Decentralisation in South Africa: too many chiefs and not enough democrats?

Decentralisation is recognised as central to efforts in South Africa to improve the delivery of public services, to combat poverty and to develop parts of the country neglected by the apartheid regime. Despite the emphasis given to popular participation in government speeches and reports, in practice rural people’s influence on policy processes affecting them remain weak. Local government priorities continue to be set at provincial and national level.

A report from the Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme reports on the progress of democratic decentralisation in a small community in rural Pondoland in the South African Eastern Cape. Mdudwa is a typical, remote village in a former African homeland area. Examining disputes over land, forest and water resources in this village, the researchers analyse the power relationship between newly elected municipal and council authorities and traditional leaders. Their research raises doubts about the effectiveness and sustainability of current decentralisation reforms.

In Mdudwa, as elsewhere, reform is greatly complicated by the continued constitutional recognition of traditional leaders who, before the first democratic elections in 1994, were often considered an extended arm of the apartheid state – unaccountable, autocratic, and feared. Elected local municipalities, established since 1995, now bear responsibility for most service delivery and local economic development. Traditional leaders continue, however, to oversee the allocation of land and use of natural resources such as forests. Rivalry between chiefs and councillors is delaying development initiatives and reinforcing community divisions as people are forced to take sides.

Whilst the authors acknowledge that local government is still in a state of transition, they also highlight some worrying trends that have the potential to derail the progress of effective decentralisation:

• A limit on the funds available to national and provisional governments raises fears that additional public service burdens will be placed on lower levels of government and poor rural municipalities already struggling to raise enough revenue to meet devolved obligations to provide electricity, water, waste and other services.
• The transfer of even the limited powers already agreed to faces problems such as institutional inexperience and foot-dragging on the part of certain ministries.
• Elected local government is excluded from any involvement in land administration, forestry privatisation and management of wild resources, which remains the preserve of national government departments or the traditional leaders.
• Even for water services – the most conspicuous example of development in a village such as Mdudwa – key powers continue to be exercised by national government ministries, indirectly elected (and largely unaccountable) district municipalities and private contractors.
• Although a host of informal institutions – such as ploughing parties and savings clubs – play a crucial role in the livelihoods of rural people they are barely acknowledged officially.

The researchers therefore argue that central government policymakers need to:

• accept that policies which enable private companies to harvest state forests and other local resources may be incompatible with aspirations to promote participation and local accountability
• understand that the transfer of powers from the district to the local level should happen in accordance to an agreed schedule
• realise that the ability of local councils to develop and implement any proposed development programmes is impaired when necessary funding and other resources from government departments and funding agencies cannot be found
• recognise the risk that people might lose faith in the democratic process if severely restricted local governments fail to deliver services due to the above reasons.

Source(s):
‘Rural development, institutional change and livelihoods in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: A Case Study of Mdudwa Village’ by Zolile Ntshona and Edward Lahiff, Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa, Research Paper 5, March 2003 Full document.

Funded by: Department for International Development, UK

id21 Research Highlight: 29 April 2004

Further Information:
Edward Lahiff
Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies
School of Government
University of the Western Cape
Private Bag X17
Bellville 7535
Cape Town
South Africa

Tel: 27 21 959 3733
Fax: 27 21 959 3732
Contact the contributor: elahiff@uwc.ac.za

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of Western Cape, South Africa

Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Programme
Environment Group
Institute of Development Studies
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9RE
UK

Tel: 44 (0)1273 606261
Fax: 44 (0) 1273 621202/691647
Contact the contributor: o.burch@ids.ac.uk

Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa, Institute of Development Studies, Uk

Other related links:
'Decentralisation and poverty reduction: the reality in Africa'

'Can decentralisation promote pro-poor development planning systems?'

'Local Democracy, Democratic Decentralisation and Rural Develpoment: Theories, Challenges and Options for Policy'

'Decentralisation and Natural Resource Management in Rural South Africa: Problems and Perspectives'

'Decentralisation and Sustainable Livelihoods'