Involve local leaders in disaster relief efforts

Corrupt politicians must be prevented from controlling public resources

FOR CONCERNED South Africans waiting to see whether tomorrow’s joint sitting of Parliament to outline the government’s response to the flood disaster in KwaZulu-Natal will approve the extraordinary move not to grant emergency relief funds directly to corruption-ridden smaller municipalities, the situation resembles a midlife crisis.

They are fed up with the same old, same old – the local government is a pain and the bills keep on rising. How great it would be to throw it all in, escape the paralysed system, bring in the national and provincial government departments, contract private companies somewhere, and expediently deliver assistance to the deserving beneficiaries.

Just how truly anarchic the state of municipalities suffocated by inefficiency and corruption is was exposed on April 18, when President Cyril Ramaphosa pledged in his address to the nation to involve stakeholders – including the office of the auditor-general, business representatives, the religious sector, labour, community-based organisations, and professional bodies – to be part of an oversight structure looking after the distribution of resources to prevent a repeat of the looting that accompanied the pandemic relief efforts in the affected provinces.

How Parliament also decides on the establishment and details of the mandate of an ad-hoc committee to oversee the national State of Disaster will not only affect the multilevel capacity to respond to the current floods, but also to future emergencies.

Following a meeting with eThekwini Municipality last Wednesday, Human Settlements Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi insisted that her department would not directly transfer funds to the municipality amid concerns of inefficiency and corruption. This insistence raised concerns regarding the intergovernmental relations between the three spheres of government.

What about those honest municipal councillors, public servants, and ward committee members who just want to do their jobs? What about the public participation structures such as ward committees? Will they be meaningfully involved or will they be emasculated in the top-down approach to the disaster framework?

Historical parallels often spring to mind when it comes to concerns and fears that the distribution of the disaster-relief resources will become subject to crony deals, rigged procurement and fake fly-by-night service providers and fraudsters who loot the funds in cahoots with political cronies and connections.

Like circling vultures, corrupt politicians stress tearing down, not building up. They are recklessly uncaring about the plight of the people whose lives have been uprooted by disasters.

In the brutality and megalomania of all this, we are reminded of the Covid-19 personal protective equipment procurement and related corruption we saw over the past two years.

It is commendable that several Chapter 9 bodies, including the Office of the Public Protector and the Human Rights Commission, will meet again this week to discuss their oversight role in the disbursement of funds. Hopefully their role will enhance the involvement of local communities.

And in the debate we should recall the words of Otter, one of the fraternity house characters from National Lampoon’s Animal House: “I think this situation absolutely requires that a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.”

We must debate the merits of these considerations that are threatening to bypass local government and local voices in the management and distribution of emergency relief resources.

There is always a slippery slope when it comes to making humanitarian response choices based on factional political party considerations, because South Africa has a significantly high number of coalition municipal councils also made up of independent councillors. In most municipalities, the recently formed ward committees are showing signs of reviving public participation and the culture of holding councillors accountable.

But however you approach these questions, at least there is the argument that corrupt politicians must be prevented from controlling public resources. Intergovernmental relations and co-operative government, the fabled “motor” that keeps South Africa running, would splutter to a halt if these corrupt individuals had their way.

I asked a handful of MPs before tomorrow’s joint sitting of Parliament what responsibility the honest councillors and ward committee members have for the corruption of some politicians in local government. No reply. I also asked whether arrangements would be made for functional municipal council committees and individuals who made public statements denouncing the looting of public resources. No reply on this either.

The questions must be difficult to answer because it is hard to think of any justification for the much-cheered indiscriminate discrimination calculated at overlooking the principles of intergovernmental relations. So let us help them think this one through.

First: thousands of South Africans have, recently, courageously risked their lives and careers by publicly exposing corruption at the state capture commission, the auditor- general’s office, and elsewhere. Others have braved intimidation by contesting (and sometimes winning) elections to become councillors. Not all politicians support their corrupt colleagues – a point Parliament should seek to honour, not ignore, in acknowledging roles and responsibilities in responding to disasters.

Second: to conflate citizens of a municipality with the corrupt practices of some politicians in their local government is not just a gross moral simplification. It is also a gift to corrupt politicians, who want nothing more than to have people believing that they alone speak for, and hold in their hands, the future of all living in their geographic area and that their patronage is the life support for ward committees. It should be possible for honest citizens to be both proud of their local communities, and ashamed of their corrupt politicians.

Third: recently political parties have gone out of their way to castigate independent politicians and their supporters for being opportunistic and self-serving, not to mention hypocritical. Yet among them are brave individuals who broke away from the entrapments of political parties and went on to expose corruption and improve efficiencies in local government. What the threatened marginalisation of these citizens will do if allowed by Parliament will only validate the allegation.

Fourth: South Africans are supposed to strive for a multiparty system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness, and openness. We are also supposed to believe that democratic societies never shine brighter than when they uphold these principles in the face of adversaries who flout them. It would be nice to see Parliament celebrate those ideals by ensuring meaningful involvement of local leaders and local structures.

In Animal House, Otter defends his fellow Deltas by insisting “You cannot hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behaviour of a few sick, perverted individuals.”

On this point, at least, let us give Otter his due: you also do not hold the entire local government structure responsible for the behaviour of corrupt leaders.

Parliament should think this one over and let honest local leaders and communities participate meaningfully in disaster-relief efforts under our country’s flag in the hope of what their local governments might someday become, free of the yoke of their present corrupt leaders.