PUBLIC POLICY ADVOCACY IN SOUTH AFRICA

There are a number of sections in South Africa’s Constitution, which deal directly with the concept of public participation, charging both Houses of the National Parliament and all Provincial Legislatures with the responsibility of facilitating public participation. Additionally, Section 118 (1) makes provision for the public to have access to Provincial Legislatures and to be involved in legislative processes. It states that Provincial Legislatures must facilitate such public involvement. It also maintains that legislatures must conduct their business in an open manner and may only block access on reasonable grounds. Finally, Section 59 (2) provides that legislatures may not exclude the public and media “unless it is reasonable and justifiable to do so in an open and democratic society.”

However, having rules for public participation in the legislative process does not by itself guarantee that people will either use or be able to exercise this right.

We turn now to the reality on the ground in South Africa.

Existing mechanisms for participation in policy-making

The National and Provincial Levels

The National Government is composed of three inter-connected branches: Legislative: Parliament, consisting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces; Executive: The President, who is both Head of State and Head of Government and Judicial: The Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court.

The bicameral Parliament of South Africa makes up the legislative branch of the national government. It consists of the National Assembly (the Lower House) and the National Council of Provinces (the Upper House). The National Assembly consists of 400 members elected by popular vote using a system of party-list proportional representation. Half of the members are elected from parties' provincial lists and the other half from national lists.

South Africa is divided into 9 Provinces: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West, Northern Cape and Western Cape. Each province is governed by a unicameral legislature the size of the legislature is proportional to population, ranging from 30 members in the Northern Cape to 80 in KwaZulu-Natal. The legislatures are elected every five years by a system of party-list proportional representation; by convention, they are all elected on the same day, at the same time as the National Assembly election. The Provincial Legislature elects, from amongst its members, a Premier who is the head of the executive. The Premier chooses an Executive Council consisting of between five and ten members of the legislature, which is the cabinet of the provincial government. The Members of the Executive Council (MECs) are the provincial equivalent of Ministers. The powers of the Provincial Government are limited to specific topics listed in the national Constitution. On some of these topics – for example, agriculture, education, health and public housing – the province's powers are shared with the national government, which can establish uniform standards and frameworks for the provincial governments to follow; on other topics the provincial government has exclusive power.

The provinces do not have their own court systems, as the administration of justice is a responsibility purely of the national government.

Since 1994, all legislatures have established some form of programme or plan of action to encourage public participation. These include:

Public Hearings

The most common form is where written and oral comments are invited from interest groups, stakeholders and individuals. Legislatures usually give the public between five days’ and three weeks’ notice, sending invitations, placing advertisements in the newspapers, public places and on radio. Even so, the complexity of the issue often means that this notice is too short for effective preparation. The venues for public hearings are generally accessible to rural communities, with hearings often held in centres other than capital cities. In some cases, transport is provided for rural communities. Some legislatures do undertake pre-hearing work in the form of community briefing sessions where bills and policy documents are simplified and explained e.g. The Free State, Northern Cape and Gauteng. The provision for public hearings should enable direct, formal input by community groups into the refining of legislation, and many groups have indeed taken advantage of making submissions and have indeed seen their recommendations taken up in legislation. On the other hand, the turn out at hearings is often disappointing, there is often a lack of relevance of submissions to the subject matter at hand, exposing the lack of interest and capacity of civil society to engage at this level. The reality is that much more needs to be done by both legislatures and civil society for the public-hearings process to become truly effective and productive in promoting participation in the national governance process.

Public Access to Portfolio Committee Meetings

All portfolio committee meetings at both national and provincial levels are open to members of the public, although publicity of this fact, and its encouragement and ease of access varies. Records and minutes of meetings and other legislative documents are often difficult to access, particularly from committee processes.

Petitions

Some legislatures have passed legislation providing for the submission of petitions to the legislature by members of the public and established dedicated petition standing committees to receive and deliberate on them. It is also their responsibility to make decisions on forwarding issues raised to relevant stakeholders within government.

Green Papers/White Papers Processes

Policy making in South Africa often takes the form of the publishing in Governement Gazettes of a “green paper” which outlines a set of policy intention, and a “white paper” which is an actual policy proposal. To each paper, public comment is invited. In some instances, these papers are also circulated among interest groups for feedback, or consultative processes are facilitated to engage stakeholders on the proposals. However, critiques of these processes allege significant shortcomings, such as the reach and depth of consultation, limited to existing networks of sectoral stakeholders, as opposed to representative groups of affected communities, and consultant-driven “workshops” which fall short of a truly deliberative forum, where stakeholders develop and negotiate policy alternatives. Further, the failure to engage with affected community groups at the outset of the policy process, in the identification of objectives and approaches, to make policy documents available in plain and local languages, and distribute these widely for input, raise questions on the participatory nature of these processes, which as a result tend toward co-optation.

Conclusion

The South African civil society is critical of the policy-making process because it is seen as elite driven, functioning largely to the exclusion and demobilisation of the public. Attempts to facilitate community input are largely superficial, and do not tap into the real power-base where decisions are made. Most processes present pre-determined positions and programmes for limited feedback or information sharing only, or create only limited opportunities for communities to raise concerns, and therefore in fact, make very little substantive difference to policy decisions.

Even amongst those largely middle-class elements who populate the civil-society sector there is an increasing perception of being sidelined and marginalised, excluded and disempowered. This is occasioned by such factors as not receiving feedback on inputs made in processes, not seeing recommendations being taken up or of having had any noticeable impact from having participated and made input. There is a sense that often the civil-society sector is often co-opted into participating in a process with a pre-determined outcome and of being excluded from an ‘inner circle’ enjoying privileged access to decision makers.

There is a widespread concern at government’s tendency to call for community input only in the advanced stages of policy formulation, largely done in an attempt to acquire political buy-in and implementation, rather than at the outset when problems and solutions are being developed. The use of primarily print media in government communication and information dissemination is also considered to exclude certain groups and communities. Also, language used in those processes further alienate communities and notice of opportunities to make submissions tend to ‘come late’ and as a result, community-based organisations (CBOs) are largely excluded from decision making. CBOs need to be involved from the outset of the policy process.

There are also power relationships at play in the policy process, both among policy makers themselves, and between policy makers and civil society. These are typified by unequal power relationships between politicians and bureaucrats, government and civil society representatives, those with access to information and resources and those without, those belonging to organized structures and those not, those who are viewed as educated and those not, urban and rural residents, men and women, and people with different abilities.

These unequal power relationships play themselves out in the policy arena, resulting in some issues not making it onto the agenda, the exclusion of some stakeholders, the rendering invisible of others, and the exclusion of many from that critical juncture where decisions are made. Unless these power issues are addressed through careful planning, collaboration and facilitation, they will continue to undermine participatory initiatives seeking to gain civil society input and buy-in.

Power in the policy-making arena itself reveals a complex territory, characterised by contestation and the power of political parties. There is power in the process of setting the agenda for discussion itself. When it comes to the implementation of policies and programmes, power is devolved to government agencies, and is not monitored by or made accountable to civil society.

A distinction should be made between the power base of political and bureaucratic actors, and national government actors as opposed to provincial and local actors. While politicians deliberate ideas and make decisions, bureaucrats have the final power of implementation. Likewise, most policy processes are seen as being formulated at national level, perceived as being far removed from communities and difficult to access, with provincial and local governments then tasked with implementing these policies.

So, while there is legislative provision for participatory mechanisms, and many such provisions are in place, this is not enabling civil society to participate meaningfully.

The existing of mechanisms are inadequate, inaccessible and disempowering, and new approaches to participatory policy making are required.

‘Representation dressed up as participation’, a flawed notion of political representation of citizens’ interests through civil society organisations, ‘ignores the fact that debates in “new democratic spaces” occur in the absence of some (indeed most) citizens and with the presence of others who may be speaking in their name is a term that may apply to South Africa.

In looking at the South African policy arena, it is important to assess who participates in it, whose voice is heard? It would appear that the relative inaccessibility of information on government decision making and the resources and abilities required to engage in participatory processes, results in the domination of such spaces by a middle-class elite with access to resources who organise themselves into NGOs, business and other similar interest groups. This vast network of middle-class group of civil society organisations or CSOs tend to ignore, bypass or fail to connect with a much smaller, more grassroots sector of community-based organisations (CBOs).

Between these two sectors, there is something of a class divide with CBO groups articulating the view that organized CSOs dominate policy processes where there are spaces for civil society to engage with government. CBO groups characterised by a lack of resources find it difficult to influence, although they do have a voice that they can use but often to little effect.

Tensions are particularly apparent between organized network bodies such as the South African National Civics Organisation (SANCO), the South African NGO Coalition (SANGOCO), CBO network bodies and the CSOs and communities they claim as membership bases. There is a perceived level of competition and struggle for dominance between these structures, which have diverse identities, yet share membership base.

South Africa's socio-political landscape has undergone a process of fundamental change. The privileges of those that were previously guaranteed access and influence have been diminished; others are rising to positions of influence. Despite considerable political change, however, certain sectors remain strong and others weak. Although South African civil society, with its long history of struggle and advocacy, remains active and involved in issues of change and governance, it has been weakened by a withdrawal of international financial support and a loss of personnel to government and the private sector. Organised labour, which developed strong institutions and traditions in the 1970s and 1980s, remains relatively strong and is represented in the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC). The Congress of South African Unions (COSATU), the largest federation of unions, is part of a tripartite alliance with the ruling ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP), with members on the ANC party list.

Organised business has had to adapt to a sharply different political system and a new culture of accountability. Typically, it has responded with new lobbying techniques – some effective, some less so. In South Africa, lobbyists tend to be directly employed by organisations that wish to present their case to government.

In this fluid advocacy environment, it is important to ensure that public participation does not become skewed in favour of any one sector. No sector, particularly the less powerful and organised, should be excluded or marginalised.

Most Important South African Interest Groups

Industry

• Aerospace Maritime & Defense Industries Association (AMD)
• Aluminium Federation of South Africa (AFSA)
• Civil Engineering Contractors ((SAFCEC)
• Consulting Engineers South Africa (CESA)
• Dairy Foundation (MPO)
• Iron & Steel Institute (SAISI)
• Rail Road Association (RRA)
• Stainless Steel Development Association (SASSDA)
• South African Paint Manufacturing Association (SAPMA)

Export Councils

• Cosmetics Export Council (CECOSA)
• National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of South Africa (NAAMSA)
• South African Boat Builders Export Council (SABBEX)
• South African Capital Equipment Export Council (SACEEC)
• Electrotechnical Export Council (SAEEC)
• South African Flower Export Council (SAFEC)
• Fresh Produce Exporters Forum/Fruit South Africa (FPEP)
• International Steel Fabricators (ISF)
• Association of Steel Tube and Pipe Manufacturers of South Africa (ASTPM)
• Wines of South Africa (WOSA)

Joint Action Groups (JAGs)

• Jewellery Council of South Africa
• Meat Exporters of South Africa (SAMIC)

Chambers of Commerce and Information

• The Southern African Development Community (SADC)
• Foundation for African Business and Consumer Services (FABCOS)
• Chambers of Mine of South Africa
• The South African Reserve Bank
• The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)

Parastatals

• Telkom
• Eskom
• Transnet

Metropolitan Councils and Unions

• National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA)
• Johannesburg Greater Metropolitan Council
• Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)
• Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA)
• National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU)
• African Union (NEDLAC)