1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATION OF THE OBJECTIVES
2.2 Democracy
competence. Public participation in the decision-making process will need to be institutionalised, and, in so doing, it is likely that additional steps will be included in the process. Each ofthese additional steps is likely to extend the decision-making process which will entail more time and thereby constituting a loss of efficiency. Itseems to be a reasonable assumption to make that adding more stages and more committees to the decision-making process will result in a more protracted route which will, inturn, impact negatively on the ability of the municipality to take prompt decisions. Inthis regard, reference is made to the work done by Flyvberg in analysing rationality and powervis-a-vis the Aalborg Project.91 The relations of the city government to other main actors in the Aalborg Project and to the project itself are shown in Appendix 5.
The Aalborg Project may be interpreted as a metaphor of modem politics, modem administration and planning, and of modernity itself. The basic idea of the project was comprehensive, coherent, and innovative and it was based on rational and democratic argument. Sadly it disintegrated into a large number of disjointed sub - projects, many of which had unintended, unanticipated, and undemocratic consequences. The Aalborg Project, designed to substantially restructure and democratically improve the downtown environment was transformed into environmental degradation and social distortion. Flyvberg points out that institutions that were supposed to represent what they themselves call the "public interest were revealed to be deeply embedded in the hidden exercise of power and protection of special interests."
He concludes that the Aalborg Project "is the story ofmodernity and democracyinpractice, a story repeated all too often for comfort for a democrat.,,92 Reference is made to the Aalborg Project purely for the purpose of drawing attention to an extreme case where the efficiency and, in fact, the success ofthe project was bedevilled by the degree of public involvement in the decision-making process. The research will seek to uncover, firstly the extent to which the design of municipal decision-making structures and processes accommodates public participation and, secondly the effect thereof on the efficiency of decision-making.
Inmaking a case for the hypothesis an attempt was made to bring to the fore the democratic requirements to be met by municipalities in the performance of their decision-making function. The hypothesis which emerges from this is as follows:-
The efficiency in municipal decision-making is likely to be inversely proportional to the degree of
democracy manifested in the decision-making structures and processes of that municipality.
However, as four concepts have been identified which are deemed to capture the essence of democracy in municipal decision-making and as the impact on the efficiency may vary amongst these principles, the following four sub-hypotheses have been fonnulated:-
a) the efficiency in municipal decision-making is likely to be inversely proportional to the degree of inclusivity manifested in the decision-making structures and processes of that municipality.
b) the efficiency in municipal decision-making is likely to be inversely proportional to the degree of transparency manifested in the decision-making structures and processes of that municipality.
c) the efficiency in municipal decision-making is likely to be inversely proportional to the degree of accountability manifested in the decision-making structures and processes ofthat municipality.
d) the efficiency in municipal decision-making is likely to be inversely proportional to the degree of participation manifested in the decision-making structures and processes of that municipality.
These will form the basis of the empirical study. In the next chapter we explore in more detail the methodology best suited for this empirical work.
REFERENCES
1. Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, Robinson, Mairi. Chambers Harrap Publishers, Edinburgh, 1999.
2. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ofCurrent English, Wehmeier, Sally. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
3. International Encyclopaedia ofPublic Policy and Administration, Shafritz, Jayn. University of Pittsburg, Westview Press, Pennysylvania, 1998.
4. Chambers 21stCentury Dictionary. op.cit.
5. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary ofCurrent English.
6. International Encyclopaedia ofPublic Policy and Administration, op. cit.
7. Ibid.
8. Wolf, R.: Efficiency: Whose efficiency? University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA, 2002, p.2.
9. Walsh, K.: Public Services, Efficiency and Local Democracy. InKing, D. and Stoker, G.:
Rethinking Local Democracy, Palgrave MacMillan, ew York, 2002, p.70.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., p.76.
12. Ibid, p.77.
13. Ibid, p.78.
14. Ibid., p.86.
15. Ibid
16. Ronen, D.: The challenges of democracy in Africa: Some introductory observations. In Democracy and pluralism in Ajrica,ed, D. Ronen, 1-4. Boulder, Lynne Rienner., 1986, p.1.
17. Nwabueze, B.O.: Constitutionalism in the emergent states, London, C Hurt and Co., 1973, p.1.
18. Websters 3,dInternational Dictionary, Unabridged, G and C Merriam Company Publishers, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA, 1961.
19. Chambers 21stCentury Dictionary, op.cif.
20. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2ndEdition, Volume IV, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989.
21. Dahl. R.: On Democracy, New Haven and London Yale University Press, 1998, p.93.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid
24. Dahl, Democracy and its critics, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1989, p.107.
25. Dahl, On Democracy, p.37.
26. Ibid.
27. Dahl, Democracy and its critics, p.106.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., p.1I0 34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Dahl, On Democracy, p.37.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Republic of South Africa: Ministers Notice 965 of2005.
41. Structures Act, Section 73 (3) (a).
42. Miller, D.: Is deliberative democracy unfair to disadvantaged groups?InDemocracy as Public Deliberation; New Perspectives, England Manchester University, University Press, 2002, p.
43. Riordon, R.: Reconciling Participation and Representation. Inde Villiers, R. and Atkinson, D.:
Developing Democracy, Proceedings of two workshops convened by the Centre for Policy Studies on democracy and developmentin South African cities, Centre for Policy Studies, 1993, p.93.
44. Dahl,Democracy and its critics, p.46.
45. Cochrane, A.: Theories to Practices: Looking for Local Democracy in Britain. InKing, D. and Stoker, G.: Rethinking Local Democracy, p.210.
46. Hetherington S.and Mckenzie, K.: Communication and Local Government. InHorizontal Learning Network, The Best ofHologram 2001-2003. Newsletter 8 of 2003. Nolwasi, Cape Town. pp.1-8.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Heyneke, T.: Present Attempts to accommodate citizens' participation. Inde Villiers, Rand Atkinson, D.: Developing Democracy, p37.
50. Ibid.
51. Republic of South Africa: Batho Pele, Pretoria, Government Printer, 1997.
52. Hughes, O. E .:Public Management and Administration, Third Edition, Palgrave Mac Millan, New York, 2003, p.237.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Atkinson, D.:Issues ofRepresentation in Local Government, Electoral Institute of South Africa, Pretoria, 1997.
56. Ibid.
57. Hughes,op.cit., p237.
58. Ibid., p.240.
59. Ibid., p.243.
60. Ibid.
61. Atkinson,Issues ofRepresentation in Local Government, op. cit.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Cochrane, op.cit., p.197.
65. Oakley, P. and Marsden, D.: Approaches to participation in Rural Development.In Examining public participation involving communities in Local Governance issues in order to engage communities in municipal functionality for achieving the objective ofoverall excellence., 6th Local Government Symposium 2002, Johannesburg 5 and 6 March 2002, p.3.
66. Beetham, D.: Theorising democracy and Local Government: InKing, D. and Stoker, G.:
Rethinking Local Democracy, p.30.
67. Ibid.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. Wolman, H.: Theories of Local Democracy in the United States.InKing, D. and Stoker, G.:
Rethinking Local Democracy, p.159.
71. Ibid., p.205.
72. Pieterse, E.: Opportunities, Constraints and Prospects. InDemocratising Local Government.
The South African Experiment, Parnell. S., Pieterse, E., Swilling, M and Woodridge, D.:
University of Cape Town Press, 2002, p.12.
73. Ibid 74. Ibid
75. Pieterse,E.: op.cit., p.3.
76. Ibid
77. Act 320/2000, Section 96.
78. Ibid, Section 59.
79. Ibid., Section 38.
80. Ibid, Section 21.
81. Ibid, Section 73 (2).
82. Ibid., Section 2(b).
83. Carrim, Y.: Unrealized Potential: Community Participation in Local Government:
Presentation to the Provincial and Local Government Portfolio Committee, 20 May 2002, p. 8 84. Ibid
85. Ibid
86. Weideman, P.: Examining public participation involving communities in local governance issues to engage communities in municipal functionality for achieving the objective of overall excellence.Inproc.Institute
0/
International Research: 6th Local Government Symposium, 5th and 6thMarch, 2002, p.3.87. Ibid, p.10.
88. Ibid 89. Ibid.
90. Ibid.
91. Fylvberg, B: Rationality and Power, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1998.
92. Ibid., p.225.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGIES
INTRODUCTION
This research project seeks to interrogate the changes in local government specifically insofar as they impact on the decision-making structures and processes. The key issues are the criteria for democracy, as identified in Chapter Two, namely, inclusivity, transparency, accountability and participationand the expectation for efficiency to prevail in decision-making in local government.
With these issues in mind, it is necessary to take a step back to examine how the changes in local government and their impact on the decision-making process can best be probed.
Chapter Two covered, inter alia, the statement of the problem and the formulation of the objectives.
Following on from there, this chapter describes the activities to be conducted to achieve the desired objective, that is, to unpack the decision-making structures in local government with a view to determining the levels of efficiency and democracy and to confirm whether or not, in fact, there is a tension that exists between them. Accordingly, this chapter will cover, firstly, the research questions, secondly the methodologies, thirdly the methods and techniques to be used for the collection of data, fourthly the scope and limitations of the study, and fifthly, the participants.