![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article emanates from a study that assessed the depth and quality of public participation in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process and its impact on decision-making by officials, commissioned by the Gauteng Provincial Department of Local Government.Footnote1 It begins with a detailed analysis of the (voluminous) literature regarding public participation in development projects, starting with Arnstein's famous ‘ladder’, and seeks to understand where participation in South Africa is located on that ladder—at the base, where it rubber-stamps official decisions, or towards the top, where emancipatory notions are at play and power shifts from the bureaucracy to the people. The paper talks to issues of elite capture at one end, and debates about deliberative democracy and ‘invited’ spaces at the other. The paper includes findings from fieldwork that gave rise to a series of practical recommendations as well as broader recommendations about what is needed if participation in South Africa is to move to a (considerably) higher plane than it has currently reached, which the authors believe to be necessary, and thereby form a key part of the post-apartheid project. It concludes by arguing that participation involves more than drawing people into existing political and/or development processes; it transforms those processes in ways that boost people's opportunities and capacities generally to claim their rights. It therefore becomes an aspect of a wider transformative and redistributive project. It is not enough to redesign or adjust processes beforehand in order to facilitate greater participation; they must be amenable to being reshaped by participation.
Notes
The views in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Local Government.
Fieldwork took place in the following municipalities/metros and sites: West Rand (Randfontein); Johannesburg Metro (Yeoville); Bantubonke (Midvaal); Ekangala (Kungwini) and Emfuleni (Sharpeville & Boipatong).
Community gatherings attended by elected officials and senior public officials, arranged to hear the concerns of local residents and respond to them.
‘[W]here there is poor service delivery amidst broad participation—although this configuration is unlikely—there may be low levels of disgruntlement with the system’, according to Mathekga & Buccus Citation(2006). Participation then functions also a hegemonic tool that is used to build or reinforce popular consent.
Congolese, Ivorian and Senegalese organizations participate in the YSF, unlike, interestingly, their Mozambican and Zimbabwean counterparts. The Yeoville Stakeholders' Forum comprises 23 organizations, including NGOs, CBOs, faith-based organizations, statutory bodies, political and cultural organizations. Although it engages with all issues affecting Yeoville, much of its work focuses on service delivery (via liaison with the ward councillor) and safety and security (via the Community Policing Forum).
Yet, this apparent marginality should not be overstated. At recent inner city (Johannesburg Metro) summit workshops, ‘foreigners’ are said to have been highly active and outspoken (including individuals from Yeoville).
To underscore that point, one interviewee shared an anecdote (possibly apocryphal) about a councillor who, faced with dwindling attendance at public meetings, called a meeting on electricity-related issues, then arranged that the electricity provider in the ward cut the power a few hours before the scheduled meeting. Attendance rocketed.
Anon (2006). Policy on public participation in the city of Johannesburg (Johannesburg Metro: Johannesburg), p.8.
