is made up of three categories: Category A, metropolitan municipalities, represents the largest; Category B applies to local municipalities, while Category C refers to district municipalities (constituted by a combined group of local municipalities). Ward committees are embedded within Categories A and B of the local government system (see Republic of South Africa, 1996). In Botswana, a two-tier system of government is made up of central or national government and the local government (Dipholo and Gumede, 2013). Local government in Botswana comprises four institutions: District Councils, District Administration, Tribal Administration and the Land Boards. In this article, local government in Botswana is discussed in terms of the VDCs that operate under the district councils.
Having considered an extant discourse on the local government community participation question in South Africa and Botswana, this discussion further analyses the conception of two structures representing ward committee and VDC systems. This analysis captures the basic elements of configuring structures in relation to key aspects, namely the purpose, composition, as well as process and activities. A critical analysis is then advanced to determine a proper functioning of each structure within the application of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation model. These matters are succinctly presented below for both ward committee and VDC conceptions.
Ward committee system in South Africa
While there is a plethora of regulations and guidelines regarding the ward committee system in South Africa, there are at least two key legislative provisions. These legislative provisions further advance the constitutional imperative of making local government participatory where community members are encouraged to take part in the matters of local government. These are the Municipal Structures Act, 117 of 1998 and Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000. Both these pieces of legislation are often prescriptive and require strict adherence and compliance by municipalities. Thus, a successful community participation process is measured through their adherence to these two key legislative provisions in terms of aspects such as purpose, composition and processes. Arnstein’s (1969) participation ladder provides a necessary measuring instrument to determine the level of impact for a ward committee system in South Africa. An analysis is undertaken below in terms of the above categorisation:
Purpose – The purpose of ward committees in South Africa is to facilitate and enhance community participation in formal municipal affairs. This is in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Municipal Structures Act, 117 of 1998 and Chapter 4 of Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000, which make provisions for the formal municipal participation process as provided for in the ward committee system. Composition – The intention of this participation arrangement is to ensure that 10 community representatives are appointed with the ward councillor as chairperson of the committee. In this configuration, it is imperative that the question of diversity is maintained to ensure representation. The Act seeks to ensure that the decision-making process resonates with community needs within a particular ward. Process and activities – While the process for appointing ward committee members is not specified in the legislation, this aspect allows communities to determine their own processes of electing ward committee representatives. In this case, the question of democratic principles becomes inherent in this process in order to facilitate fairness in ensuring that key community sectors and diversities are represented. Scheduled meetings for the ward committees are made to ensure that issues affecting the ward are addressed. Decisions made within this structure need to be related to other relevant municipal structures such as executive mayors, executive committees and even sub-council structures in explaining their functionality to supporting governance processes and community participation.
Ward committee prospects
The intention of introducing ward committees to communities for participation is a noble one. This is because regular interactions between government and members of its community serve a practical role in legitimising political processes within communities to ensure the provision of relevant services. Ward committees are critical conduits or bridges between municipal leaders (council) and key sectors of the community. Optimising the functioning of ward committees is therefore in the interest of all stakeholders and especially community members.
There are several key challenges that need to be addressed to increase the level of municipal efficacy. First, while the purpose is to conduct an inclusive community participation process, the system of ward committees has experienced several setbacks. In many instances, ward committees are used by local politicians to further their political agendas. Furthermore, communities that are not properly organised are vulnerable because their voices are often non-existent and so cannot put sufficient pressure on their municipalities to address their daily needs (Auditor-General, 2016/2017: 4). Second, the legitimacy of ward committees is an imperative to realise the developmental mandate of local government. The legitimisation of ward committees needs to be facilitated through representation of various sectors of communities. However, this has not been the case because often the dominant consideration by political parties regarding ward issues is to inhibit the influence of alternative genuine community voices, which are imperative to influence processes and local activities (Piper and Deacon, 2008). In South Africa, this matter of interference has been an important one for consideration. A study by Piper and Deacon (2008) in Msunduzi Local Municipality found that the inter-party competition between the Inkatha Freedom Party, African National Congress and Democratic Alliance ward committees appears to be subject to their respective party’s control in terms of both composition and agenda setting. Due to this kind of party political influence, chances are that the mandate of ward committees in promoting local governance through community participation is compromised. Support from the Office of the Speaker for local councillors is essential in ensuring that election processes are planned and implemented properly. The need to maintain the diversity of ward representatives becomes essential to ensure the required broad participation. One major challenge is the stifling of participation because ward committee elections are primarily dependent on ward councillors and the Speaker. Since the ward councillors and Speakers are political office bearers, it becomes nearly impossible to argue that the election process would not be manipulated by these local politicians. Therefore, the election process is inherently political despite the legislative intent that ward committees should be broadly representative of local interest groups and devoid of political interference.
Third, the institutionalisation of ward committees requires a budget with which to operationalise their functions and activities. The budget is linked to the municipal council as part of the Speaker’s office to maintain public participation within the context of a ward committee system. The irony is that this system by nature ties these local processes to local politicians (such as the ward councillor and Speaker) in terms of functioning and resourcing. The legislative requirement that ward committees need to become apolitical structures is inherently delusive. Resultantly, power relations between local politicians and community members favour politicians who are responsible for the resourcing and functioning of ward committees (CoGTA. Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, 2017). Fourth, the power relations between ward councillors and ward committee members are often challenging. This situation could be complicated by other social factors such as gender, education levels, employment conditions and political party affiliations of members. Unfortunately, in instances where the majority of members are unemployed females, it would be unlikely that they are able to influence decision making within the ward. Fifth, the use of and access to technology is essential to modernise local government community participation. While most municipalities host websites, these are often fraught with outdated non-interactive information. Municipalities should find ways of making information accessible to their local communities with the usage of modern technological devices such as smart mobile phones. Similar to gender issues, education, employment and political party affiliation, increased technology awareness is necessary for enhancing participation by ordinary members of the community and ward committees.
VDC system in Botswana
Botswana’s community participation within the local government system is not a constitutional requirement. This process was initiated through a presidential directive, although it was subsequently legislated to create support for local communities. What should also be taken into consideration is that since this legislation is not linked to the Constitution, its existence is dependent on the discretion of the executive.
Purpose – The VDC is the main local government structure tasked with planning and overseeing developments at the village level. This is done through this participatory decision-making system. The VDC structure was originally established through a Presidential Directive in 1968 to initiate and coordinate village level development programmes on a self-help basis. This directive was later incorporated into the Local Government Act, 18 of 2012 and is applicable to all forms of local government throughout Botswana, including urban areas (Kheru, 2015; Republic of Botswana, 2001). Composition – The legislative provisions require VDCs to have 10 elected members. In this regard, five would be considered executive members while another five would be additional members. In addition to these 10 elected members, ex-officio members are considered. These ex-officio members are not elected but qualify due to their specific activities and relevance because of their official positions in those communities. These include, among others, the village chief, area councillors and extension/community development workers. They are considered as co-opted members, consulted to provide advice and act as proxy watchdogs, whose function is considered safeguarding and propagating the government’s development agenda (Ngwenya, 2008). Process and activities – The village parliament (kgotla) and the chief (kgosi) play an important role in the VDC processes and activities. These processes are embedded in the traditional system of chieftaincy with their communities. Within the Botswana traditional society, the kgotla system is a structure where community participation takes place as important issues about the community are addressed. As intimated by Ngwenya (2008), it is the same kgotla structure that authorises and even legitimises the formation of a VDC. In essence, the VDC elections usually take place at the kgotla. According to the Local Government Village or Ward Development Committee Regulations of 2014, the council, in consultation with a kgosi or district commissioner in urban areas, arranges for a meeting for the election of members by a secret ballot. These elections should take place at least 30 days before the expiry of the term of the outgoing members. An important requirement is that a community development officer should preside over the election of the VDC representatives. This is because community development officers are considered ex-officio members of the VDC executive and its official supervisor.
VDC prospects
There are several cases where VDC structures have been regarded as effective and successful in delivering their local mandates. These successes are often considered in areas of rental accommodation for blue-collar employees and dissemination of information on accessing public transport. Rankopo (1993) found in his study that the VDC in Bokaa village was considered to have been critical in addressing the officers’ lack of accommodation in the area. In a similar case, Ngwenya (2008) argues that the VDC has played a critical role in the mobilisation of resources and voluntary labour to commence with development projects such as building shelters for the kgotla, and public bus shelters to provide shade for people waiting for public transport. These examples highlight the fact that when VDCs are optimised in their functioning, they are able to benefit the local community and deliver on their set goals.
Concerns pertaining to the efficacy of VDCs are pertinent. First, it is necessary to highlight that some necessary grassroots voices are often subverted because of this representative participatory system of VDCs. This situation is prevalent in cases where urgent decisions need to be made since this platform would need to be expanded to allow for mass participation to influence local government decisions. Second, the legitimacy and power to function from statutes or administrative directives means that it is easy to engage in window dressing activities that ignore contributions of local communities during participation processes. According to Dipholo and Gumede (2013: 2), this kind of existence is implied in its functioning since it lacks a constitutional provision. It is argued that this situation may give central government overriding powers over local government itself. Third, the financial relationship between the VDC (as a local government structure) and the central government allows for unfettered interference. Central government serves as the main financier of VDC development projects, which in turn makes local government dependent on central government to fulfil their basic functions. This further reinforces a top-down decision-making system due to the fact that accountability shifts towards central government instead of local communities through VDCs (Cobbinah, 2011: 49; Mohan, 2002).
Fourth, a consideration to the VDC election process, which is often marred by power relations issues, needs to be made. Power in this instance is seen in relational terms where the dominant local figures use their positions to maintain privilege in their interest. Mokwena and Fakir (2009: 15) concur that ‘since direct participation is facilitated by and through the kgotla, those close to the chiefs usually dominate the deliberations’. Traditionally, in most African societies, including Botswana, the word of the kgosi should be highly respected. This means the kgosi’s views within the VDC processes are upheld even if there are critical dissenting voices. This is confirmed by Sharma (1999), who is of the view that the consultation undertaken at the kgotla is usually ceremonial and allows the kgosi and government to legitimise their own predetermined decisions. The contention of Molutsi (1989) on this matter is that the kgotla platform itself should not be viewed as participatory in nature but as a consultative platform, where the community is informed about decisions to be taken or that were already taken.
Fifth, the issue concerning power relations is inherent in political environments. Although the VDC is deemed apolitical, the fact that the local councillor is an ex-officio member raises questions of the loyalty and strategic direction of participation and consultations. Kheru (2015) contends that political interests often take centre stage, which eventually weakens these participatory intentions of the VDC. In some instances, VDCs are comprised of supporters of a political party in the government of the councillor. In such cases, it becomes clear that the level of engagement and participation is easily diluted. Such dilution means that party politics will influence most of the decisions.
An analysis of configurations
This discussion undertakes an analysis on the local governance and community participation configuration. The basis for this is with regard to the above discussions on how community participation through defined systems and processes in South Africa and Botswana has initiated formal pathways to make the system functional. The article has considered key elements to be purpose, composition, process and activities. This means, in terms of local government’s institutional arrangements for compliance, there is a framework for interaction between municipalities and their communities, both in South Africa and Botswana. However, there are several serious impediments that need to be taken into consideration for a successful local governance system and community participation processes.
First, it is advanced in this article that the current community participation systems for South Africa and Botswana have been designed in a manner that is inherently delicate and untenable. For example, in the South African situation, local politicians with their political parties often override ward committee systems for political expediency. In Botswana, the politicians and local chiefs are considered a threat to the VDCs since they have a direct influence on its composition. For these two countries, Botswana’s inclusive system of traditional authorities, such as chiefs to constitute membership is an important consideration. Ideally, it could mean that local chiefs represent an important agenda for local communities. However, analysing this aspect through Arnstein’s participation model, it becomes clear that local government is in either non-participation or tokenism stages. Thus, the officials often find ways to influence communities to believe that they have participated in the decision-making processes. Thus, the ward committee system and VDCs are rendered dysfunctional and are unable to fulfil their primary mandates of facilitating meaningful community participation. This situation requires a different approach altogether where a holistic approach that is able to ensure that municipal councils remain accountable to their communities is necessary. For example, in order to improve community participation, there is a need to consider the literacy levels of communities through formal and informal education processes. Regular workshops regarding values and ethical conduct should be introduced to maintain honest community participation processes for different stakeholders.
Second, the legitimacy of municipal processes needs to be maintained. One of the most important aspects pertaining to institution building is with regard to its legitimacy among local community members. Legitimacy is centred on trust, where community members believe that the municipality acts in their best interest. While most community members in South Africa and Botswana have interest in local government matters, they do not always believe that their voices would be considered in the decision-making processes (Mbhele, 2017). This matter of trust is serious since public institutions established to serve communities often deviate from their mandate.
Third, the issues pertaining to funding need urgent attention to guide the configuration of municipal councils. When municipalities are unable to generate their own income, their loyalty in actions and accountability would be to the funders. A significant number of municipalities in South Africa and Botswana are heavily reliant on other spheres of government for their funding, including on public participation processes. The primary challenge for this matter is that conditions are normally attached to these grants that require compliance during reporting. Such conditions have shifted the accountability of a municipality to the other structures of government, thereby neglecting input made during community participation processes.
Fourth, the underlying problem of electing members of ward committees and VDCs in both South Africa and Botswana hampers the progress of municipalities. This is because both countries have, on the one hand, low requirements (in terms of educational qualifications) for assuming responsibilities as members of the ward committees and village development structures. On the other hand, due to a lack of rigorous criteria, the quality of discussions and performance of these participatory structures is often poor. In order to address this matter, there is a continuous need to find ways of depoliticising the electioneering process. In this way, participation of independent observers could improve the process. This is to maintain a transparent and accountable election system where ward committee and VDC members are appointed on merit such as their experiences in working with local communities, having obtained an education, and their familiarity with issues and members of their local communities, among others. Thus, knowledge, capacity and skills are important in determining the performance of local government in South Africa and Botswana. The current criteria are weak and have reinforced the underperformance of most ward and VDCs. Within such a complex local government environment, participants need to be able to operate under such conditions in representing community needs.
Fifth, a consideration regarding the matter of power relations between local politicians and ward committee members needs to be made. This is especially the case with South Africa where most ward committee members are unemployed and often use their association with the local councillors to get employment within municipalities. A conflict of interest is often experienced where filling vacant posts within municipalities could be influenced by these local politicians (Phago and Netswera, 2009). To ensure that discussions and decision making are optimised, independent observers from academia and civil society members should be allowed to participate in these meetings in order to mitigate the power relations aspect. Table 1 provides a summarised version of the key elements from the above discussion, describing South Africa and Botswana’s local government systems.
Participation elements of ward committee and village development committee systems.
Source: Own observation.
It is clear from Table 1 that these elements, as emanated from the above discussion, point to the fact that the necessary governance and participation are not undertaken to the benefit of citizens. This consideration is part of the reason why ward committees and VDCs are considered weak and even dysfunctional. There is a need to reconsider the current local governance models and community participation if these interventions are to improve the living conditions of local communities.
Conclusion
This article considered community participation within local government in both South Africa and Botswana. Ward committees and VDCs are required to provide local communities with an opportunity to influence local governance and service provision issues. While a reconfiguration of local government is a continuous process that needs specialised services within the government, it is an urgent necessity for South Africa and Botswana. This is due to the need to ensure that participation instruments in place are functional in the manner intended. Some of the key considerations to be made within communities to inform new participatory approaches are political and socio-economic activities. However, it is clear from the discussion as demonstrated through Arnstein’s (1969) participation ladder that the systems of local government participation in South Africa and Botswana are not used in response to the basic needs of local communities. In essence, their structures have been found to be weak due to the challenges they face which result in poor accountability structures, poor service delivery and even a skills deficit. In this regard, the legitimacy of decision makers remains a serious concern. This suggests that local government participation is rarely a citizen power but remains at either non-participation or tokenism stage. As such, this article argues for a reconfiguration of these structures to be community centred so that communities indeed have an active voice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.