How public participation becomes administrative theatre

I have worked in the public sector for more than 30 years, during which time public participation was the norm and long before digital forms, online submissions and “stakeholder engagement” were popular terms in government.

I’ve been to community gatherings in informal settlements, churches, municipal buildings, rural communities and classrooms.

I’ve seen regular people show up with expectations, dissatisfaction and hope because they thought their opinions would have an impact on the choices that affect their day-to-day existence.

Yet, after working in this profession for more than 30 years, I think we have to face an unsettling reality of the very people that local government was meant to empower increasingly being let down by failure of public engagement.

In many cases, what was intended to strengthen democracy has turned into a theatrical ritual that prioritises conformity above real genuine participation.

Legislation mandates that municipalities hold meetings where public notices are released on time to inform the citizens.

Registers of attendance are signed.

Reports are created by consultants.

Presentations are given by council members.

Then, regardless of what communities stated, the initial decisions frequently stay the same.

And in my textbook and understanding, that is not meaningful participation.

It is crystal clear administrative theatre.

Participatory governance is highly valued in SA’s constitutional democracy.

The constitution’s Chapter 7 encourages communities and community organisations to take part in local governance issues by envisioning local government as democratic and accountable.

Municipalities are also required by the Municipal Systems Act to include citizens in budgeting, performance management and integrated development planning (IDPs).

The framework appears to be world class and innovative on paper.

However, in reality, the difference between influence and involvement has grown dangerously large.

Today, a lot of communities believe that procedures for public participation are biased, manipulative or predetermined.

After significant political or administrative decisions have been made, residents are frequently asked to provide feedback.

Occasionally, involvement occurs too late to significantly change results.

In other instances, technical documents are presented in a language that is incomprehensible to the average person.

The result is predictable: people lose trust in institutions.

The escalating wave of protests in South African towns can be partially explained by this growing mistrust.

Roadblocks, shutdowns and protests are used by communities because they feel left out of democracy rather than because they oppose it.

For individuals who feel that official routes of engagement are no longer effective, protest becomes the vocabulary.

The fact that public participation in local government sometimes favours the powerful is one of its biggest flaws.

People who have access to internet resources, transportation, education, organisational resources and political ties are better positioned to engage.

In the meantime, the most important voices are often the least heard.

Take for instance an old woman in a remote village with no internet.

The young people without jobs in an informal settlement.

Some of our municipal facilities are inaccessible to residents with disabilities.

Take any participant from the working class who is unable to attend meetings that are planned during business hours.

These are the individuals most impacted by inadequate service provision, poor water supplies, deteriorating infrastructure, joblessness and dysfunctional municipalities.

However, they continue to be systematically excluded from participation processes that are meant to give them more influence.

Though helpful, technology has not resolved this issue at all, instead it has made things worse in several instances.

All of a sudden, the use of digital submissions and online notices, and virtual consultations by municipalities is growing.

These tools increase productivity, but they also leave out those who lack digital literacy, data, devices or reliable internet access.

Digital participation cannot take the place of grassroots democratic engagement in SA, which still has a very unequal society.

Uploading documents to a municipal website and presuming communities are aware is not enough to constitute public engagement.

The politicisation of participation venues is another issue.

Instead of being places for sincere discussion, community gatherings are far too frequently used as platforms for party political mobilisation.

People who voice important concerns could be branded as “anti-development” or labelled as belonging to opposing groups.

Originally designed to strengthen participatory democracy, ward committees may become extensions of networks of political patronage rather than autonomous community voices.

What is clear once more is that trust further deteriorates when involvement becomes politicised.

The participation sector itself has a difficulty with professionalisation.

Public engagement is being contracted out to consultants whose performance is evaluated based on whether meetings have taken place rather than whether communities had an impact on the results.

Participation reports may include presentation slides and attendance data, but they may not adequately represent community priorities, dissenting opinions or unresolved complaints.

We must ask ourselves difficult questions, that is: Are municipalities genuinely listening to communities?

Or are they merely managing compliance risks?

Consultation is only one aspect of true public participation.

It has to do with power. It necessitates institutions that are open to being questioned, convinced and even altered by the citizens they oversee.

Participation needs to shift from exchanging knowledge to co-creation and joint decision-making.

Communities need to have a visible impact on policy outcomes in addition to being heard.

This implies that communities need to completely reconsider the planning and execution of participation.

First, involvement in decision-making processes needs to start earlier, way before contracts are finalised, projects are approved, or funds are politically allotted.

Instead of just responding to ideas that have already been made, communities should be involved in setting priorities from the beginning.

Second, municipalities must invest in civic education that needs to be funded by municipalities themselves for better informed citizenry.

Citizens must be knowledgeable about municipal procedures, budgeting methods, planning frameworks and government structures to participate meaningfully.

When citizens are forced to participate in procedures they cannot fully understand, democracy suffers.

Third, spaces for engagement need to be made more accessible and inclusive.

Meetings should take into account working-class schedules, transportation constraints, handicap access and linguistic diversity.

Formal town hall gatherings must give way to community-based, culturally sensitive engagement initiatives.

Fourth, local governments need to enhance their feedback systems.

Speaking into a void is one of the main annoyances that communities face.

People participate in meetings, voice issues and provide feedback, but they hardly ever get an explanation of how their input affected the decisions that were made.

Cynicism results from participation without feedback.

Above all, political leadership needs to adopt a listening culture instead of a defensive and reactive one.

Criticism does not degrade democratic leadership; rather, accountability strengthens it.

The local government issue in SA involves more than just infrastructure, money and administrative capability.

Additionally, it is a crisis of democratic legitimacy.

Communities are feeling more and more cut off from the government agencies that are supposed to assist them.

Improving public involvement won’t instantly resolve all governance issues.

However, without it, it is impossible to re-establish public confidence in local government.

Communities must have unambiguous proof that their voices are valued if involvement is to have any significance.

Otherwise, public participation will remain what many citizens already believe it to be, a carefully managed process designed to create the appearance of democracy without the substance of democratic power.

Dr Xolisile Ngumbela, assistant dean, teaching and learning, faculty of management sciences, Central University of Technology