Municipal councils that take office after August 3 will do so in a startlingly unstable political environment. Municipalities facing re-demarcation will either be merged or disestablished on election day. This means rolling institutional change management issues and a massive budgeting headache.
The economic climate will only add to the stress as the global economic crisis deepens before it will get better. Projected GDP growth has been revised down to 0.9% for this year as result of lower commodity prices, higher borrowing costs, drought and diminished business and consumer confidence. Limited electricity supply also inhibits growth and deters fixed investment. National Treasury warns that “the cost of providing municipal services will grow at a faster rate than the transfers from national government”.
New councils will inevitably use this to make their political excuses but the truth is our local government system is unraveling. South Africa was acclaimed for its post-apartheid local government system because it put municipalities on an equal footing with other spheres of government.
Granted an equitable and demonstrably fair share of national revenue through the Division of Revenue Bill and the equitable share system of financial transfers, local government shed its poor cousin status.
Municipalities, charged with overcoming inequality and glaring underdevelopment, now had a guaranteed slice of national revenue to meet service and development obligations.
Other grant systems tackled infrastructure backlogs. This too had a development bias. For example, in the 2014/15 financial year, 77% of municipal infrastructure allocations targeted rural municipalities.
Freed of the burden of finding their own cash for infrastructure development and services to the poor, municipalities were expected to plot their own economic and social futures. The idea of sustainable, increasingly autonomous municipal areas was alluring but it did not take long for the wheels to come off.
Institutional costs escalated while services and infrastructure crumbled. Maintenance and repair suffered to such an extent that a 2016 shift in the conditional grant system (previously aimed at new infrastructure) now allows municipalities to use these grants to repair and refurbish existing infrastructure.
Assured of national financial transfers, many municipalities became less and less inclined to collect their own revenue. Treasury noted “if municipalities had collected half their outstanding debts, they would have had about 18% more revenue... to fund the delivery of services”.
This had unforeseen political consequences. As Treasury observed, “transfers continue to weaken local democratic accountability. The growth in grant dependence and prevalence of indirect transfers obscure the accountability of municipalities”.
With their political confidence bolstered by assured, increasing national revenue, municipal councils tended to give disgruntled local citizens the middle finger.
By 2009 the department of cooperative governance and traditional affairs (Cogta) was forced to take stock: “Service failures by municipalities may be attributed to elements of uneven and unstable governance. There is evidence of a high incidence of irregular or inappropriate appointments, coupled with low capacities, poor skills development programmes and weak institutional management.”
For a while the principle of local government autonomy held sway and national and provincial government seemed reluctant to intervene. Grant allocations were sometimes squandered on priorities that mainly assured the comfort of councillors and senior staff. Of the various institutions charged with oversight of local government, only the Treasury and the auditor-general stood their ground against those riding roughshod over local democracy and accountability.
For regions such as the Eastern Cape with cash-strapped municipalities presiding over weak local economies that offer few jobs and little or no growth, the Treasury has urged “... an aggressive approach to curbing non-core spending and improving operational efficiencies... ”.
But this simply echoed the turnaround strategies and the Back to Basics Campaign. When cost containment measures feature in the president’s state of the nation address, councillors are more likely to snigger than tighten their belts. Perhaps this is why social events, junkets, fancy cars, and sponsored iPads persist?
Historically, when citizens became unruly due to water cuts or persistently horrible sanitation services, a political heavyweight (read chief) was sent to quell the anger. There remains an understanding – correct or otherwise – that national leadership has the capacity and moral authority to set municipalities on track when things go badly awry.
This was supported by various governance barometer surveys which consistently showed that citizens placed more trust in provincial and national government than local.
Around 2006, levels of confidence in local government seemed to have improved from about 50.3% to 54.5%. But this coincided with a general decline of trust in government, including the presidency, parliament and national government.
Subsequent chaos in parliamentary politics, mounting evidence of corporate influence over elected leaders and the crisis within key state-owned enterprises suggests that public confidence has declined further. Rolling impeachment attempts and two adverse judgements by the Constitutional Court against the presidency can only hasten this trend.
For future councils facing service delivery protests and other forms of local insurrection, this could be a problem. The answer in the past – to convoy in a high-ranking provincial or national politician, minister or even the president – may prove increasingly unreliable and could add fuel to the flames among communities that are starting to understand government’s concept of citizenship as one that allows for differentiation, especially in the allocation of rights.
When the National Development Plan espoused active citizenship, it probably had in mind the polite spaces of public participation such as ward committees, imbizos, consultative forums etc. Researchers in this field are starting to warn that community patience with these “invited spaces” has worn thin.
Adding to their impatience has been the participation scam – preferential access for party loyalists, payments to ward committee members and other co-option measures or patronage networks that simply extend the power of existing elites into so-called civic forums or consultative bodies.
This has sparked the emergence of what is being termed “insurgent civil society” – one that sees little option but to disrupt the existing order through familiar and tested repertoires of violence that were so effective against apartheid.
Another factor that could make the seats around the council chamber uncomfortably hot is the reduced funds available for services and community development.
In the past, councillors had fairly broad discretion to use projects, service upgrades and public works opportunities to placate impatient communities. But government belt-tightening outlined in the last budget speech has not omitted local government. Treasury warns that the transfer to local government in the 2016 medium term expenditure framework is down by R967-million. In terms of the local government equitable share, the 2016 budget reduces the baseline allocation by R300-million.
These are not major cuts and the obvious answer for new councils would be to reduce wasteful, unproductive expenditure, cut back on unrealistic salaries and benefits, streamline management systems and ensure all tenders are awarded in a cost effective and transparent manner.
Unfortunately it is these critical steps that have proved the most difficult for the past generation of local leaders. Despite much fighting talk by political parties, there is little solid assurance that the new generation of councillors will effectively reverse the political and governance culture that so badly discredited the previous generation of local government.
Glenn Hollands is a development specialist
Councils face hard times
The economic climate will only add to the stress as the global economic crisis deepens before it will get better. Projected GDP growth has been revised down to 0.9% for this year as result of lower commodity prices, higher borrowing costs, drought and diminished business and consumer confidence. Limited electricity supply also inhibits growth and deters fixed investment. National Treasury warns that “the cost of providing municipal services will grow at a faster rate than the transfers from national government”.
New councils will inevitably use this to make their political excuses but the truth is our local government system is unraveling. South Africa was acclaimed for its post-apartheid local government system because it put municipalities on an equal footing with other spheres of government.
Granted an equitable and demonstrably fair share of national revenue through the Division of Revenue Bill and the equitable share system of financial transfers, local government shed its poor cousin status.
Municipalities, charged with overcoming inequality and glaring underdevelopment, now had a guaranteed slice of national revenue to meet service and development obligations.
Other grant systems tackled infrastructure backlogs. This too had a development bias. For example, in the 2014/15 financial year, 77% of municipal infrastructure allocations targeted rural municipalities.
Freed of the burden of finding their own cash for infrastructure development and services to the poor, municipalities were expected to plot their own economic and social futures. The idea of sustainable, increasingly autonomous municipal areas was alluring but it did not take long for the wheels to come off.
Institutional costs escalated while services and infrastructure crumbled. Maintenance and repair suffered to such an extent that a 2016 shift in the conditional grant system (previously aimed at new infrastructure) now allows municipalities to use these grants to repair and refurbish existing infrastructure.
Assured of national financial transfers, many municipalities became less and less inclined to collect their own revenue. Treasury noted “if municipalities had collected half their outstanding debts, they would have had about 18% more revenue... to fund the delivery of services”.
This had unforeseen political consequences. As Treasury observed, “transfers continue to weaken local democratic accountability. The growth in grant dependence and prevalence of indirect transfers obscure the accountability of municipalities”.
With their political confidence bolstered by assured, increasing national revenue, municipal councils tended to give disgruntled local citizens the middle finger.
By 2009 the department of cooperative governance and traditional affairs (Cogta) was forced to take stock: “Service failures by municipalities may be attributed to elements of uneven and unstable governance. There is evidence of a high incidence of irregular or inappropriate appointments, coupled with low capacities, poor skills development programmes and weak institutional management.”
For a while the principle of local government autonomy held sway and national and provincial government seemed reluctant to intervene. Grant allocations were sometimes squandered on priorities that mainly assured the comfort of councillors and senior staff. Of the various institutions charged with oversight of local government, only the Treasury and the auditor-general stood their ground against those riding roughshod over local democracy and accountability.
For regions such as the Eastern Cape with cash-strapped municipalities presiding over weak local economies that offer few jobs and little or no growth, the Treasury has urged “... an aggressive approach to curbing non-core spending and improving operational efficiencies... ”.
But this simply echoed the turnaround strategies and the Back to Basics Campaign. When cost containment measures feature in the president’s state of the nation address, councillors are more likely to snigger than tighten their belts. Perhaps this is why social events, junkets, fancy cars, and sponsored iPads persist?
Historically, when citizens became unruly due to water cuts or persistently horrible sanitation services, a political heavyweight (read chief) was sent to quell the anger. There remains an understanding – correct or otherwise – that national leadership has the capacity and moral authority to set municipalities on track when things go badly awry.
This was supported by various governance barometer surveys which consistently showed that citizens placed more trust in provincial and national government than local.
Around 2006, levels of confidence in local government seemed to have improved from about 50.3% to 54.5%. But this coincided with a general decline of trust in government, including the presidency, parliament and national government.
Subsequent chaos in parliamentary politics, mounting evidence of corporate influence over elected leaders and the crisis within key state-owned enterprises suggests that public confidence has declined further. Rolling impeachment attempts and two adverse judgements by the Constitutional Court against the presidency can only hasten this trend.
For future councils facing service delivery protests and other forms of local insurrection, this could be a problem. The answer in the past – to convoy in a high-ranking provincial or national politician, minister or even the president – may prove increasingly unreliable and could add fuel to the flames among communities that are starting to understand government’s concept of citizenship as one that allows for differentiation, especially in the allocation of rights.
When the National Development Plan espoused active citizenship, it probably had in mind the polite spaces of public participation such as ward committees, imbizos, consultative forums etc. Researchers in this field are starting to warn that community patience with these “invited spaces” has worn thin.
Adding to their impatience has been the participation scam – preferential access for party loyalists, payments to ward committee members and other co-option measures or patronage networks that simply extend the power of existing elites into so-called civic forums or consultative bodies.
This has sparked the emergence of what is being termed “insurgent civil society” – one that sees little option but to disrupt the existing order through familiar and tested repertoires of violence that were so effective against apartheid.
Another factor that could make the seats around the council chamber uncomfortably hot is the reduced funds available for services and community development.
In the past, councillors had fairly broad discretion to use projects, service upgrades and public works opportunities to placate impatient communities. But government belt-tightening outlined in the last budget speech has not omitted local government. Treasury warns that the transfer to local government in the 2016 medium term expenditure framework is down by R967-million. In terms of the local government equitable share, the 2016 budget reduces the baseline allocation by R300-million.
These are not major cuts and the obvious answer for new councils would be to reduce wasteful, unproductive expenditure, cut back on unrealistic salaries and benefits, streamline management systems and ensure all tenders are awarded in a cost effective and transparent manner.
Unfortunately it is these critical steps that have proved the most difficult for the past generation of local leaders. Despite much fighting talk by political parties, there is little solid assurance that the new generation of councillors will effectively reverse the political and governance culture that so badly discredited the previous generation of local government.
Glenn Hollands is a development specialist
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos