The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The recently tabled annual report for the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) shows that the poor can expect to see greater infrastructure development under a municipality led by the Democratic Alliance (DA)- than one led by another political party. Of the 272 municipalities that received Municipal Infrastructure Grants (MIGs) for the 2009/10 financial year, the DA's 13 municipalities spent 95% of their MIGs while the 259 non-DA municipalities spent only 75% of theirs (leaving R2.2 billion unspent). Indeed, an impressive 13 out of 14 (93%) of DA municipalities spent 100% of their MIG allotments. Only 34% of non-DA municipalities did the same.

A full statistical breakdown is available online. A summary follows below:

• Out of the 272 municipalities 10 spent 0% of the MIG (4%). They were all non-DA municipalities.
• 41 municipalities (16%) spent 50% or less of their MIG. They were all non-DA municipalities.
• 61 Municipalities spent between 50 and 79% of their MIG. One was DA-run, it spent 62% of its MIG.
• 60 municipalities spent between 80 and 99% of their MIG.
• 101 municipalities spent 100% of their MIG. 13 of these were DA-run.

The key facts are as follows:

• DA-led municipalities spent 95% of their MIGs, and the DA's one metro spent 100% of its MIG (Cities), while, on average, non-DA led municipalities spent just 75% of their MIGs
• 93% of DA-led municipalities spent 100% of their MIGs while only 34% of non-DA municipalities did
• DA-led municipalities left only R6 million unspent (or R462,000 per municipality) while non-DA municipalities left R2.2 billion unspent (the equivalent of almost 40,000 RDP houses - and an average of R8.4 million per municipality)
• The national rate of MIG expenditure has declined significantly from 85% in 2008/9 to 75% in 2009/10
• Non-DA municipalities left R2.2 billion unspent in 2009/10 compared to R1.2 billion in 2008/9, suggesting that they are actually getting worse at delivery over time
• if the 259 non-DA municipalities performed at the same level as the DA's, they would have spent an extra R1.7 billion (the equivalent of 31,406 RDP houses).

This shows that there is a performance gap between the DA and other political parties: South Africans deserve to be aware of this difference.

By way of background, municipalities are given MIGs to finance infrastructure development for the poor. Dispensed by the CoGTA, MIGs fund the building and maintenance of roads, sidewalks, footways, electricity connections, streetlights, high-mast lighting, multi-purpose centres, landfills, cemeteries, solid waste transfer stations, water supply lines, waste water treatment plants, stormwater drains and sewerage systems. The projects that result provide jobs through the expanded public works programme (EPWP), a source of temporary employment. But when municipalities fail to spend their MIG funds, they quite literally rob their residents of a better future.

Unfortunately, this has largely been the case. In the 2009/10 financial year, 272 municipalities were given MIGs totaling R8.739 billion. Of this, only R6.575 billion, or 75%, was spent, leaving a massive R2.164 billion unspent. A full quarter of the country's MIG budget was simply left on the table, despite communities' desperate needs. To put this into perspective, these leftover billions could have provided 39,345 RDP houses (at R55,000 each) to shelter 196,725 people (based on 5 individuals per house).

The DA's municipal performance goes against this trend. We run 13 municipalities, plus the City of Cape Town metro. Together, they were allocated a total of R452 million in infrastructure grants, of which we spent R446 million. That's a 99% rate of expenditure.

These results prove that there is no problem with local and provincial government per se, as the national government sometimes claims, but rather with political will and leadership. And these problems seem to be confined to the ruling party's municipalities and provinces. For instance, though six provinces (EC, FS, GP, MP, NW, NC) underspent their MIG budgets by a massive 31-43%, every Western Cape municipality spent its full allotment of MIG funds.

The DA believes that there are three important reasons, among others, for underspending by municipalities not led by the DA.

• First, many local governments rely on cadre deployment to appoint their staff. They care less for the educational or administrative skills of candidates than for the person's loyalty to the party. This makes it difficult for municipalities to get the right people in the right jobs, people who can deliver development.

• Second, we agree with Deputy Minister of Co-operative Governance, Yunus Carrim, who recently stated that local factionalism hampers delivery. However, it seems that this is a problem that affects the ANC more than others. The fact that the ANC is split into different factions, each loyal to different patrons or ideas, means that it is seriously compromised as a party for delivery. Such issues have not affected the DA's ability to spend its grants.

• Third, municipalities spend their MIGs more effectively when local leaders face healthy democratic competition. In places where a single party has a stranglehold on power, municipal leadership tends to be less responsive to the desires of residents for clean and efficient delivery.

The implications of this should be clear: our service delivery problems are not so much based on a lack of finances, but on how available resources are spent. Money is crucial, of course, but when 25% of a budget for the poor goes unspent, then we're dealing with something more profound and disturbing: a lack of capacity, competence and political will.

To fix this, we need to make municipal leaders more accountable for their expenditure decisions. We propose that, for municipalities that spend less than 50% of their grants, they should be put under investigation and offered the requisite professional assistance to get the job done. If they lack capacity, they must admit as much and seek help. We will be submitting questions to determine the reasons why each of the 51 municipalities who spent less than 50% of their MIGs did so, who is responsible and what action is being taken against them.

It is quite clear from the evidence at hand that DA-run municipalities place a greater emphasis on spending these grants than non DA-run municipalities, which says a lot about each party's respective attitude to the citizens they are required to serve.