In this, the first of a series of opinion articles ahead of the local government elections, political commentator Mike Roussos explores the District Development Model and whether it will help support true cooperative governance and improve service delivery.

The economic impacts of the Covid pandemic have been devastating.  Businesses have closed, many people have lost their jobs, gender-based violence (domestic violence against women and children) has increased, and stress levels have rocketed. Our economy was already in trouble and our unemployment rates were very high – then Covid struck and made everything much worse. 

This is a world-wide problem, but the solutions must be local – how can we rebuild after this difficult blow?

We’re going to have a local government election soon, when the politicians will come knocking on our doors again – asking for our votes - while telling us all the wonderful things that their party will do for us.

We all know that the Auditor General’s (AG’s) report on the state of local government has, once again, detailed the horrible conditions that exist within most of our local authorities: “The financial statements show increasing indicators of a collapse in local government finances – we assessed 79% of the municipalities as having a financial health status that was either concerning or requiring urgent intervention” (AG’s MFMA consolidated report 2018-19). And just to be clear, they assessed the situation as having deteriorated over the past three years.

Local government elections are meant to be about local issues and not about national politics. 

Are we getting the services we need? How effective are the local officials at managing the funds and the delivery of these services?  What role are our elected representatives (the local councillors) playing in overseeing the provision of services and the appointment of the right people to provide these services?  Do we have the right skills within our local municipality to allow for the effective and efficient provision of the range of services our municipality is meant to be providing to us?

The AG’s report seems to show a desperate situation in most local authorities, despite many efforts to assist and to advise on how to improve the situation. Does this mean that the problem is rooted in something more basic – something related to the way that local government is structured or financed?

For the uninitiated – the country is divided into 44 districts (that encompass anything from 3 to 8 local municipalities each) and 8 metros.  If we count the district municipalities and the local ones and the metros – that makes a total of 257 municipalities (205 of them are local municipalities).  Each council can elect between 3 and 90 councillors and metros can elect up to 270 councillors.  Each district also has a council - with between 3 and 90 councillors on it – but only 40% of these are elected directly (at the same time as the councillors for local municipalities are elected - via two ballots for the voters in those local municipalities – one for their local council and one for their district council).  The other 60% are appointed onto that district council by each of the local municipal councils comprising that district – in proportion to the number of voters in each of their local areas.  The district municipalities also have a staff - of varying size.

What do the district municipalities do, as opposed to the local municipalities?  Well, that is a big question.  They were designed (they’re in the Constitution) to provide a broader function than that of each local municipality – so anything that pertains to the broad area covered by the whole district should be their responsibility, while at the same time providing any support function that a local municipality may request of them.  In practice the development of the locality’s IDP (integrated development plan – that covers clinics, schools, roads and many other services) is their main function - and local councils are meant to integrate their IDP’s into the broader district plan. 

Some district councils act as facilitators in the provision of water and electricity for the local councils – some provide those services directly to the residents in some, or all, of their local councils.  This means that some district councils have access to funds that are paid for such services and others must rely on national subventions only.

The original concern (when the Constitution was drafted) was the creation of many new councils to provide services to the large number of our people who had been excluded under the previous regime – but to do so in a way that provided integrated development services that made sense to the specific conditions in that district.  The district municipalities were there to bring those local municipalities together – the old ones that existed under the old regime as well as the new ones that had been created to cater for those previously excluded.

The problem is that no details were provided in the Constitution – or in the subsequent legislation that followed – about who was in charge and how to ensure that the local councils worked together, and worked with the district council, to ensure that the people in the district got the best possible deal. Those local councils who want to cooperate will do so but those who don’t will argue that the Constitution protects them from interference and gives them local autonomy - ‘they will ask for help if they want it’.

Although it is up to the Constitutional Court to ultimately decide on this, it seems clear to me that the ‘local autonomy’ spoken of in the Constitution refers to the need to be clear on the division of powers between national, provincial and local authorities – and does not create a divide between two parts of the local authorities (the local councils and the district councils). They are both elected by the voters in those local areas at the same time – with some being delegated onto the district council after being elected onto their local council – so local decision-making is protected.

This remains the case even if the powers of the district become more clearly designated and they assume authority over certain functions (as I will advocate below).

What about the DDM – the District Development Model – that has been touted as the solution to many of these problems?

The DDM speaks of One Plan, One Budget and of the realisation of (that much dreamt-of notion of) governmental cooperation and coordination.  What does all this mean?

It may seem obvious that different parts of government should work together and plan together, but think of a big corporation with staff spread all over and many different initiatives / programmes happening at the same time.  Multiply that chaos by a factor of between 10 and 20 and you may come close to understanding the problems faced by government.

Plans originate from some 30 different government departments at national level, some eight to ten different government departments in each province, around 12 to 18 different State Owned Entities at national level and another 3 to 4 province-owned entities in each province – and any number of development programmes and projects initiated by a large number of NGOs and development groups (both local and international).  All of these have their own budgets and strategic plans and targets or objectives.  Bear in mind that the private sector also has any number of different projects, business ventures, marketing campaigns etc - that will also impact on what happens within a local area or district.

The DDM concept starts by noting this profusion and then targets the district as the desired focal point around which all this planning and budgeting – based on the material conditions prevailing in that district - should occur. What is there already? What could conceivably develop within that context? What local resources might be utilised as the foundation of any new initiative? What attracts people to this area? What might become the focus of a new job-creating venture in this district?

In other words the aim is to have the budget and planning process use the district as the focal point – rather than having all of those hundreds of different budgets impacting tangentially (or not at all) on each district – and start from the carefully assessed prospects of each district before working your way up!

Bottom-up budgeting and planning!

This raises some interesting questions and potential conflicts – but has a lot of potential as a new paradigm.  I think this approach could open up many new avenues and opportunities – as well as create many new arguments.

Some of these will be explored in Part 2.  

Roussos is working at Manto Management Consultants, specialising in Local Government and Shared Services