Fixing service delivery
Citizens taking over responsibility for delivery of precious resources not sustainable
THE provision of water has been identified as one of the key elements in the fight against Covid19.
In this regard, all spheres of the government have been hard at work delivering water, particularly to the vulnerable. The month of March is important in our calendar. We celebrate human rights – water being one, among others.
It is therefore incumbent on all who have executive authority to ensure this right is not violated. While all spheres of government are hard at work endeavouring to meet this important right, we are observing a tendency by communities under the banner of “concerned residents” taking municipalities to court, and aspiring to assume executive municipal authority.
For example, we have seen in Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality that a provisional order was issued in favour of Kgetlengrivier Concerned Residents to take over the management of water and wastewater infrastructure.
In 1997 and 1998, the Water Services and National Water Acts were promulgated into law to regulate the management of water services delivery, and water resources, respectively.
Municipalities have done exceptionally well in the delivery of water services since 2000.
Notably Stats SA’s 2018 household survey indicates that municipalities have increased the provision of water by 3.7%, sanitation by 3.6%, solid waste by 2.4% and electricity by 3.1%. Unfortunately, these gains are not celebrated. The legal nature of a municipality as contained in Chapter 2 of the Municipal Structure Act (MSA) affirms that the municipality consists of “the political structures and administration of the municipality; and (ii) the community of the municipality”. This is like a three-legged pot. If one of the legs is dysfunctional it is bound to affect the functionality of the others. In this instance, the big question is which of the leg or legs is hindering the optimal functionality of a municipality? Is it the political structures, administration or the community?
My observation is that to some extent all legs are dysfunctional. Civilians have disengaged in participating in the affairs of municipalities and to hold those elected accountable. Equally so, the other two legs seem to be disjointed based on occurrences unfolding at various municipalities, such as audit outcomes.
What could be some of the solutions? National and provincial governments must intensify their mandates in terms of section 154 of the Constitution. Importantly, such support and its impact should be measured and benchmarked by an independent body that reports to Parliament oversight structures. Such a body should also produce an annual report card of its evaluation of the support provided to local government.
Secondly, the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs should equally police the implementation of Chapter 4 of the Municipal Systems Act. Community participation is key in the affairs of municipalities.
Thirdly, the Department of Water and Sanitation must execute its policy and regulatory mandate without fear or favour. It is evident that the courts are beginning to occupy this space through the issuing of orders for civilians to take over municipal water systems without due diligence of what it takes to run such a business.
The big question to ask is, if civilians provide water quality that does not comply with set norms and standards, who should be held accountable?
Regulations 2834, currently under revision, dictates the required competencies to operate municipal water and wastewater treatment facilities respectively. The re-introduction of regulatory instruments such as the blue and green drop certification programme is of crucial importance in the current situation.
Payment of municipal services is worrisome. As at December 31, 2020 municipalities are owed R230.5 billion. Evidently the bulk of the debt is sitting with households.
Withholding payment for services can only exacerbate the situation, noting that the fourth-biggest source of income in municipalities is sales of water (10.2%), followed by sewerage and sanitation services (4.1%). Going forward we must intensively advocate for the “user pays” principle.
Municipalities supported by all of us must introspect on their institutional capability and capacity to deliver on their respective mandates.
The District Development Model (DDM) affords us the opportunity to reconstruct our capabilities.
Taking over the executive authority of municipalities might seem popular and victorious. However, I wish to underscore the judgment in the City of Tshwane vs Gauteng Government in the dissolution of the City of Tshwane’s Council. The judge concluded that “The running of the city by an unelected administrator is the very antitheses of the value to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities”; “The citizens of the city have a fundamental constitutional right to be governed by those they elected”; “Irreparable harm has been established by the applicants, not only to itself but also to the citizens of the City”.
The same viewpoints may be said about unelected civilians taking over the executive authority of a municipality through the courts. It is not too late to redeem ourselves. Let’s reflect deeply if the takeovers are an appropriate mechanism to provide services, or are there other progressive alternatives?