1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND FORMULATION OF THE OBJECTIVES
1.2 DEMOCRACY
1.2.4 Participation
Oakley and Marsden give the following four explanations of public participation.65
1. Public participation is considered a voluntary contribution by people to some public programme or other supposed to contribute to national development, but the people are not expected to take part in shaping the programme or criticising its contents.
n. With regard to development....participation includes people's involvement in decision-making processes, in implementing programmes, their sharing in the benefits of development programmes and their involvement in efforts to evaluate such programmes.
111. Public participation is concerned with the organised efforts to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations for groups or movements ofthose excluded from such control.
IV. Public participation is an active process by which beneficiary or client groups influence the direction and execution of a development project with a view to enhancing their well being in tenns of income, personal growth, self reliance or other values they cherish.
Perhaps a more useful conception ofparticipation and its relationship to democracy is articulated by David Beetham. Beetham distinguishes between the concept of representative government, which mayor may not be particularly democratic, and representativedemocracy, which is a representative government conducted according to democratic principles.66 Of the fonner - representative government - it mayor may not be
true, as it is frequently alleged, that it assumes that citizens are passive, that they are incompetent to participate in decision about complex issues.67 He argues that representative democracy on the other hand, cannot be realised or sustained without an active citizen body.68 Inbroad terms, the view that in order for democracy to survive and grow, it must be supported by a system of public participation is generally supported by writers on this subject.69
Similarly, Harold Wolman, states that the bedrock of American local democratic theory is that the role of the local government is to reflect the will of people, and the direct individual participation in local government is the best means of achieving this end.7o Cochrane states that underlying much of the argument for local democracy or democratisation is a belief in the importance of active involvement by
"citizens." Participation is itself seen to be a good thing, which encourages the "empowerment" of those who were previously merely defmed as passive recipients of initiatives developed by experts ofone sort or another.7) Along these lines Edgar Pieterse claims that participation is a political practice that fosters access to relevant information, influence over the allocation of scarce resources, awareness about the benefits of collective action in terms of strengthening livelihood strategies and increasing social capital, and citizenship.72 Itis, by defmition, a process of social learning because it serves to empower uninformed, marginalised citizens about how they can advance their interests in conjunction with their (multiple) communities.73 As an alternative to the static rendition of the current obsession with social capital in development circles, social learning is suggestive of an open-ended process rather than a defined outcome.74
In respect of public participation it is evident, as Edgar Pieterse, notes that the new local government policy framework is, if nothing else, ambitious.75 Itis a commanding, complex, forward-looking and optimistic manifesto to systematically realise a participatory local governance system that is at the heart of an intergovernmental effort to achieve democratic citizenship, integrated development and reconciliation between the divided communities of South Africa.76 Central to this complexity are precisely the requirements to public participation outlined in the legislation. To a significant extent these external requirements have already been outlined, and ward committees and processes of public participation explained. However, participation could also relate to processes internal to municipal decision-making, and
reflects on the respective standing of councillors in the decision-making process. Here we find echoes of Dahl's points about effective participation and equality in voting. Simply put, the closer the internal processes of the municipality approach these gaols, the more democratic such processes are.
Insum then, while Dahl' s theory of contemporary democracy is an excellent theoretical starting point for exploring the democratic innovations in post-apartheid local governance, it is not possible to apply Dahl yet to all aspects ofthe municipal decision-making process. Much hangs on the empirical evidence yielded by the case-studies, especially as regards the internal moment to the municipal decision-making processes.
Nevertheless, Dahl's theory does direct us to the significance ofinclusivity, transparency accountability and participation in assessing the democratic status of municipal decision-making; a theoretical analysis bolstered by arguments from a variety of other scholars. On the basis of this theoretical analysis, the preliminary case for the hypothesis can be advanced.
2. A CASE FOR THE HYPOTHESIS.
The focus of this thesis is on municipal decision-making and whether the decision-making structures and processes are able to accommodate the requirements of both efficiency and democracy, as envisaged in the Constitution and the new municipal legislation. Before being able to determine the extent of the tension between efficiency and democracy in decision-making, it is necessary to examine, in some detail, the statutory provisions pertaining to these two concepts.
2.1 Efficiency
The meaning ofefficiency in the context of municipal decision-making has already been explored under 1.1 above from which it was concluded that the level of efficiency is measured in accordance with the time taken to perform a task. Therefore, the longer it takes to reach a decision the greater the loss to efficiency.
For the purpose of this research, only the efficiency of decision-making and not the quality of decisions
taken, which has more to do with the efficacy or effectiveness of decision-making, will be addressed.
There are numerous examples, contained in the new local government legislation, which require municipalities to conduct their activities efficiently, examples of which are as follows:-
An obligation on municipalities to collect all money that is due to and payable to them.77
Municipalities are required to develop a system of delegation that will maximise administrative and operational efficiency and provide for adequate checks and balances.78
The introduction of performance management for municipalities as a statutory requirement.79
Municipalities must maximise efficiency of communication and decision-making within the administration.8o
Municipalities must provide services in a manner that is conducive to the prudent, economic, efficient and effective use of available resources.81
The new system of local government requires an efficient, effective and transparent local public administration that conforms to Constitutional principles.82
The new legislation, in particular the Municipal Finance Management Act, while imposing tight time lines for certain procedures, for example, the finalisation ofthe annual budget, also contain punitive measures for non-compliance. Ittherefore imposes a responsibility on councils to ensure that they practice decision- making efficiently.