 |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE
|
|
Your email address:
|
|
|
Can participation make a difference? Prospects for people’s participation in planning
2007
Dr David Hemson, Research Director, Infrastructure and Service Delivery, URED, HSRC
Centre for Public Participation (CPP)
THE QUESTION of public participation has become one of general debate in South Africa. Government officials at the national, provincial and local spheres often mention that there are formal processes laid down in policy and statutes for participation, and often encourage the idea. Social movements and the poor respond that these either do not exist or they are powerless and ineffective. The izimbizo convened by the Presidency and provincial authorities tend to bring out the problems in meeting the demands of the poor. These dilemmas point to the need for the ‘deepening’ of democracy over time, a phrase suggesting that the existing formal democratic structures of society are not opening public decisionmaking to the historically dispossessed. The historic Reconstruction and Development Programme stated that deepening democracy would ensure that elected structures conduct themselves in “an answerable and transparent manner” (ANC, 1995: 5.2.3).
It also implies that the same structures are not progressively working to end the deprivation of apartheid by providing essential services to poor people.
The upsurge in social movements over the past few years has increasingly raised issues relating to the inequality of access by the poor; in urban centres this has centred on the disconnection of households from services such as electricity and water. In the deep rural areas there has not been the same outburst of social mobilisation, but the izimbizo similarly reveal deep discontent with either the absence of essential services or services which operate very poorly.
These issues associated with impoverishment and disconnections have been highlighted in service delivery (McDonald, 2002) while other analysis points to the sizable backlog which still exists despite
a considerable increase in access to services providing for human development (Hemson, 2004). Crucially, it is anticipated (Hemson, 2006) that the targets for safe water and improved sanitation to be provided may not be reached. On this basis there is a scenario for continued deprivation and impoverishment for a large segment of the rural population whose lives are not improving.
Although there are occasional statements of the need for government policy to be pro-poor, and there has been a considerable extension of social grants, poverty and deprivation still characterise conditions for the black majority. Increasingly there is a tendency for the middle class leadership to abandon their roots on their way to enrichment; an issue which has driven President Mbeki to denounce their preoccupation with wealth. The opposite side of the coin is the problem that the slow increase in growth does not create jobs and all-round development; that an extremely large wealth gap persists; and that there is still a paucity of skills.
Although the last municipal elections had a high level of participation, the problems that preceded them, such as inferior services and arrogant municipal officials, have tended to persist. To what
extent can public participation in local and provincial government provide a remedy and turn around the situation in access and quality of services, and bring about changes in the interests of the poor?
In this article the public participation of citizens in South Africa beyond elections, and in the opportunities provided for in local government, is explored to understand the extent to which forms of such
participation are available to citizens. Can public participation break through the ‘blockages’ to service delivery identified by the President and open up the prospect for delivery and improved services?
The idea of participation is popularly put forward as a solution to the problems of service delivery and to achieve public accountability. In a recent interview Gauteng Provincial Secretary Gengiza Mgidlana said: “We need more public participation. We educate communities about the importance of participation, structures, provincial government and their role as citizens. If people find a gap in our administration or policies, they can petition for changes and we are obliged to consider submissions on everything from our budget and service delivery to policy prioritisation. Communities must verify service delivery through these means.” (Jackson, October 2006.)
Is this an idealised conception of the relationships between communities and government or could such participation provide remedies to problematic access, or no access, to services?
|
|
Download document...
|
|
|
|
| INFORM US |
| Tell us about events relating to social accountability in the region |
|
|
|
|
