The IDP As A Communication Tool

The IDP was initiated as a tool by which local economic development (LED) could be achieved. In essence, the IDP is a platform for local communities to channel their development needs and priorities for inclusion in municipal service delivery strategies and targets. The IDP was designed to give effect to section 16 of the Municipal Systems Act, which requires that the municipality to create conditions for the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, including:

• the preparation, implementation and review of its IDP;

• the establishment, implementation and review of its performance management system;

• determination, consideration and adoption of by-laws;

• the monitoring and review of its performance, including the outcome of such performance;

• the preparation of its budget; and

• strategic decisions relating to the provision of municipal services.

The IDP has been linked/aligned to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Reducing poverty by half by 2015 requires that at least half of the population in the poverty node will be gainfully employed; education will have reached more people; and improvements in education, employment and access to food and clean water will turn around the social and health factors that make HIV/AIDS and other chronic illnesses so prevalent in the community. But, it is evident that should the neo-liberal macro-economic framework prevail, these conditions of poverty will remain a permanent feature of rural life in South Africa generally and in Jozini particularly. Such areas have been historically underdeveloped and lack infrastructure, so cannot be expected to benefit from private-sector-driven growth, which has proven of benefit in and to communities in which infrastructure already exists and is functioning well and where middle class, educated and healthy people constitute the market. An attractive market presupposes such a community and clearly Jozini cannot attract investment on this basis.

One of the frustrations with development articulated by some people involved in implementing projects, as well as by members of rural communities, is that policies/strategies are formulated at the national level in South Africa but implemented at the local level resulting in a rather ineffective three-tiered system of governance. At the very top is national government, which is mandated to develop policy. At the middle level is the provincial government, which transforms policy into operational strategy. Then at the local government level is the municipality, which is at the coal face of development facilitation and implementation. This division of labour in governance in South Africa makes the ideal of participation in policy making for local communities far fetched. Officials at the provincial and municipal levels also complain that they are excluded from policy formulation. They feel like the passive consumers and implementers of policy from above, and say that a top-down approach is a persistent theme. National government officials point to the IDP mechanism as a vehicle for community involvement in policy making. Local government officials however, view the IDP as a compliance tool and as such, a burden.

It is clear that in theory, the municipality, through the IDP should be a space of government and governance, as well as policy making shared by officials and the citizenry. The IDP is intended to be a platform for consultation and participation where municipal officials and community groups interact to shape the development agenda for a particular year. Municipalities are allocated a budget from national government while richer metros are able to raise their own revenues. National government allocates the money to municipalities through the IDP process which forces municipal authorities to comply with the requirement to consult and include communities. In terms of the Municipal Systems Act, the municipal manager must ensure that public and open sessions are held to discuss the business of the municipality to invite their views and comments as well as the identification of the needs of the community including the prioritization of those needs.

The reality is that some municipalities continue to decide development projects without the involvement of communities. Poorer municipalities however are under the pressure to comply as they do not have alternative sources of development funding. The IDP process requires that municipal officials hold imbizos (consultative forums) in every ward (local area) to find out the development priorities of the community, as well as to communicate budget and policy to them. The IDP process unfolds as follows:

• Once the council has formulated a process plan setting out a guide for the planning, drafting, adoption and review of its IDP, the municipal manager must through appropriate mechanisms, process and procedures set out in the Municipal Systems Act, consult the local community before adopting the process;

• The notice must inform the community about their rights and duties for input required on the integrated development plan as well as how to go about commenting on such a process;

• The municipal manager must ensure that the publication does specify a date, time and/or place or where the input from the community may be submitted; and

• Once the municipality has finalized its IDP, it must within 14 (fourteen) days of the adoption of such plan, give notice to the public in a manner provided for in the Act as well as make available copies of or extracts for public inspection at specified places and publish in the local newspaper a summary of the plan.

This process is conducted once a year and takes between two and four months to complete. In the rural municipalities it requires that municipal officials move from one village to another in what is referred to as IDP road shows. During this process, the communities will register all their development initiatives, co-operatives and businesses. The municipal authorities match these with the funding available and compare with areas and groups funded in the previous year. In theory, the IDP should provide officials with the opportunity to monitor and evaluate the progress of projects that have been supported before and find ways of assisting them further, while providing the community with the opportunity to suggest why some projects are not successful.

The IDP has not been the most successful vehicle for communication for many reasons. Municipal officials view the IDP as another compliance requirement from national government. It is seen as an evaluation tool, rather than as a communication tool. An effective IDP requires an outlay of resources – time and money – which municipalities rarely have. It also requires that the community be in attendance and this in turn requires that they view the process as relevant and credible. In the case of the IDP in Jozini, apathy is the order of the day. This apathy stems from a number of factors including (but not limited to):

• lack of trust and confidence in municipal processes;

• disappointment with earlier efforts that brought nothing to them;

• the perception that these meetings are a waste of time;

• the failure of officials to create an atmosphere in which community members can communicate their interests freely;

• the perception that those who are critical of the municipality are silenced, ignored or not taken seriously;

• the fact that the IDP meetings are often events in which community frustration is expressed but no solutions or follow up are offered;

• the perception that community members use the IDP platform to undermine the political party running the municipality;

• inconsistent and poor attendance, which leads to repetition of issues and lack of clarity in discussion; and

• IDP forums are held in different locations each time, which leads to lack of follow-up on discussions.

The context of poverty and the infrastructure backlog has a negative impact on discussions about development. The development forums such as the IDP or any meetings with government officials or political representatives concentrate on service delivery issues, such as water, roads, transport and energy. This means that channels for communication are rarely used as forums for policy engagement. The failure of municipal official to utilise other communication vehicles, such as the MCR to communicate IDP-related information and other development issues is also a major concern according to Mr Ntsele of the MCR. In an interview, Mr Ntsele also said that the municipality uses community radio only as a tool to announce meetings and make public notices, rather than to open a channel for community feedback on its work.