8/2/2019 Govern Page 2-3

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/govern-page-2-3 1/1

 Mail & Guardian March 9 to 16 2012 37 

International Public Participation Conference Advertorial

36  Mail & Guardian March 9 to 16 2012

 An internationalconference tohelp governmentfind ways to

encourage publicparticipation saw specialists sharing

 best practices fromacross the world

 

How can government get

people to participate

more in how their coun-

try, province and city are

run?

This was the question delegates at

the International Public Participation

Conference hosted by the Gauteng

provincial legislature (GPL) from

February 29 to March 2 at Emperor’s

Palace in Gauteng discussed.

Under the theme “The People Shall

Govern: Public Participation Beyond

Slogans” the conference aimed to

share key insights and knowledge

on improving citizens’ meaningful

participation governance processes.

The conference also hoped to build a  body of knowledge on public partici-

pation and civic education to benefit

the legislative sector.

Uhuru Moiloa, chairperson of the

oversight committees of the GPL

said it was significant that people

had gathered “at the venue where

our Constitution was negotiated to

share experience in the world and

our own nation to uphold the princi-

ples of the Constitution.”

Peter Skosana, secretary to the GPL,

said the first international confer-

ence of this nature was held in 2006

in Birchwood and that, six years

down the line, there was “a need to

review the work done since then,

look at best practises and help to

enhance Gauteng’s own public partic-

ipation strategy, which was launched

 Wednesday [February 29 2012].”

Skosana said there was a real need

for a mind-set shift regarding public

participation. “We must value the

input people make. It’s about giv-

ing a sense and a reality to people

that they are being listened to and

responded to and given feedback.

“There is also a real need for an invest-

ment in education among citizens

around public participation – it will

 work if they see value to their inputs.”

Skosana said the presence of so

many participants, from non-govern-

mental organisations, international

guests from Nigeria, Kenya and

Scotland as well as the International

 Association for Public Participation,

has “created a platform of people

 who can share their views and trans-

late their resolutions into actions”.

“If we can walk the talk [of this

conference], we stand a better

chance of enhancing our democ-

racy,” Skosana said

Presentations to the 300 or so

delegates from across the world

addressed solutions used in Ireland,

in other developing countries,

such as India and Brazil, as well as

local examples from Western Cape,

Gauteng, Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal

and Eastern Cape. Participants also

had access to a number of academic

papers and break-away sessions.

Inert populations spell

disaster

Keynote speaker Dr Sydney 

Mufamadi started the conference

  by saying that the aim of public

participation processes was to turn

inert populations into active partici-pants in governing. He identified the

early signs of an inert population as

including a reduction in voter fig-

ures, non-participation in public

hearing processes and a general

disinterest in government reports.

He said these could indicate that a 

certain sector of the population was

considering contracting out of its

social agreement with government,

 which he described as potentially 

“disastrous”.

The challenges legislatures face in

achieving high levels of public partic-

ipation were highlighted by Neliswa 

Peggy Nkonyeni, speaker of the

KwaZulu Natal (KZN) legislature,

laid the groundwork for discussions

 by providing an historic overview 

of the role of public participation in

government.

She outlined the differences

 between the three sectors of govern-

ment (executive, legislative and judi-

ciary), saying that all were charged

 with ensuring public participation

in some way or another. Nkonyeniexplained that the Constitution

avoids the concentration of too much

power at any one level of govern-

ment (executive, legislative, and judi-

ciary) and sets out different duties

for each, which impacts on the level

of public participation in each level.

She explained that the executive arm

(comprised of individual MECs) rep-

resents the people and suggests law 

reforms, while the legislature (parlia-

ment as a whole) makes laws and the

 judiciary (courts) deals with uphold-

ing those laws. Both the executive and

the legislature are responsible to the

people, but the judiciary is only subject

to the law and the Constitution.

She said the challenge lies in avoid-

ing tyranny on the one hand and

anarchy on the other hand.

“As a society we must never return

to an enslavement of humankind by 

humankind. Legislators must con-

duct business in open manner,” she

said, stressing that it is a constitu-

tional injunction.

“Participation of the public is inte-

gral to service delivery and there is

a need to invest in our democracy in

a manner that ensures its sustain-

ability to safeguard our hard-earned

democracy.”

Constitutional requirement

“The Constitution makes it very 

clear that all citizens must have

a chance to say what they believe

should be included in laws. All legis-

latures must facilitate public involve-

ment in its processes.”

Nkonyeni explained that while the

most obvious way of participating

is through elections, they take place

only every five years. Therefore true

public participation is only achieved

  when, between elections, citizens

choose to become involved in the

processes of government.

Nkonyeni identified a number

of ways in which public participa-

tion had evolved in KZN, including

through sector parliaments, sym-

posia, public education campaigns,

public hearings, petitions and legis-

lative tours.She shared the results of a study 

conducted by the KZN parliament

in conjunction with the EU govern-

ment, which identified basic guide-

lines for effective public participa-

tion. These included proactivity,

inclusiveness, shared responsibility,

access, transparency and continuedevaluation.

“We can still do more as the legis-

lative sector of SA. Beyond consider-

ing and guiding the sector, [a con-

structive strategy to promote public

participation] must ultimately be

outcome based and gear our people

to transforming,” she said.

Lessons from Jozi

The execut ive mayor o f 

Johannesburg, Parks Tau, shared a 

case study from the Johannesburg

Metro on how local municipalities

can involve the public in integrated

development planning (IDP).

He said that Johannesburg had

chosen to link its 2006 IDP (which

covered the years 2006 to 2011) to

community-based planning, and

that there had been two iterations. In

the first, wards were allocated equal

 budgets and ward councillors could

identify three projects for imple-

mentation by the municipality, with

a final decision on which project

 would be implemented made by thecouncil. However, not all councillors

involved their communities in choos-

ing these projects, negating the pur-

pose of the exercise.

“Another lesson was that pretty 

much a uniform set of projects

  was being pursued,” he said. For

instance, around 80% of funds were

allocated to establishing community 

facilities like swimming pools or

community centres.

“We also found it’s not always

practical to also include capital allo-

cations [in what communities could

choose as projects],” he said, “as they 

do not always take into account the

operational requirements, and their

future budgetary impacts, like the

need for additional staff to man the

community facility.”

In the second iteration of the 2006

IDP the council allowed the same

amount of money per ward but with

different criteria. The amount per

 ward was not uniform, but depended

on the challenges faced by the par-

ticular ward. This created the oppor-

tunity for the ward councillors of 

 Alexandra, for instance, to pool their

resources for a broader solution for

 Alex rather than using the money for

smaller projects in individual wards.

Together is better

“The overriding principle is

‘together’,” Tau said. “We can’t do

this on our own as government. It’s

not simply about voting every five

 years but about empowering ordi-

nary citizens.”

Planning beyond these two IDP

iterations has led to an extensive

public participation process, under

nine themes: livable cities, resource

sustainability, health and poverty,

governance, transportation, commu-

nity safety, environment, economic

growth and smart city. Thematic

 weeks of discussions at ward level

culminated in the 2025 GDS launch

held in October 2011, the result of 

15 000 people participating in local

government planning around infra-

structure development.

Tau said public participation comes

at a price. “As government, you can’t

say you can’t afford the hall for the

meetings. Also, the timing is criti-

cal to ensure you deliver on citizens’

needs within a reasonable time after

they’ve raised their concerns,” he said.

International solutions

Tau identified two international

examples where governments

actively involved the public in infra-

structure development. In Kerala,

India, government has devolved 35%

of the state’s development budget to

local communities where local people

can determine and implement their

own development priorities. In Porto

 Alegre, Brazil, communities are con-

sulted and budgets allocated but each

local community vote on the final

projects that are implemented. This

means those who support a particu-

lar project essentially have to lobby to

get votes for their project. The process

goes beyond the normal voter’s roll, in

that anyone who has a direct munici-

pal account qualifies to vote for the

project of their choice.

“We have a joint responsibil-

ity to build a responsive and caring

organisation, communicate with our

citizens, build a sense of confidence

through our actions, give voice to

the voiceless and respond when they 

speak, and bring new energy and

new ideas into the kind of society we

 want to build by 2040,” Tau said.

GPL hosts internationalconference on public participation

Can participatory budgetingtravel beyond Brazil?

Prof Brian Wampler – Associate Proffessor, Deparment of Physical Science, Boise Sate University in Brazil –

suggested that governments who are considering participatory budgeting programmes should ask themselves the

following questions;

1. Is there sufficient discretionary funding to allow citizens to select specific public works they’d like to see

implemented?

2. Is the government prepared to delegate authority in this regard to citizens?

3. Will participatory budgeting programmes subvert traditional patronage networks? Does the government

 want to subvert them?

4. Can participatory budgeting help the government to establish new bases of political support?

5. Is the government willing to try to reform the local bureaucracy?6. Are civil society organisations prepared and willing to participate?

Hon. Speaker of the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, Lindiwe Maseko,providing an opening address at the Public Participation conference.

Make budgets work with the people

The second day of the conference

 was focused around case studies from

across SA and the world about how 

communities have been involved in

governing, with particular reference

to budgets and petitions.

Prof Brian Wampler, Associate

Proffessor, Deparment of Physical

Science, Boise Sate University in

Brazil , shared the knock-on effects of 

the participatory budgeting Tau had

mentioned. He said there are now 

thousands of participatory budgeting

programmes across the world mod-

elled after Porto Alegre’s pioneering

case. In Brazil itself, the participa-

tion has grown from 134 communi-

ties in 1992 to 201 communities in

2008. There are more than 200 cases

in Europe and thousands in Latin

 America, Africa and Asia, he said.

He suggested that the key types

of participatory budgets for govern-

ments to adapt are in relation to urban

public works, housing, health care,

social service and through online vot-

ing from a pre-selected menu.

He said that civil society organisa-

tions (CSOs) played in a key role in

these initiatives by holding their

own meetings to discuss government

proposals and then mobilising their

members to attend public meetings.He said that more sophisticated

participatory budgeting programmes

are more likely to use the quality of 

life index to determine how to allocate

resources. The quality of life index aims

to create a more equitable distribution

of resources. It works on the principle

that the lower the degree of access to

 basic services within a region per cap-

ita, the higher the degree of per capita 

resources are allocated to the region.

This is informed by demographic and

infrastructure data such as the number

of schools or the distance to the closest

health care clinic, basic GIS mapping

and functions on both a regional and

micro-regional level, to incorporate

small communities.

  Wampler used the capital and

largest city in the Brazilian state of 

Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, as a 

case study for participatory budget-

ing, where between 1994 and 2008,

roughly 10% of all discretionary 

spending was controlled through

participatory budgeting. Even its

shantytowns are now required to

have a global development plan, and

only public works that are included

in those plans can be included in the

participatory budgeting process.

He said the advantages of adopt-

ing participatory budgeting pro-

cesses include:

• Government enhances its policy 

and political legitimacy by allow-

ing citizens to influence specificproject selection

• Projects are better targeted to

meet citizens’ key needs and

pro-poor criteria reach into

shantytowns

• Citizens are engaged and

empowered through participa-

tory processes

•  There is less corruption dur-

ing project implementation due

to an interested and engaged

citizenry 

•  The small size of many of the

projects provides contracts for

small local companies.

•  Wampler identified limitations

and risks of participatory budg-

eting, as follows:

•  Participatory budgeting deals

only with a small portion of the

  budget and focuses on small

public works projects

• Participants are dependent

on government officials for

information

• There is limited policy knowl-

edge among participants

•  Long-term planning has an

ambiguous role

• The amount of policy learning

among citizens is unclear

•  It tends to engage leaders more

than individual citizens

• There is a fine line between co-

governance and government

control or co-optation

He suggested a number of ques-tions governments can ask them-

selves to decide whether a partici-

patory budgeting programme will

 work for them [See Can participa-

tory budgeting travel beyond Brazil?,

elsewhere on this page], and con-

cluded his presentation by challeng-

ing governments to spend scarce

resources to implement selected pro-

 jects to allow increased opportuni-

ties for participation.

Enabling systems and organi-sational culture

The third day of the conference

concerned itself with the impact of 

public participation and enabling

systems and organisational culture

that promote public participation,

 with presentations from the IEC and

the Public Affairs Research institute.

Dmitri Holtzman, director at

Equal Education Law Centre in

Cape Town, said that there is a very 

important distinction between con-

sultation and participation. “Public

participation itself should be mean-

ingful and legitimate.”

He identified two basic require-

ments for legitimacy: (1) People

must be aware of what the process

is before the process begins; (2) The

outcome of the process must be justi-

fiable and justified.

The conference concluded with a 

delegates’ declaration on how to take

public participation across the world

one step further.

In response to a question fromM&G on what he would most want

his own son to take away from a 

conference such as this, the GPL’s

Moiloa said that “he must begin to

concern himself with the issues in

his community, whether it be access

to higher education, potholes or

streetlights that aren’t working. He

should contact those who have been

elected and follow up with them to

keep them accountable.”

He said that he would, in his role as

oversight of all GPL committees “very 

soon” share his framework for com-

mittees of the GPL to follow to ensure

they engage the public in their delib-

erations and processes, with key per-

formance areas indicated in line with

the PEBA oversight model.

Moiloa challenged young people to

concern themselves with how their

country is being run, saying that chil-

dren who grow up in affluent suburbs

 with educated parents and strong edu-

cation themselves would have found

this conference just as relevant as

children from impoverished commu-

nities with little access to basic educa-

tion. “It impacts their future security.

They have to ask: is government doing

enough to ensure that all young peo-

ple have access to allow them to get to

 where I am able to get? This is about

nation-building, about ensuring the

security of our democracy and creat-

ing conditions that are favourable to

the development of all people.”

 All papers and presentations from

the conference are available on www.gpl.gov.za.

Public participationbeyond slogans

The participants in the InternationalConference on Public Participation atthe end of the conference declared theirintentions as follows:

We re-affirm our

unyielding com-

mitment to the

 basic tenets of goodgovernance and

transparency through the active par-

ticipation of all people irrespective of 

political affiliation, nationality, eth-

nicity, gender, race and creed.

  We are committed towards

ensuring that public participation

 becomes a living reality, moving

 beyond mere rhetoric and slogans to

meaningful citizen participation.

To this end, we need to create an

enabling environment for everyone to

participate on key policy issues affect-

ing their lives.

Drawing from the creative energies

of communities we commit ourselves

towards ensuring that public par-

ticipation drives policy and legislative

processes of the Sate.

 We believe that public participa-

tion is essential to good governance

and human developments. The ulti-

mate objective of public participa-

tion is to improve the livelihood out-

comes of the people.

  We strongly believe that an

involved and engaged community can overcome obstacles to develop-

ment. To this end, we need to insti-

tutionalise and create a culture of 

meaningful public participation.

Therefore, we need to reassert the

necessity and the importance of 

meaningful involvement of the citi-

zenry in governance processes. This

can be realised through exploring

 various avenues of effective public

participation in governance.

 We strongly believe that civic edu-

cation and literacy are fundamen-

tal to effective public participation.

Moreover, building a body of knowl

edge on public participation will

improve the capacity of communities

to engage on policy and legislative

issues.Essential to effective public par-

ticipation, we believe, is the need to

accommodate all official and other

languages for ease of meaningful

engagement and understanding. This

recognises the importance and appre-

ciation of plurality, diversity and dif-

ferent voices in our communities.

 We are mindful of the fact that

citizen participation must be clearly 

defined and parameters to participa-

tion outlined for purposes of manag-

ing public expectations.

Moreover, we are sensitive to evident

contradictions between representative

and participatory forms of democracy.

In this respects, effective public partici-

pation mechanisms will reconcile these

anomalies.

Of importance in public partici-

pation is the crucial role of citizens

in the planning and budgetary pro-

cesses of the state. In this regard, we

are of the view that public participa-

tion processes must be aligned to

planning processes.

 We are also mindful of the needfor adequate funding for public par-

ticipation. Thus, we urge all civic-

minded public institutions to allo-

cate sufficient resources in order to

institutionalise public participation.

Related to this is the need for contin-

uous capacity-building programmes

for public participation.

Ultimately, the underlying objec-

tive of our vision is to entrench the

ethos and values of meaningful pub-

lic involvement in government and

democratic processes. To this end,

 we are determined to push the fron-

tiers of public participation forward.

Ms Laura Graham from the University of Aberdeen in Northern Ireland, shar

Chairperson of a Standing Committee on Petitions at Gauteng Provincial Legislature, Hon. Jacob Khawe,presenting on effective petition systems.