The Role Of NGOs/Civil Society In Communication

There are many NGOs operating in the Jozini area and the Umkhanyakude district more widely. Their work focusses on many areas of concern: health, education, gender-based violence, child welfare, the environment and agriculture/rural development, among others. For this study, an NGO, Biowatch, is highlighted for its work on agriculture and rural development. The second NPO selected for analysis is the Maputaland community radio station (MCR), because at the heart of its work is communication.

Biowatch: A Mini Case Study

Biowatch is a small South African NGO that campaigns in the public interest for sustainable agriculture, biodiversity, bio-safety and farmers’ rights. It has successfully challenged the South African government’s speedy adoption of GM technology as leading to health and environmental risk, as well as diminishing food security and food sovereignty. In 2000, Biowatch was able to successfully challenge the government through a constitutional court case.

Jozini farmers associated with Biowatch clearly articulate their preference for local seed over imported GM seed. This comes through in the various workshops and extension services provided by NGO development/field workers in the communities. One of the unintended results of this type of engagement is that it seems to divide communities between those who place their faith in what NGOs suggest and others who adhere to government policy. In addition to its advocacy work, Biowatch runs a traditional seed bank in Jozini area, where communities bring and circulate traditional seed so they can remain independent of the seed companies that sell seed varieties that are not always appropriate for the region.

Where rural communities have been unable to articulate their concerns against GM seeds and the undermining of their food sovereignty, Biowatch has used its wealth of research and advocacy tools to successfully challenge pro-GMO policies as they relate to agriculture in the area and to support small scale farmers who choose to do the same.

Maputaland Community Radio (MCR) As A Communication Vehicle

A community radio station is an important vehicle of promise in rural development communication. Community radio can be of great value in places where literacy levels are low and populations are isolated and lack basic services. The MCR is the only radio station based in the Jozini area. It has the potential to be an important vehicle for community expression and participation in decision making. As MCR (2010) notes, ‘the idea of community radio is to overcome the challenges of communication in the area given the fact that the communication infrastructure like telephone, cell phone coverage, roads…’ is poorly developed. The role of the community radio is also articulated by MCR, in its mandate as one that ‘seeks to address the socio-economic challenges facing our areas. Our programming is designed in a way that educates, develops, empowers, mobilizes and uplifts the social and economic lives of individuals, families and the community at large’ (MCR 2010).

The MCR also provides an opportunity to evaluate the extent to which community radio can be used as a communication vehicle in communities affected by poverty. The focus group discussions and interviews show that, the poorer and more remote the community/individual, the more marginalised they are from many aspects of daily life. This serves to undermine individual dignity. The fact that poor people have unequal access to decision-making and policy influence means they experience greater levels of exclusion in the development process. They (and the organisations that work with them or on their behalf) have to work that much harder to be heard and to influence public attitudes and policy opinion.

Maputaland community radio has a constituted board whose members come from a cross section of the community. It also has a listening club, the purpose of which is to facilitate communication in helping MCR to meet its mandate for broadcasting within the context of the community social and economic challenges. However, MCR is self funded and is forced to sell airtime to survive. This is a major drawback for community access. The operation of a formal radio station that allows for greater flexibility within a rural context often leads to exclusion of some rural voices. The phone-in programmes require that people have money to call and those who might well benefit and/or contribute valuable insight to such programming are excluded on this basis. Younger audiences tend to make use of the phone-in facility – usually for entertainment and social programmes rather than those with a purely development focus. It could be concluded that, the MCR is an important vehicle for communication in Jozini, however its potential for promoting communication among those who need it most is affected by the same structural factors limiting access to other channels.

Official Communication Approaches And Strategies

The first democratic elections in South Africa in 1994 ended official apartheid and ushered in a democratic dispensation under the guidance of a government of national unity. To facilitate the transformation of the economy and country at large, an array of policies and strategies that emphasized democratic governance and the inclusion of the previously disadvantaged communities in their own development and in shaping policy were promoted. These policies have gone through major shifts from the immediate post-apartheid agenda of a more inclusive and broad-based trajectory to one in which market forces dominate and the majority of South Africans remain poor and mere recipients of services of varying quality.

The results of the most recent election indicated the demand for a more people-oriented system, in which the government is more active in the developmental state. Appendix 5 provides snippets of the policies/strategies, the intentions and implications for community engagement in this regard. South Africa is a constitutional democracy with clear institutional and administrative lines of service delivery responsibility from national to local level. These are supported by a regime of service delivery policy and government strategies . The IDP is a key mechanism for policy dialogue at municipal level, where the voices of citizens are meant to be heard and to influence policy.

The Municipal Systems Act (MSA) is the legislation that governs local government and guides the communication processes between municipal government structures and the public. Specifically, the municipal manager is mandated to ensure that he or she communicates to the local community:

• Whenever necessary to ensure that the community remains informed of local government business.

• In the local newspaper/s of its areas and in an appropriate language for its area.

• Through radio broadcasts covering the area of the municipality.

• Through distribution of flyers and pamphlets at such points as might be determined by the ward committee.

• Through posturing posters in all ward information centres.

• Through the municipality’s official website.

However, communication can be a challenge in isolated and poor serviced rural communities. In Jozini, for example, the internet connection is unreliable, service is erratic and the number of households with internet, let alone domestic telephone lines, is next to none. Newspapers and flyers also require high literacy rates and a culture of reading – both lacking in many rural areas, including in Jozini When and where pamphlets might be used, the transport and road network, as well as transport budgets, create major challenges to distribution. The only viable means of interaction between local government and the community remains the IDPs, but implementation of these plans remains problematic as we discuss in the following section.

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.

Political Champions And Parliamentary Imbizos

South Africa does not have a constituency based parliamentary system, which means that the members of parliament are not seen as a means of direct access to policy. However, the revolving parliament and cabinet legkotla’s provide parlimentarians access to the goings on in communities. However, these occur infrequently and do not address many issues because of budget and time constraints. As a result of this, the parliament does not always perform the function it does in other countries: of allowing for community participation in policy development.

Community representation takes place at the ward level, where elected councillors represent the community. At a national level, each district is allocated a political champion. This is a cabinet minister who supposedly concerns himself/herself with the development issues from that particular area. Many communities are unaware of who their political champion is and others report never seeing them, this also applies to people interviewed in Jozini.

The Role Of Traditional Authorities

South Africa’s policy about the place and role of traditional authorities in rural development is conflicted and, at best, patronising. Although the constitution acknowledges the role of amakhosi (chiefs), the development process does not really assign them a budget with which to exercise their role. The tendency is to advance the place of councillors over that of amakhosi. However, in the context of Jozini, which falls within the Ingonyama Trust Lands (controlled by the Zulu Monarchy) amakhosi continue to assert themselves as part of the development equation by insisting that councillors, field workers and government officials acknowledge through consultation that they are part and parcel of any development that takes place on their land.

Traditional authorities still engage with the people in their areas through cultural functions, imbizos and organising development projects, such as community gardens and other activities. However, some people seem to view amakhosi as an institution that is no longer relevant, though they will still consult the chiefs should they want land for their children or to resolve a dispute between neighbours.