Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Africa Public Service Day: The state of local governance and service delivery

28 June 2023 | Story Dr Maréve Biljohn | Photo Supplied

Opinion article by Dr Maréve Biljohn, Head of the Department of Public Administration and Management, University of the Free State (UFS).

Africa Public Service Day was commemorated on 23 June under the theme ‘The African Continental Free Trade Area will require a fit-for-purpose African Public Administration to succeed’. This theme highlights a “fit-for-purpose” public administration, which is of significance for South Africa’s local government sphere given the dismal service-delivery decline in some municipalities. Considering this, a reflection on the state of local governance and service delivery is prudent.

A fit-for-purpose public administration should be anchored in (i) an effective management praxis of systems and processes, as well as (ii) professional and resource capacity that fulfils local government’s mandate of contributing to transformative change in society. Universally this praxis of systems and processes is underpinned by activities of policymaking, organising, human resourcing, financing, work procedures, and control of the functions, structures, and capacities of the public sector. The effective management praxis of public administration systems and processes globally should be underscored by public service traits that are a composite of being professional, qualified, highly skilled, agile, responsive, goal-directed, innovative, and relevant. In South Africa, Section 195 of the Constitution provides the basic guiding principles and values governing the execution of the public administration praxis across the three government spheres.

The public administration praxis in South African municipalities is in distress given the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environment in which it functions. Research shows that this distress is attributed to some municipalities’ inability to execute basic functions and service delivery, poor infrastructure planning and maintenance, financial and revenue-generation challenges, corruption, service-delivery protests, and staff turbulence. Partly, this distress is also symptomatic of challenges emanating from factors within internal and external municipal environments. Inherent to municipalities’ VUCA internal environment, these challenges relate to issues of governance, financial management, service delivery, and labour relations. Their recurring nature has also resulted in them being the focus of South African local government reforms over the past 25 years, including the 2009 Local Government Turnaround Strategy, as well as the 2013 Back-to-Basics campaign. Thus, from the 2022 Auditor-General of South Africa report regarding the Municipal Finance Management Act, it is clear that even the last reform has not yielded the desired impact and outcomes. In this regard, service-delivery challenges remain the Achilles heel of South Africa’s local government landscape.

Institutionally, a lack of or poor service delivery is evident from factors such as insufficient revenue generation, the non-achievement of service-delivery priorities, and not addressing community needs through municipal integrated development plans. Over the past decade, we have seen these factors expose inefficiencies in the South African municipal praxis of systems and processes that underpin the execution of public administration. These inefficiencies are evidenced in the lack of responsiveness of some municipalities to deliver sustainable services and facilitate community participation through their service-delivery system. Consequently, from a service-delivery perspective, the quality and quantity of service outputs delivered to citizens and service recipients in its external environment are either compromised, inferior, or non-existent. From a community participation perspective, research suggests that a lack of community engagement by some South African municipalities affects their responsiveness to the service-delivery needs of citizens. Examples of this are where community engagement is merely embarked on for legislative compliance purposes, but not necessarily prioritised as part of the formal (policies, plans, strategies) and informal (culture) institutions of the organisation. Hence, community priorities are received but not included in municipalities' formal plans. Another example is where community priorities were planned for, but could not be achieved because of a lack of revenue or funding. Lastly, a lack of responsiveness has been reported as part of the contributory reasons for the service-delivery protests that have been at the doorstep of municipalities over the past two decades.

A closer look

The state of local governance and service delivery in some South African municipalities paints a bleak picture. From this picture, it is apparent that the resilience of municipal service-delivery systems – whose functioning should be underpinned by effective public administration management – is under threat. It is also clear that such an effective management praxis of systems and processes underscoring a fit-for-purpose public administration operates at a deficit. This deficit, which is often the result of internal deficiencies, creates grave consequences for the optimal functioning of the municipal service-delivery system. While these systems are institutionally embedded and operated, their optimal functioning is not exclusively institutionally bound. Instead, their optimal functioning is equally grounded in citizen-centred local governance that informs the outputs of the service-delivery system, and through their participation keeps this system accountable.

While this is the ideal, it is not always the case, and highlights that South African citizens should play a more constructive role in the local governance of municipal service delivery, to ensure its sustainability. Fortunately, we are seeing a social compact emerge where citizens are becoming more organised in challenging the status quo of local governance in municipalities, to preserve the citizen-centred foundations of our democracy. Similarly, we are seeing a citizenry and organised groups that are taking the initiative to collaborate with the public sector in general to address some of the societal challenges that confront our country. These collaborations and the challenging of the status quo are often grounded in principles of transformative social innovation that consider innovative approaches and solutions to address societal challenges. Apart from challenging the status quo, distributing social and economic resources to achieve social justice during service delivery is inherent to transformation. Innovation can occur through the introduction of a new service, product, or technology but its social aspects are underpinned by collaborations, networks, and partnerships that are formed to identify and implement such innovations.

Broader societal capacity and resources needed

Transformative social innovation’s usefulness as an approach to finding alternative municipal service-delivery solutions reminds us of the citizen-centredness on which the South African local government legislative framework positions our governance and service-delivery systems. Notably, such citizen-centredness relies on society’s broader capacity for social action, citizen agency, and participation. It promotes a more prominent role for citizens to co-create new knowledge and innovative solutions to address municipal challenges. Society’s broader capacity for social action and citizen agency will also be instrumental in shaping the future responsiveness of South African municipalities amidst the recurring challenges cited. Conversely, it is the same societal capacity and citizen agency that should continuously challenge South African municipalities to rethink how fit-for-purpose their public administration is for implementing responsive service-delivery systems.

In conclusion, given the ailing state of service delivery in some South African municipalities, and the concomitant resource and capacity challenges, the reality is that broader societal capacity and resources are needed to restore service delivery. Hence, the local governance of service delivery will require a mix of new modes, constellations, and approaches that upscale citizen agency through the values of sound public governance. This might necessitate public administration and management reforms that reassess the current size and shape of municipalities, with an eye on remaining responsive amidst growing populations, increasing citizen demands, as well as socioeconomic and global challenges.

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept