As South Africa approaches its seventh local government elections, calls to reform the country’s municipal governance systems have begun to gather momentum. The elections take place in the context of declining voter turnout and a growing sense of alienation from government among ordinary South Africans. Many fear that this decline in participation and trust in government may lead to the de facto exclusion of some citizens’ perspectives from government decisions, further limit the effectiveness of service delivery, and hamper attempts to hold elected leaders accountable.
It is in this context that increased attention must be paid to the most fundamental mechanisms for government participation, and solutions must be found to improve residents’ ability to impact government decision-making, hold their leaders accountable, and ultimately restore trust in municipal governance.
One attempt to do just that can be seen in a recent Policy and Practice Brief (PPB), published by ACCORD, which builds on work from the Department of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), as well as traditional African and feminist practices, to outline a structure of mass, ward-level, government participation.
The current local government system has been in place, by and large, since 2000, largely built on the recommendations of the 1998 White Paper on Local Government. However, while acknowledging the progress made in scaling up services to benefit the majority of citizens that were excluded and underserved during Apartheid, this period has also seen a noticeable decline in the effectiveness of service delivery, which has exposed a number of faults in the municipal governance system and contributed to the sense of alienation from government described above. To address this, national CoGTA has recently circulated the 2026 Reviewed Draft White Paper on Local Government which provides a comprehensive review of South African local government structures, dedicating an entire section to public participation.
It should be noted that public participation in democratic governance is deeply rooted in South Africa’s Constitution, and there are many laws that mandate public participation in governance processes. However, as the Draft White Paper explains, there is a growing sense that existing participation mechanisms are tokenistic, and that citizens cannot access information or influence government plans through ordinary means.
To address this, the Draft White Paper recommends the establishment of a ‘ward functionality dashboard’ that tests local participation structures to ensure that they are sufficiently reliable, representative, and inclusive, and can be verified by local communities. It stops short, however, of recommending any specific participation structures, arguing that the decision-making powers of councils must be preserved, and that each municipality should develop participation methods most suited to its own context.
The model it proposes incorporates the ‘ward functionality dashboard’, but adds to it by drawing on Afro-communitarian, and progressive, especially feminist traditions, which both make use of mass, open-floor gatherings
Tweet
ACCORD’s PPB diverges from the Draft White Paper on this final point. It acknowledges the need for flexibility and contextual sensitivity, but argues it could be satisfied if the structures in question were themselves sufficiently inclusive and adaptable to local needs. The model it proposes incorporates the ‘ward functionality dashboard’, but adds to it by drawing on Afro-communitarian, and progressive, especially feminist traditions, which both make use of mass, open-floor gatherings. Termed ‘palavers’ and ‘speak-outs’ respectively, both are participatory forums in which individuals attending can, or indeed are required to, openly air their grievances and respond to the concerns of others. Central to both these traditions is the idea that by voicing one’s concerns before a collective, and by having the collective seriously engage with them, individual experiences are reframed as matters of common concern.
The open nature of these events is their key feature as this reinforces the idea that decision-making should be public, and that governance systems should be maximally inclusive and immediately responsive to the changing needs of their communities. This openness, and the fact that all participants are encouraged to take seriously and respond to the contributions of their peers, also serve a dual function. Not only do they provide citizens with the satisfaction of airing their grievances in public, and thereby address some of the frustration and alienation they may otherwise feel towards governance systems, but they also allow otherwise marginalised groups to express their views in a productive setting. This means that views and experiences that may otherwise be ignored become a matter of public record and therefore harder to dismiss.
The open nature of these events is their key feature as this reinforces the idea that decision-making should be public, and that governance systems should be maximally inclusive and immediately responsive to the changing needs of their communities
Tweet
One of the more interesting features of the Afro-communitarian palaver model in particular is the role of a politically neutral facilitator. Rather than being conducted by village heads, a palaver is often initiated by ordinary members of the community and facilitated by those whom Ernest Wamba dia Wamba termed the nzonzi. These are ordinary, but respected members of the community who are recognised as talented dialecticians and skilled in defusing heated arguments, assisting members of the community who may be less proficient in expressing themselves in the face of critique or accusation, and presenting countervailing arguments or views. In the context of a modern mass participation mechanism, this can be mirrored by having trained independent facilitators lead the discussions, rather than elected political leaders. This has the benefit both of providing a productive avenue for the expression of anger by citizens, and of shielding the process from perceived political capture.
The PPB draws on these traditions and the Draft White Paper to recommend a model of mass public participation consisting of maximally inclusive community assemblies, in which any citizen can submit agenda items and access safe disclosure conditions. This mechanism may include whole-community gatherings or may bring together multiple partial community gatherings depending on practicability or need, but discussions should be overseen by a trained non-partisan facilitator. Moreover, while the assemblies should be aimed at ranking ward priorities or establishing councillor mandates, so as to preserve the ultimate decision-making authority of the municipal council, in keeping with the Afro-communitarian tradition, decisions made in these assemblies should be reached through consensus, and dissent should be formally recognised. Such a model must be anchored to mandated response timeframes and the accountability processes envisaged by the Draft White Paper’s proposed ward functionality dashboard, so as to ensure that it does not simply reproduce the same frustrations currently felt by citizens.
This model appears to radically upend the current system of public participation in governance while functioning entirely within current legislation and the recommendations made in official policy documents such as the Draft White Paper. It also marries pre-colonial African traditions with modern and progressive feminist practices. Whether such a model is ever implemented remains to be seen, but it is certainly worth reflecting on, as it provides a maximally inclusive and participatory standard for democratic participation in local governance that alternative policy proposals must either acknowledge or consciously refute.
Adam Randera is an independent peacebuilder and researcher who specialises in transitional justice, youth- and gender- inclusivity and coalition governance.
