Introduction

1It is common cause that, through history, the nature and quality of urban space determines, and in turn is determined by, individual and community identity and struggle. The purpose of this paper is to review recent fundamental changes in the management of cities in South Africa using Cape Town as a case study. Specifically, the focus of discussion is the involvement of communities and cultural groups in determining the allocation and distribution of public goods and services and the quality of their built environment. A brief theoretical introduction provides a conceptual framework in which to locate developments that have occurred in Cape Town.

Theoretical Perspectives

2While, among political philosophers, debate concerning the degrees and modalities of citizen participation in governance can be traced back at least as far as early Athens, it´s application to planning theory and praxis is much more recent, post World War II. It emerged from debates within social theory, was located within the modernization paradigm and took expression in community development initiatives (Webster). Abbott (1996. p.5) observed that,

"From its origins in the eighteenth century in the UK and the US, community development evolved onto a branch of social work with a clearly defined role. It provided limited social support, through the medium of individual community development workers, to improve the personal well-being of people in impoverished working class communities. This continued to be its function when it was exported to the colonies and it was able to perform this task with reasonable success within the paternalistic structure of the colonial administration.
The difficulty came when bodies such as the UN, viewing those same countries as emergent independent nations, began to redefine the role of community development and express this terms of wider social and political goals, rather than specific community needs. In this capacity Community development was conceived as ‘a process designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation´ (Moser, 1983. p.81). In broadening the scope of community development in this way the UN was the first to view community development as synonymous with community participation, a metamorphosis which was to be the root cause of the misunderstandings surrounding community participation over the next three decades".

3Community development was considered to be "the processes by which the efforts of the people themselves are united to those of government authorities to improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of communities, to integrate these communities into the life of the nation and to enable them to contribute fully to national progress" (United Nations 1956, in FitzGerald, 1980. p.29). The community (however defined) was the object rather than the subject of development.

4However critics held that (a) community development was never properly contextualized - it "hardly ever faced up to the differences in interest that could exist between different members of the ‘community´ that was to be ‘developed’ [while] community developers..........disregarded inequality, conflict and power relations" De Kadt, 1982. p573). Smit (1990. p.1) argued that, "The notion of community is always something of a myth. A community implies a coherent entity with a clear identity and a commonality of purpose. The reality is that communities, more often than not, are made up of an agglomeration of factions and interest groups often locked in competitive relationships. Development projects often have the effect of accentuating differences........" ; (b) that the process was open to abuse by privileged groups ; (c) that it merely constituted a form of manipulation with the emphasis on mobilization rather than participation ; (d) that it was frequently used as a policy tool by colonial powers to create plausibly democratic institutions ; (e) and that communities were not given the power to choose how they should be involved.

5In 1969, in a seminal paper, Arnstein redirected the debate concerning ‘community participation’. She conceptualized a ‘ladder’ of the degree to which individuals and groups are involved in transformation of their environments (Fig.1).

Fig. 1 Arnstein’s ‘ladder’

6The lasting value of the typology is threefold : (a) it emphasised the duality between the governed and those who govern with the power differentiation that that implies ; (b) it suggests the different intensities with which people can become involved in decision-making ; and (c) it focused attention upon, and initiated a debate concerning the nature and the exercise of power. Viewed differently, development involving communities can be categorized as the outcome of either direction, manipulation, negotiation or full empowerment.

7Moser (1983) extended the debate by distinguishing between participation as a means and participation as an end. "Where participation is interpreted as a means, it generally becomes a form of mobilization to get things done..................... Where participation is identified as an end, the objective is not a fixed, quantifiable development goal but a process whose outcome is an increasingly meaningful participation in the development process" (Moser, 1983. p.3). In her opinion the important issue was how participation as means has the capacity to develop into participation as an end.

8Paul (1987) tried to address this practical problem by viewing the participation process from the perspective of the project (and coupling it with the variable of intensity). Thus he identified a total of five potential objectives for the project, namely (1) project cost sharing ; (2) improving project efficiency ; (3) increasing project effectiveness ; (4) building beneficiary capacity ; and (5) empowerment. To place these within the framework of community participation, Paul placed the different objectives and levels of intensity, together with what he termed the instruments of community participation, within a three-dimensional matrix (Fig. 2), stating that ‘the three dimensions are inter-related and that there are certain combinations of these dimensions which are more likely to be consistent and hence more effective (for community participation) than others in a given project context’ (in Abbott, 1996. p.37).

Fig. 2 Objectives, intensity and instruments of community participation

9Finally, it is important to recognize that community participation takes place within a wider social, economic and political environment and that conditions can change. For instance governments could be considered to be relatively more open or closed to community involvement and/or they could be considered active or passive variously controlling or enabling development initiatives and city management. Different macro-economic conditions might obtain and the complexity of particular projects could vary considerably in terms of technological expertise required, involvement of different sectors and budgeting and organizational management. Also a single project directed towards a specific community occurs within a context of higher level policy decisions. Abbott (1996) has conceptualized what he terms ‘the community participation surround’ graphically (Fig. 3). He writes,

"The first sector is sited on the left-hand side of the surround, where the government is closed to the involvement of the community in the decision-making process. The boundary of this sector moves to the right as the complexity increases. The reason for this is that it becomes easier for governments to maintain a non-participatory stance when there is a high degree of project complicity, as this makes community cohesion difficult.

Fig. 3. Community participation surround and the different areas of participation

10The government is in a very strong position to control the flow of information, which is and essential part of decision-making on complex issues. This sector is defined as the arena of exclusion, where community participation is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

11the response of community organizations in this situation is to exploit specific windows of opportunity. The state may be oppressive, but it will often encounter difficulties in maintaining hegemony in all spheres of activity. Hence it remains closed to community involvement generally, but there are specific sectors or activities where some engagement is possible. This is the sector into which the political empowerment falls. However, community participation is possible in spite of government opposition only because the issue is a simple, straightforward one around which community cohesion and mobilization can occur. In terms of community participation this sector is defined as the arena of confrontation.

12Further to the right lies a sector in which the project is simple, but where the government is now open to a degree of involvement by the community in the decision-making process. The community development approach falls into this sector. Here the government supports community involvement, but it takes place within a government-defined framework. In terms of community participation, this sector is defined as the arena of inclusion.

13Moving upwards and further to the right leads to the fourth and final sector, in which the project is complex, but where the government remains open to the involvement of the community in the decision-making process. Negotiated development as a form of community participation falls within this sector, which is defined as the arena of consensus. Because the decision-making is more complex and part of a wider system, the outcome here is different to that which operates in the arena of inclusion. Essentially neither party is able to take complete control. At the same time, however, they cannot always make the decisions together because there are other factors involved which bring in other actors. There may also be deep-rooted differences between them. The result is a move towards new forms of decision-making which revolve around different forms of consensus, of which the negotiated development approach is just one...........

14The sitting of activities in different sectors of the surround makes it possible to view community participation as a dynamic process. The political, social and economic conditions surrounding an activity may be examined to see the way in which changing conditions of government openness and changing complexity might push the activity in the direction of another sector and thereby change the arena of community participation" (Abbott, 1996. p.124-5).

The Changing Participation Surround in South Africa

15In South Africa, prior to the early 1990’s citizen participation in government at any level was minimal and was certainly never encouraged. The white electorate had experienced an education system that emphasised discipline and respect for authority reinforced by compulsory military training for all males. In a context of highly centralized and autocratic governance, such public participation in decision-making as did exist was directed by rules and regulations defined by the authorities. For instance, procedures were entrenched in statute for government departments to advertise particular actions in the Government Gazette and to invite objections within specified time periods (e.g. the Municipal Ordinance No. 33 of 1934 regarding rezoning of land use). However these formal procedures generally only required public reaction to policy decisions and seldom involved consultation and participation in policy or plan formulation. Even writing a letter of protest to the newspaper was regarded as somewhat eccentric.

16A range of institutions ensured the political, economic and social subordination of the black, coloured and Asian populations. Gross inequality was structurally entrenched. Among these groups popular opposition was at all times controlled and frequently repressed. Nevertheless it was never quelled. Davies (1986) has shown how resistance periodically reached crisis proportions whereupon the government would respond with varying strategies of coercion, compromise and co-optation. Lemon, (1991. p23) succinctly reviews such responses at the level of local government :

"Legislation providing for the staged evolution of coloured and Indian municipal councils was embodied in the Group Areas Amendment Act of 1962. Nominated consultative committees were gradually transformed into elective management committees, but these remained advisory to white city councils, many of which consulted the committees inadequately. In the late 1980’s Indians and coloureds largely rejected the establishment of their own municipalities, and increasingly demanded the establishment of direct representation on a non-racial basis on city councils. Cape Town City Council led the way in demanding such representation in 1985....... Prior to 1977, the only official representation permitted to urban Africans was through Advisory Boards and Urban Bantu Councils, neither of which significantly influenced the decisions of white municipalities , or of the Administration Boards which took over from them in 1972. Widespread township unrest in 1976, the year of the Soweto riots, led to the establishment of Community Councils the following year. Some functions were transferred to these bodies from the Administration Boards, but they were compromised by their ambiguous relationship with the Boards, especially with regard to housing allocation which involved the councils in influx control. Polls were low in the minority of wards contested, particularly in the major urban areas......... The government chose to attribute this failure to lack of autonomy rather than to problems of fiscal viability and legitimacy around which hundreds of community organizations were mobilizing. It responded with the creation, in the Black Local Authorities Act of 1982, of Town and Village Councils. The former were officially regarded as fully independent Black Local Authorities (BLAs), although they were subject to much wider powers of ministerial intervention than white local authorities."

17Lack of political legitimacy and financial viability ultimately led to the effective collapse of these institutions. "The primary objective of the organized mass demographic movement in this period was to make local government ‘ungovernable’ with civil society organizing rent and economic boycotts of local government. The consequence of these boycotts, in financial and social terms, remain with local governments to the present day and provide the background in which attempts to establish new municipal - civil society relationships have to be understood" (Tait, 1997. p. 2). It is axiomatic that Black Local Authorities were considered agents of the apartheid regime by the black populace and that township residents were never engaged in the process of urban management

18Thus there existed a paradox : whites had the vote and the nominal means to become involved in directing their socio-economic circumstances but were largely apathetic entrusting decisions to elected officials and bureaucrats ; conversely, the black, coloured and Indian populations were highly politicised and activist but were marginalized and denied access to decision-making forums.

19It was this situation that the new Government of National Unity, brought to power under the first universal franchise in April, 1994 sought to rectify. It’s central tenets, continuously reiterated in policy documents and the media, were democracy, public participation, transparency, accountability, equity, efficiency and empowerment. The Constitution specifies that one of the objects of local government is "to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government" (Article 152 (1)(e) of Chapter 7). The requirement for public participation was also advanced through the Local Government Transition Act (Second Amendment, 1996) ; the Provincial Development Council Law (1996, Western Cape) ; the Development Facilitation Act (1995, Other Provinces) ; the Reconstruction and Development Policy Framework (White Paper on Reconstruction and Development, 1994) ; and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC).

20The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) is a crucial instrument in government’s endeavour to transform government and society and to redress the inequities and inequalities of the past. Briefly stated, the RDP is an integrated programme that has the following objectives :

• To meet the basic needs of the people and to attack poverty.

• To plan according to the needs of people and to involve them in decision making.

• To create jobs and transfer skills to people, hitherto disempowered, thus integrating them into the economy.

• To make the public service efficient, productive, transparent and accountable.

• To transform government institutions and to harness their energy to fulfill the RDP.

21Germane to the present discussion are three sections of the government White Paper on Reconstruction and Development which encapsulate the principles of public participation, capacity building and empowerment as well as illuminating fundamental concerns being addressed :

22Section 1.4.3 - "In Meeting Basic Needs, our people should become part of the decision-making process on job creation, land reform, housing, services, water and sanitation, energy, telecommunications, transport, the environment, nutrition, health care, social security and social welfare. They should therefore help to decide where infrastructure is located, be employed in its construction, and be empowered to participate in the management and administration of large-scale developments. These major infrastructural programmes should stimulate the economy through increased demand for materials such as bricks and steel, appliances such as television sets and washing machines, and many other products. In addition, the industrial sector should develop new, more efficient and cheaper products to meet basic needs".

23Section 1.4.4 - "In developing our Human Resources, our people will be involved in the decision-making process, implementation, new job opportunities requiring new skills, gaining rewards for existing skills previously unrecognised, and in managing and governing our society. This will empower them, but can only succeed if there is also an appropriate education and training programme. The RDP deals with education from primary to tertiary level and from child care to advanced scientific and technological training. It focuses on young children, students and adults. It deals with training in formal institutions and at the workplace".

24Section 7.5.1 - To facilitate local and sub-regional consultation and participation, Provincial Governments should encourage the establishment of sub-regional and/or local forums which will consist of representatives of all the stakeholders in the areas. Provincial Governments will agree on the boundaries of these sub-regional forums. In consultation with these forums, local authorities will promote the development of their local areas. At provincial level, consultative councils should be established which consist of representatives of both stakeholders’ and sub-regional forums. Their function will be to ensure broad consultation, co-ordination, engagement and negotiation. Structures which in the past performed such functions will be reintegrated or rationalised.

25Thus RDP Forums have become the primary mechanisms through which civil society can participate in urban management. They can initially be convened by an independent facilitator or any community organization capable of assembling a representation of key stakeholders. An elected committee delimits a particular Forum’s boundaries and draws up it’s own constitution. Forums are required to be representative, inclusive, accountable to the community, non-party political and free of any form of discrimination. They comprise a wide range of stakeholder groups (for example, individuals, ratepayers’ associations, NGO’s, civics, business groups, labour unions, local government, schools, social welfare organizations, sports clubs, religious bodies, health organizations and other institutions of civil society). The Hanover Park RDP Forum has over 200 stakeholders. Membership is open to any individuals or groups provided they subscribe to the aims and objectives of the Forum by signing a ‘memorandum of trust’. Their purpose is to identify and prioritise the specific needs of their communities including building consensus regarding these needs and priorities ; to formulate specific projects and programmes, if necessary with the assistance of consultants and line function departments of government ; to estimate costs ; to create a development plan ; to motivate the implementation of these projects to appropriate government technical and financial departments (frequently it is necessary to negotiate with local government to realign it’s priorities and budgets with those of the forum) ; to undertake monitoring and evaluation of projects after implementation ; and to develop the building of various capacities and the flow of information to communities. Some Forums do have independent fundraising capability, independently soliciting financial support from NGO’s, business, aid organizations, presidential lead projects, provincial government and line function departments of provincial and central government.

26To these ends, each Forum elects task/delivery groups responsible for such issues as housing, business, sport and recreation, health, education, youth, crime, environment and finance. The role of the City Council is to provide, through it’s Community Liaison Unit, encouragement, training and logistical support (e.g. accommodation, computers, finance). The intent is to balance and strengthen relationships between local politicians, bureaucrats and the communities.

Problems

27Almost inevitably, problems do attach to the functioning of Development Forums :

• Jurisdictional boundaries for electoral Wards and Forums differ, confusing issues of representativity and community identification. Efforts are currently being made to redelimit Forum boundaries to coincide with ward boundaries.

• Notwithstanding that each Forum is explicitly apolitical, political tensions and sub-agendas are pervasive. In Cape Town, many local councillors belong to the previously all-white National Party while many Forum member organizations strongly support the African National Congress (ANC). A long history of enmity and strife exists between the two. Councillors, who are accountable to their electorate, are the formal conduit to the city council for citizens in their voting wards. Nevertheless, RDP Forums have direct access to the council. As a result, councillors, particularly those who are not ANC, often consider themselves marginalized or excluded from decision-making over fundamentally important community issues. Moreover, many council bureaucrats resent and reject what they perceive to be interference from Forums into their particular area of expertise. Conversely, Forums accuse them of being reactionary and obstructive.

• Tensions frequently exist between ratepayers’ associations and civic organizations. The ‘civics’ emerged during ‘the struggle’ to organize and to mobilize community resistance within the townships (the rent boycott is a case in point). They also appropriated many of the formal functions of the authorities (e.g. peoples’ courts and housing allocation). Currently they are having to redefine their role and to reposition themselves in local politics. Conflict over the relative distribution of power and legitimacy has been the result.

• Frequently new groupings and alliances emerge claiming to be the legitimate representatives of the community. For instance, the suburb of Mitchell’s Plain has three structures, initiated by political parties, which lay claim to being the legitimate RDP Forum. Problems of accreditation thus arise. A similar problem occurs over representation within various stakeholder groups causing problems of continuity in dealings with the local authority.

• Invariably stakeholders from low income, previously disadvantaged communities lack capacity (the skills, technical knowledge, expertise and organizational abilities) successfully to perform the planning, costing and on-site monitoring of often highly complex projects or to engage meaningfully in disputes with technocrats. Nor do they readily have access to revenue, accommodation, equipment and outside expertise (notwithstanding that the City Council now makes R 5000 to each RDP Forum and has established a Community Liaison Unit to address these problems. The perception remains that the Council is more committed to words than action with regard to real and effective community participation).

• Personalities or groups can dominate and disrupt the efficient functioning of particular Forums because they are more articulate or because they carry status.

• Considerable amounts of time can be lost in protracted argument and negotiation. To developers, in particular, time is money and they cannot afford to be ‘held hostage’ by lack of resolution within Forums.

Other Forms of Public Participation

28Public participation also occurs in less structured circumstances. Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s), Community Based Organizations (CBO’s) and private sector consultants often integrate the canvassing of popular opinion into their activities. Observation of the protocols for scoping as required by the Environment Conservation Act (No. 73 of 1989) are a case in point. Alternatively, ad hoc groups coalesce around specific issues (e.g. the Noordhoek kaolin mine, the Liesbeeck River conservation, the Oudekraal development, gangsterism and crime, rezonings, housing developments). Their methods include lobbying, petitions, public meetings, demonstrations, discussions with bureaucrats and use of the media to advance their cause. Usually the expertise they can marshall and the influence they generate is considerable. Individuals, as of right, continue to exercise their freedom of expression.

Conclusion

29Over the past five years a radical transformation has occurred with respect to public participation in urban management. From a political situation in which the majority of Cape Town’s citizens were excluded from effective involvement in determining the nature and quality of their built and social environment, people have become active and enthusiastic participants in physical and policy planning. A new ethic pervades the public sector and has infiltrated many elements of the private sector.

30A considerable existential divide still exists between the ethnic groups in Cape Town however. The legacies of apartheid can readily be discerned in the inequalities that exist and continuing racial segregation. Given the racial impress of Group Areas legislation and community demarcation of boundaries, very few Forums are multiracial. Indeed, very few RDP Forums exist within the former white residential suburbs. There Ratepayers’ Associations and issue-based coalitions prevail. The nature of the issues addressed in these different areas also differs markedly. In the black townships, such issues as the provision of housing, water, sewerage, electricity, waste removal, clinics, schools and police stations receive priority. In the former white areas the public rally more around issues of environmental conservation, the condition of public open spaces, security and, in general, what is perceived to be a deterioration of standards of public services. These issues have gained immediacy because of the rapid rate of urbanization, and the initiatives of government at all three tiers to redistribute wealth. They have been exacerbated by frequent and widespread examples of mismanagement and corruption. The result has been the erosion of budget allocations to public goods and services in these areas and increases in taxes, fees, tariffs and charges through a variety of instruments.

31This is not to imply that the consequences of budget stringencies have not been experienced in the more impoverished areas of the city however. Indeed a major problem with respect to public participation in city management is the slowness of delivery occasioned by lack of finance and technical capacity. Against this, peoples’ expectations for local area rehabilitation and development are high. This is a source of major frustration to Forums that have identified priorities and submitted plans for particular projects but are unable to see them implemented. In the longer term it has implications for the continued viability of the Forums and the public participation process in general as people become disenchanted and apathetic. At a more abstract level, it raises the question, ‘what circumstances are required to ensure that public participation becomes sustainable ?’

32While it would be necessary to be case-specific when attempting to locate developments in public participation within the conceptual framework presented earlier, certain valid generalizations can be made : using the progression illustrated in Arnstein’s ladder, prior to 1994, citizen participation in urban management was strongly characterized by manipulation and therapy. Information dissemination was limited, consultation was confined to the white municipal electorate while efforts at placation were directed towards periodic discontent expressed by urban social movements within the coloured, Asian and black communities.

33Partnerships between councillors, officials and the public are now being established, albeit not without complications. Local government is considerably more open with participation becoming a process. Communities can now initiate actions and their capacity has been considerably enhanced. People can now understand how the urban system operates, define problems, and engage the local authority for their redress. A wide range of skills and expertise has been acquired.

34However community development still occurs within frameworks defined by government. While negotiation is possible, the final arbiter and executive agency is still the local authority. Thus full empowerment, whether defined as certain powers being delegated to civil bodies or by communities taking full control of their environments (policy formulation, planning, implementation and infrastructure), has not yet been attained. Graphically, the current status of public participation in Cape Town can be located in Abbott’s schema (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 The status of public participation in Cape Town

35The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT II, 1996) identified the elements of what makes an initiative ‘best practice’. It is useful to evaluate the initiative to generate public participation at local government in Cape Town against these criteria :

• Partnerships between two or more public agencies, local authorities, non-governmental and community-based organizations, the private, professional and academic sectors.

36In Cape Town the modalities for such partnerships have been established and the Community Liaison Unit has been established to act as advisor, facilitator and negotiator.

• Sustainability as evidenced by lasting changes in legislation, institutional capacity, management systems, decision and resource allocation processes and environmental management.

37Cape Town is still on a ‘learning curve’ in this respect. Legislation and regulations are being widely reviewed, the Council has restructured it’s management system so that it is now flatter and more development/consumer oriented rather than being control oriented. It is aggressively promoting the ‘masakhane’ (lit. "let us build together") campaign, an important feature of which is to overcome the ‘culture of non-payment’ for public goods and services. This will considerably enhance the potential for financial sustainability. Public watchdog groups constantly monitor development in efforts to ensure environmental sustainability.

• Leadership initiatives which inspire innovative action, foster change and promote transparent, accountable and inclusive decision-making.

38Both the City Council and the various organizations promoting public participation have displayed considerable leadership towards innovative action. The ethic of transparency and accountability is widely recognized and endorsed in public forums even if it is not always applied.

• Impact tangible improvement to peoples’ environments.

39Much has been achieved in improving the quality of life the city in general and of the urban poor in particular although, as indicated, the rate of delivery has met criticism.

• Community empowerment which enhances capacities of women and men to improve in their lives ; access resources and assistance ; participate effectively in decision-making and partnerships ; and, hold organizations and leaders to account.

40This is probably the dimension in which Cape Town has made the most significant improvement. Community leaders have learnt much through interacting with the Council and are becoming increasingly confident and assertive. Women are becoming increasingly prominent in positions of responsibility.

• Gender and social inclusion initiatives which accept and respond to social and cultural diversity ; promote social equality an equity, for example on the basis of income, gender and age ; and recognize and value different abilities.

41Cape Town is becoming a much more inclusive society in terms of entertaining the opinions of all it’s citizens. Social equality is still only a goal but is one that is being vigorously pursued and supported by such initiatives as the government affirmative action programme.