TWENTY YEARS OF FALTERING “DEMOCRACY”: SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN...

392 Volume 49 Number 1 | March 2014

Journal of Public Administration

TWENTY YEARS OF FALTERING “DEMOCRACY”: SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN

SOUTH AFRICA

J.P. Tsheola, N.P. Ramonyai & M. SegageDepartment of Development Planning and Management,University of Limpopo

ABSTRACT

One of the pertinent distinctions of the concept of democracy is that it serves as an ideal for the exercise of people’s power as a totality of political association. This paper holds that democracy, as a set of

principles rather than mere institutions, remains nebulous if it is not given pragmatic effect in ordinary citizenry’s specific contexts. In a “democratic” South Africa, such a context would unavoidably involve the application of democratic principles in the service delivery planning and implementation so that the latter activities conform to the decisions shaped through popular public participation for consensus building. This paper contests that decisions about priorities relating to services to be delivered, the mushrooming of popular social protests that are violent as well as the evident upward spiral in voter apathy are inescapable pointers to a faltering democracy. This paper uses conceptions of democracy, its pragmatic realisation in service delivery planning through public participation, as well as the declining trends in voter perceptions about South Africa going in the right and government performance, to demonstrate that the citizenry has experienced twenty years of faltering democracy.

INTRODUCTIONDemocracy, as “an ideal of political association”, invokes a deeper meaning of

its being about “the power of the people” (Villoro, 1998: 95). Its popular conception as merely “a system of government” (Villoro, 1998: 95) has however allowed for reductionist practices. As an ideal of the totality of the citizenry, democracy should entail that the exercise of state power relies on popular consultation and participation for its sustenance; and, to this extent, such a democratic state become a servant of the publics (Reddy & Sabelo, 1997; Beetham, 1998; Kubiak, 1998; Massuh, 1998; Ramaphosa, 1998; Villoro, 1998; Malherbe & Van Eck, 2009; Mafunisa, 2010; Tsheola, 2012; Calland, 2013; Habib, 2013). Twenty years on, South Africa presents unambiguous illustrations of a faltering democracy from the perspective of it being “an ideal of political association” (Villoro, 1998: 95). This paper uses conceptions of democracy, its pragmatic realization in service delivery

393


planning through public participation, as well as the declining trends in voter perceptions about South Africa going in the right and government performance, to demonstrate that the citizenry has experienced twenty years of faltering democracy.

In South Africa, given the severity and depth of privation (Calland, 2013; Habib, 2013), the ideals of democracy should be given pragmatic effect through, among other modalities, public participation in service delivery planning. Indeed, one of the most urgent spheres for such public services in developing countries such as South Africa resides in the provision of basic services such as water, electricity, shelter, health care, education, transport and sanitation. In a “democratic” South Africa, households who reside in over 2 700 informal settlements and townships across the nation are beset by challenges, in some cases atrocious, associated with substandard, inadequate quantity and poor quality of provision of these basic services (Tsheola & Sebola, 2012). South Africa’s 1996 Constitution provides that legislative structures be created to ensure delivery of basic needs for community development through public participation (RSA, 1996). This Constitution is recognized as “possibly the best … in the world” (Richman & Hendricks, 2013, 27). Perhaps, should it be asked if observations such as these could be premature, because the “test of goodness” should have been in the pragmatic effects and “quotidian lived experiences” of this democratic constitutionalism? Ramaphosa (1998: 73), who was central to crafting South Africa’s Constitution, notes,

“… it is through the application of democracy that it achieves its meaning. Unless applied to the lives of ordinary people in a specific situation, democracy remains a nebulous and untested concept.”

In this context, the enduring experiences of violent service delivery protests, increasing voter apathy, negative public perceptions of the direction the country has taken and the undesirable public judgments of government’s performance in basic services delivery amidst world-class legislative structures for public participation in planning should signal a totality of faltering democracy.

NEXUS OF DEMOCRACY, PLANNING, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE DELIVERYIt is befitting to enter this nexus with a discussion of the democratic principles

that relate to public participation in decision-making planning processes (Beetham, 1998; Massuh, 1998; Malherbe & Van Eck, 2009). Kubiak (1998: 57) cites Michnik (1997) who describes democracy as “the emporium of passions and interest, the blend of outrage with virtue, sacredness with villainy”. This paper holds that democracy, to be given pragmatic effect with success, it needs to be stressed as “an ideal of political association” that describes “power of the people” wherein there is totality and collectivism in control of decisions and their execution (Villoro, 1998: 95). That is, democracy has a specific focus on decision-making by the citizenry as a means of exercising “people power” (Beetham, 1998; Massuh, 1998;

J.P. Tsheola, N.P. Ramonyai & M. Segage



Villoro, 1998). Inherently, democracy entails active participation of the citizenry in decision-making. The basic principles of democracy, according to Beetham (1998: 21), are “popular control and political equality”, meaning:

that the people have a right to a controlling influence over public decisions and decision-makers, and that they should be treated with equal respect and as of equal worth in the context of such decisions.

Whereas politics could provide for the realization of the democratic ideal, the latter can never be achieved in its entirety because it is a delicate balance (Massuh, 1998; Villoro, 1998). The provisions of systems of government by themselves should not presuppose the realization of democracy because political institutions such as elections, parliament and the rule of law are designed for the realization of the principles (Beetham, 1998; Ramaphosa, 1998; Villoro, 1998; Malherbe & Van Eck, 2009). Having evolved through popular struggles, South Africa’s democracy entails that the polity and politics should make it accessible popular and inclusive participation. The latter should shape both planning decisions and implementation or execution thereof. That is, establishment of democratic institutions, as well as public participation structures, is the means to the end, which is the realization of the democratic principles. Public violence and state reliance on brutal force, as demonstrated in South Africa’s service delivery protests, amidst a globally celebrated democracy implies that the latter is faltering.

Constitutional and legislative provisions for public participation in service delivery planning should be interpreted as attempts to the pragmatic realization of democratic principles of people exercising power. However, participation is contextual and in a state of flux because it depends upon personalities, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values and interests as well as conflated needs, wants and means, social structure ties and competence or incompetence (Kubiak, 1998; Mussah, 1998). Notwithstanding these confrontational constituents of participation, the latter is crucial for democracy because it involves “free and equal citizens in the polity, acceptance of the rules of the game and trust in the social contracts”, thereby nullifying the use of brute force by both the state and the publics (Kubiak, 1998: 57). For this reason, the fatal violence in service delivery protest by both the state and the publics in South Africa should be interpreted as a sign of the weakening of democracy. As Kubiak (1998: 58) puts it, “only democracy possess the ability to question itself and to correct its own mistakes without resort to naked force”. That is, the violence in a perfectly democratic principle of protest should suggest that South Africa’s democracy is faltering at public participation relating to the planning decisions on service delivery.

Informal settlements are an enduring feature of the present global landscape (Rubin, 2011; Lekonyane & Disoloane, 2013); and, their persistence in a democratic South Africa implies that development planning itself may have been “poorly planned, poorly maintained, failed in its totality, or … absent from the start”

395


(Theron, 2008b: 42). To be successful, theorization and practice of development planning, as a normative process, has to revolve around “people” so that “its contents in specific situations” would be interpreted and understood through people-related issues and challenges (Dale, 2004: 1, 2). In this context, public participation is critical to service delivery planning because it instils humanistic content to the evidently normative process. That is, public participation in planning and execution of service delivery should be interpreted as democracy at work, especially for the deprived sections of the population.

Conceptions of planning are variable and complex because they are heavily dependent on the underlying motive for the construction of typologies (Dale, 2004; Theron, 2008b; Tsheola, 2012). Dale (2004) and Theron (2008b) present numerous typologies of planning on the bases of motives such as goal, activity and operational level. The fickleness in the conceptions of planning derives from the fact that it involves anticipation of the future and systematic imagination of policy goals (Dale, 2004; Theron, 2008b). Whereas decision-making about the allocation of public resources is destined to always be contested, the uncertainties about the future amidst limited resources inherently render planning a potentially volatile process. Inevitably, as a normative process, planning anticipation of uncertainties allows for co-existence of a complex mesh of promise, including that which is overtly unrealistic. Perhaps, this complexity explains the misgivings that often engulf public participation in service delivery decision-making processes. Like democracy, planning is a complex process of decision-making and change management for the reduction of future uncertainties (Theron, 2008b; Tsheola, 2012); and, some of the norms and principles entailed could be inaccessible to lay persons, especially within poor informal settlements such as those in South Africa.

Dale (2004) and Theron (2008b) distinguish two categories of development planning, which are denoted technical planning and social learning process planning. Technical planning encompasses economic planning and physical development planning whereas social learning process planning embraces interpretative, communicative and collaborative planning (Dale, 2004; Theron, 2008b; Tsheola, 2012). The latter category of planning is the most appropriate in the context where public participation is required because it allows for back-and-forth communication, shared interpretation of the fears and anxieties about the future as well as collaborative imagination of action to reduce future uncertainties. The primary contention is that if the public are the direct beneficiaries, their participation and stake in the planning process are primate (Tsheola, 2012). To this extent, the knowledge of the lay persons in the community is expected to be respected and treasured in shaping the service delivery decisions and implementation because they are, as it were, “for the people”. Delivery of physical projects such as roads, clinics, schools and dams may as well cause discontent, notwithstanding the potential spin-offs of services therefrom, if beneficiaries were not afforded the opportunity to influence the content, structure and agency involved through




integrated participatory development planning. Therefore, planning activities are important conceptual tools for understanding the discrepancies between public participation in service delivery planning and implementation. Often, communities are surprised during implementation of activities that do not relate to the decisions that they had sought to influence through public participation in service delivery planning. The norm appears to be that the process of public participation in service delivery planning is just a formality of deliberations that would later be superseded by the technocratic balances for efficacy and cost-benefit interests. Public participation in service delivery planning is therefore rendered nominal if the inputs, aspirations, fears, considerations and uncertainties felt by the beneficiary communities do not ultimately shape activities that are implemented. In essence, public participation in serve delivery planning should manifest in implementation activities to signal “people power”, “popular control” and “political equality” as well as to demonstrate that “democracy is at work” (Beetham, 1998; Kubiak, 1998; Villoro, 1998).

Service delivery planning entails decision-making and management of change to reduce uncertainties about public goods such as water, electricity, roads and transport, education and schools, health care and clinics, and so on, all of which have a distinguished potential to affect human dignity. Hence, such planning of service delivery should, as the adage has it, “be about people”. The latter links service delivery planning directly to the necessity of people involvement, which is commonly described as public participation. The exercise of “people power” in its totality and inclusivity of community in public decision-making is the observance of two primary principles of democracy (“popular control and political equality”). Active citizenry is central to democracy, planning, public participation and service delivery, which are all intricately interwoven in a nexus of “people power” for popular control, equality, respect for human dignity and rights. Thus, it is befitting to conclude this section with Beetham’s (1998: 21) formulations that “Democracy is always a matter of the degree to which certain principles are realized, rather than some final state of perfection.” That is, the principle of public participation for civic ownership of service delivery planning decisions in most of South Africa’s informal settlements and townships remain unattained. South African’s Public Administration is overwhelmed by analyses that emphasize democracy as “a system of government”, thereby focusing on the political institutions as though their forms mattered more than their content. Theoretically, this paper accepts Beetham’s (1998) and Villoro’s (1998) conceptualization of democracy in terms of its basic principles because it allows for examination of its pragmatic operations beyond the political structures. Democracy begins and ends with the citizenry, who simultaneously consists of its focus because its sustainability draws from people’s “ability and willingness to play a part in common affairs” (Beetham, 1998: 22) and to acknowledge self-responsibility as well as respect for others’ rights, human dignity, political equality, differentness and expression of views.

397


SOUTH AFRICA’S STRUCTURES OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNINGAccording to Ramaphosa (1998: 74), “One of the main elements of democracy

must surely be the provision of access for the people to the key centres of power”. Twenty years on, does the South African citizenry exercise “people power” in its totality and inclusivity for popular control and equality of basic service delivery? A democratic South Africa’s Supreme Law provides for development planning at the municipality scale (RSA, 1996). Expected to be democratic and accountable to local communities, municipalities are required to ensure public participation in the provision of services (RSA, 1996, Section 152(a-e)). Section 153 (a, b) of the Constitution further stresses the requirement for planning for participatory community socio-economic development and delivery of basic needs. All other structures of public participation, including that in service delivery planning, are crafted in consort with the provisions of the Supreme Law of the Nation. It is not by coincidence that the 1997 White Paper on Transforming Service Delivery clearly requires public participation in the decision-making processes about prioritization of services as well as insurance of the highest standards in the provision of specified quantity and quality (RSA, 1997, Section 1.3.3). Given the popularity of the adage that “development is about people” in a democratic South Africa, the definition of municipalities as developmental in the White Paper on Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (RSA, 1998) should entail a necessary extension that “service delivery is about people”.

Social development planning, consistent with the social learning process planning, is further provided for through the Local Government Municipal Systems Act No. 32 of 2000 (RSA, 2000). This Act purposefully establishes and outlines integrated developmentally-oriented planning process for municipalities (RSA, 2000, Section 23, a, b). There is unambiguous stipulation of the process that municipalities are required to adhere to for public consultation, political deliberations on prioritization of community development needs as well as drafting of the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) (RSA, 2000, Section 29(1)). Through the structures of the IDP, municipalities as well as the 2004 Community Development Workers Programme (CDWP) have been expected to give the necessary agency to fast-track service delivery (Tshishonga & Mafema, 2010). There was hope that the CDWP would allow for inclusivity in service delivery planning (Tshishonga & Mafema, 2010; Tsheola, 2012). Inherently, constitutional and legislative provisions for public participation in service delivery planning decision-making are an acknowledgement that the processes involve making choices, which may tendencially become “ad hoc and misdirected”. The latter can be expected to become worse if government’s choice is not couched through popular voices, aspirations, fears and uncertainties of the publics. Theoretically, South Africa’s legislative structures adequately provides for inclusiveness, consultation,




partnership, integration, coordination, strategic prioritization, spatial sensitivities and sustainability of public participation in service delivery decisions-making processes and implementation activities. These structures should, therefore, equally allow for normative future-oriented municipal service delivery planning that is focused on public participation.

Through the complex process of public participation, the community is expected to be involved in the establishment of consensus on priorities, in accordance with commonly shared social goals, to mute conflict and educate society about collectivism of welfare (Mzimakwe, 2010; Tsheola, 2012). The social learning processes in service delivery planning public participation enable communicative knowledge and information exchange that should alert community that setting service delivery priorities does not entail fixed targets because challenges too are in a state of flux. A proper conception of democracy should focus on a citizenry that appreciates the preceding point. Unsurprisingly, South Africa’s IDPs processes are undergirded by the rationale that public participation begins with the decision-making on priorities rather than later, and that it is a continuous process that encompass implementation activities and the on-going management of change (Mzimakwe, 2010; Tsheola, 2012). The violent public protests about service delivery and attendant fatalistic state violence in a democratic South Africa suggest that municipalities have not as yet adequately democratized the planning processes as provided for by legislative structures. Apparently, the heavy reliance on outsourcing to the private sector, as insinuated in the 2013/2014 Madibeng Municipality water saga, could perhaps explain the discrepancies between political deliberations for consensus building in service delivery planning and the implementation activities. Has the service delivery planning decision-making process being undermined through implementation activities that are pre-emptively goaded by the private sector? Implementation of service delivery activities devoid of public participation consensus should suggest that planning has become a nominal decision-making process to serve the interest of formalities, devoid of democracy. South Africa’s Constitution does not entail direct democracy and full participation; instead, it provides for representation (RSA, 1996). But if implementation activities do not conform to the aspirations of the public as expressed through the municipal service delivery decision-making processes and codified in the IDPs, then the municipalities themselves lack the agency to conform with the priorities expressed in its own popular development plan. Do municipalities ignore the consensus on service delivery priorities established through political deliberations of “people power” and popular control in the interest of technocratic convenience? If active citizenry is the focus, beginning and end of democracy, in whose convenience do municipalities manage change through service delivery planning and implementation?

399


INTERFACE OF SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PRIVATIONMalherbe & Van Eck (2009, 209) concede that “After a positive, almost euphoric

start, the constitution has in recent years become threatened by the state’s endemic failure to fulfil its constitutional and legal duties”. Indeed, informal settlements in South Africa are evidence that providing services such as housing has remained a daunting task (Rubin, 2011; Lekonyane & Disoloane, 2013), and this phenomenon could realistically become a permanent feature of the national landscape. Its persistence would imply that a significant majority of South Africans would continue to be deprived of access to basic services such as housing, water, sanitation, electricity and transport, at the constitutionally-mandated standards, quantity and quality (Malherbe & Van Eck, 2009). Such a context could become socially, economically and political unstable (Rubin, 2011; Lekonyane & Disoloane, 2013). Twenty years after the dawn of democracy, would it be far-fetched to contemplate the thought that the democratic state has materially neglected its constitutional responsibility? A response in the affirmative would concede that South Africa’s globally celebrated democracy has not translated into “lived experiences” of democracy for the majority of the poor.

South Africa’s legislative structures of service delivery planning public participation are evidently complex; and, the question is whether municipalities constitute the necessary agency to deliver at the required standards, quantity and quality. Do municipalities have the agency to popularize the decision-making consensus in respect of services prioritization, standards, quantity and quality? This questioning is not complete because the framing cannot escape the matter of public’s civic maturation in respect of understanding that planning involves competing priorities, and that the implementation activities may not almost always carry their wishes and aspirations. Democracy too entails public and state tolerance. There is no intent here or anywhere in the paper to insinuate that technical planning attempts to balance the diverse and competing priorities. If truth be told, technical planning priorities do not involve political deliberations and consensus building arising from public participation. That the promise of democracy in service delivery planning has waned in the past twenty years is evident in that whereas 76% of South Africans were confident that the country was heading in the right direction in the 1994-1999 political term, this proportion has dropped to 42.8% in the 2009-2014 period (RSA, 2012). Statistics released by the Cabinet in March 2012 show that since 1994 every other government elected into power would have contributed to the dampening of the popularity of public perceptions of the country going in the right direction (figure 1). Essentially, South Africa appears to have experienced democracy as “a system of government” through, among other institutions, elections rather than as an “ideal of political association” for assertion of “people power”, popular control and equality.




Figure 1: Public perceptions of South Africa going in the right direction

Source: RSA (2012)

There is a systematic general trend of decline in public perceptions of South Africa going in the right direction. This trend is an indictment on the democracy because it could imply that the public does not shape the direction South Africa is taking, notwithstanding their voting. Whereas election year appears to bring hope, subsequent years evidently consist of disappointment about the direction of the country. On average, the proportion of South Africans whose perceptions were that the country is going into the right direction was 61% during the 1994-1999 political term, declining to 53% (1999-2004), then 66% (2004-2009) and 50% (2009-2014) (computed from RSA, 2012 data). This trend is correlated with the 2000 and 2003/2004 promise of democratization and fast-tracking of service delivery through the structures of public participation in the IDP and CDWP, respectively. This statistical measure of the strength of public perceptions about the right direction declined to a low of 45% in November 2011 (RSA, 2012). Evidently, democracy is not at work if the public disown the decision-making processes and overwhelmingly feel that the country has taken a wrong direction.

This grim reality is corroborated by the decline in the proportion of turnout of voting age population in the 1994, 1999, 2004 and 2009 national elections which were 86%, 71.2%, 57.8% and 65%, respectively (RSA, 2012). There is acceptance that the voter participation “is unlikely to reach the heights of 1999” (RSA, 2012: 55) which is the clearest indication of voter apathy that cannot be explained away from the frustration with the unrealistic promises of “a better life for all” and non-democratization of service delivery planning. Cabinet accepts that “There has been

401


a general decline in public opinion about government’s performance in delivering services since November 2006. … (which) coincided with the high prevalence of service delivery protests across many municipalities” (RSA, 2012: 85). In a period of nine years between 2002 and 2011, public perceptions about government “performing well” in delivering basic services dropped by almost 23 percentage points (figure 2).

In this context, the scapegoat presented by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA, 2009: 18) that municipalities have become terrain for “factional conflicts, political infighting and patronage” has to be questioned for its validity. Whereas these dynamics could be playing out within municipalities, service delivery failures cannot be dismissed as consequences of “political parties that undermine the integrity and functioning of municipal councils through intra- and inter-party conflicts and inappropriate interference in councils and administration” (CoGTA, 2009: 18). There are substantive reasons of service delivery planning and the discrepancies between the decision-making processes and the implementation activities. Given these statistically-established trends in public opinion, this paper strongly assert that the decline in positive public perceptions of government’s performance in basic service delivery corroborates those negative trends in voter participation and the country taking the right direction. Public perceptions of government “performing well” in the delivery of basic services has systematically dropped from 73% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 (RSA, 2012). Together, these trends in public perceptions confirm that the public does not experience democracy as “people power”, “popular control” and “political equality”, especially in service delivery planning. Hence, civic tolerance on the part of both the publics and the state has virtually collapsed.

Figure 2: National public perceptions of government “performing well” in basic services delivery, 2002-2011

Source: RSA (2012)

These statistical trends confirm Nzimakwe’s (2010) and Tsheola’s (2012)




observations that service delivery planning in South Africa, notwithstanding the legislative structures for public participation, has lacked agency. Essentially, the promise of democracy in service delivery has been usurped by perverse reliance on technocratic professionals who do not understand the significance of political deliberations and consensus building in sustainable resolution of societal problems. Public participation in development planning is one of the key tenets of the rules of democracy; and, if the democratic state flouts the principles of democracy, poor communities in informal settlements too should be expected to ignore the rules of the game. It is in this context that this paper asserts that the mushrooming of violent protests about service delivery is reflective of the state’s lack of compliance with the constitutional duties, which ultimately undermines sustainability of democracy itself (Malherbe & Van Eck, 2009). Perhaps, the question of “which and whose democracy” (Villoro, 1998: 95) has become relevant for South Africa, twenty years after 1994. South Africa’s informal settlements expose communities to atrocious conditions of living; and, this observation remains relevant to date (Mzimakwe, 2010; NPC, 2012; Tsheola & Sebola, 2012; Alloggio & Thomas, 2013). It is not farfetched to insinuate that poor people have not as yet accessed democracy in South Africa because their voices continue to be socially excluded from the political deliberations that shape the implementation activities for service delivery, thereby allowing for the fomentation of conflicts and violent protests.

The legislative structures provided for democratization, such as the IDP and CDWP, have not given pragmatic effect to the principles of democracy (popular control and political equality). Mainstream models of development planning and the practice thereof failed to prioritize citizenry and its public participation as the beginning, focus and end of democracy. It can be asserted that the mushrooming of violent service delivery protests imply that South Africa’s democracy has not led to the realization of the principles of “popular control and political equality” because by their nature they signal a failure to establish publicly active citizenry “which is capable of exercising tolerance” (Beetham, 1998: 22). Indeed, democracy is paradoxical because “it can become its own enemy and yield to the temptation of one extreme or the other: authoritarianism or indifference”. Twenty years on, South Africa appears to be caught in the latter.

PUBLICS AND STATE INTOLERANCE: FALTERING SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION DEMOCRACYJust like any other developing country, South Africa pleads poverty of resources

because of capital scarcity and non-existent culture of savings; consequently, decisions about service delivery priorities and infrastructure investments are exceedingly complex (NPC, 2011). Simultaneously, deprivation has remained deep (Mbeki, 2009; Calland, 2013; Habib, 2013). There is a strong coincidence of lack of societal tolerance, violent service delivery protests and state agencies’ culture of fatalistic violence against the publics. The NPC (2011) acknowledges

403


that the South African society’s “social fabric” is deeply fragmented. Evidently, there exist “social exclusion, mistrust and a fragmentation of society” (Manuel, 2011: 35). Cabinet already accepts that there is coincidence in the decline of positive public perception of government’s performance in basic service delivery and violent protests (RSA, 2012).

Regulatory planning has not succeeded anywhere in the world where poverty, deprivation and inequality are deep (Mbeki, 2009; Calland, 2013; Habib, 2013). South Africa, with its deprived majority population living in squalid informal settlements, cannot become an exception to the norm. Advocacy planning, which sets out to serve public interests, holds the potential to ensure that political deliberations about prioritization of services and that consensus established regarding implementation could be pragmatically shaped through popular control and public participation. The determination of priorities about services is a political and, sometimes, ideological decision, implying that service delivery planning is equally a process of political and ideological decision-making. To this extent, public participation is central to the success of service delivery under the prevailing financial constraints because it is about “people power”, totality and inclusivity of democracy.

CONCLUSIONThis paper argued that in the past twenty years democracy has faltered because

there is evidence of the paucity of “people power”, “popular control” and political equality in service delivery planning and public participation. Persistent downward spiral of public perceptions of government performance in basic service delivery, enduring voter apathy and negative judgments of the direction the country is taking, which coincided with violent protests across South Africa, cannot be ignored. Notwithstanding the constitutional mandate, “the majority of South Africans are still besieged with complex developmental challenges, including unemployment, poverty, and inequalities” (Qwabe, 2013: 21). It is unsurprising that over the past twenty years the democratic state has incessantly attempted versions of service delivery, culminating into the present National Development Plan 2030 Vision (Alloggio & Thomas, 2013; Qwabe, 2013). In a special issue of Social Dynamics dedicated to the NDP, Alloggio & Thomas (2013: 109) observe:

The rhetoric of active citizenry adds insult to injury: those who suffered the worst forms of injustice under apartheid are now liberal subjects who are cast as responsible for their failure to transcend and transform the harshness of life post-apartheid.

This observation is compelling because it exposes the discrepancies of the national political rhetoric of “a better life for all” and the twenty years of quotidian experiences. It is for these same reasons that the democratic state has, accepting the limitations of resources, provided for legislative structures that would democratize




service delivery planning decision-making processes in order to ensure public participation, tolerance and civic content. But South Africa’s democracy has not been realized in practice as an ongoing process of learning, mutual education and tolerance for both the state and the citizenry. Giving pragmatic effect to democracy as an ideal of people power, totality and inclusivity of political association has eluded South Africa. Massuh (1998: 67) states that democracy is so complex that “It requires a high degree of rationality in a world dominated by irrational stimuli of passion, propaganda …” and so on. In South Africa violent service delivery protests are met with state’s fatalistic violence. This paper concedes that democratization of service delivery through legislative structures of public participation in planning has faltered over the past twenty years.

LIST OF REFERENCESAlloggio, S. & Thomas, K. 2013. Resisting the lure of deferral: realising the South

African National Development Plan. Social Dynamics: A Journal of African Studies, 39(1): 108-110.

Beetham, D. 1998. Democracy: key principles, institutions and problems. In Inter-Parliamentary Union (ed.) Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, pp. 21-29.

Calland, R. 2013. The Zuma Years: South Africa’s Changing Face of Power. Cape Town: Zebra Press.

Dale, R. 2004. Development Planning: Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers and Facilitators. London: Zed Books.

Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA). 2009. Local Government Turnaround Strategy. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Habib, A. 2013. South Africa’s Suspended Revolution: Hopes and Prospects. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Kubiak, H. 1998. Democracy and the individual will. In Inter-Parliamentary Union (ed.) Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, pp. 57-65.

Lekonyane, B.C. & Disoloane, V.P.P. 2013. Determining strategies to manage informal settlements: the case of City of Tshwane Municipality. Administratio Publica, 21(2): 57-71.

Mafunisa, M.J. 2010. The myth of the dichotomy in the South African local government. Journal of Public Administration, 45(4): 544-560.

Malherbe, R. & Van Eck, M. 2009. The state’s failure to comply with its constitutional duties and its impact on democracy. TSAR, 2: 209-224.

Massuh, V. 1998. Democracy: a delicate balance and universality. In Inter-Parliamentary Union (ed.) Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, pp. 67-71.

Mbeki, M. 2009. Architects of Poverty: Why African Capitalism Needs Changing. Johannesburg: Picador Africa.

National Planning Commission (NPC) 2011. Diagnostic Report. Pretoria: The Presidency.

National Planning Commission (NPC) 2012. National Development Plan 2013: Our Future – Make it Work. Pretoria: The Presidency.

Nzimakwe, T. 2010. Public participation and engagement in local governance: a South African perspective. Journal of Public Administration, 45(4): 501-519.

405

Journal of Public AdministrationQwabe, B.R. 2013. Realising South Africa’s Vision 2030: a capacity-building

perspective. Administratio Publica, 21(2): 21-36.Ramaphosa, C. 1998. The main elements of democracy: a South African experience.

In Inter-Parliamentary Union (ed.) Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, pp. 73-79.

Reddy, P.S. & Sabelo, T. 1997. Democratic decentralization and central/provincial/local relations in South Africa. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(7): 572-588.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.Pretoria: Government Printers.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2000. Local Government: Municipal Systems Act No 32 of 2000. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2002. Planning Profession Act No. 36 of 2002. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2007. Development indicators mid-term review. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2012. Development Indicators. Pretoria: Government Printers.

Richman, T. & Hendricks, S. 2013. Ja, Well, No, Fine: An Alternative Guide to South Africa. Kenilworth: Burnet Media.

Rubin, M. 2011. Perceptions of corruption in the South African Housing allocation and delivery programme: What it may mean for accessing the state. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 46(5): 479-490.

Theron, F. (ed). 2008a. The Development Change Agent: A Micro-level Approach to Development. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Theron, F. 2008b. The change agent-project beneficiary partnership in development planning: theoretical perspectives. In Theron, F. (ed). The Development Change Agent: A Micro-level Approach to Development. Pretoria: Van Schaik, pp. 41-75.

Tsheola, J. 2012. Theorising a democratic developmental state: issues of public service delivery planning and violent protests in South Africa. Journal of Public Administration 47(1): 161-179.

Tsheola, J.P. and Sebola, M.P. 2012. Post-apartheid public service delivery and the dilemmas of state capitalism in South Africa, 1996-2009. Public Administration and Development 47(1.1): 228-250.

Tshishonga, N. & Mafema, E.D. 2010. Policy development for service delivery through Community Development Workers Programme in South Africa: exploring the implications of placing a cart before the horse. Journal of Public Administration, 45(4): 561-583.

Villoro, L. 1998. Which democracy? In Inter-Parliamentary Union (ed.) Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, pp. 95-103.


TWENTY YEARS OF FALTERING “DEMOCRACY”: SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN...

Documents

Transcript of TWENTY YEARS OF FALTERING “DEMOCRACY”: SERVICE DELIVERY PLANNING AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN...