Jared Rossouw

We can be inclusive

We will never be able to reconcile with aggression, domination, bigotry and discrimination. This behaviour is never acceptable. However, when we bring diverse groups of people together, we can expect there to be uncomfortable moments and behaviour that don’t sit right. A man who talks too much. A woman who tells everyone what to do. In these situations we can choose to be both practical and generous.

We can be practical and put in place tools and ways of working that help to ensure everybody is included. This can include: sharing and rotating roles; providing for ways to contribute in smaller groups and pairs; limiting talking time; and finding creative ways using technology to get involved. The more we practice the better we get.

We can be firm but generous and deal with situations by open- ing up conversations that seek to bring people together and understand each other rather than calling people out. Choosing to be generous with others in the face of historical power relations is a political act and something we can all practise. The burden should not rest on one person alone – we can all support and stand with each other in this endeavour.

When people leave actions and discussions they should feel empowered, nourished, heard and excited about possibilities.

We are poorly led

Politicians make promises they can’t keep and defend unethical behaviour. They thrive on arguing and attacking opponents, scoring points and posturing publicly on issues.

They arrive when there is a crisis and disappear just as quickly. They tell you what the solution is but rarely listen to what you have to say. They appear at the last minute to cut ribbons and make speeches without necessarily putting in the hours along the way.

Bullying, lying, boasting and posturing is not acceptable. We would never tolerate this in our relationships with friends and family but we’ve come to expect it from politicians. No wonder most people think politics is a dirty business and don’t want any- thing to do with it.

We can organise to win

The choice to come together to contest local elections as a Ward Platform is bold but we can only hope to win if we out-organise the political parties.

A community candidate doesn’t have the benefit of the party machinery and advertising to get out the word. The only way to win is to build a participatory campaign that welcomes as many people as possible to help out. We have to rely on the hard work of committed and skilled volunteers.

We can’t rely on word of mouth or social media to get our message out. What we are trying is new and many people won’t understand how it might be different and how it could work. We have to speak to as many people as possible across the ward and canvas their support. Spending time with people one on one is the most effective way to win support but it doesn’t mean people will actually register or vote.

To win the Ward we would need to convince some residents who would normally vote for a majority political party to vote for a community candidate, motivate voters who are discouraged and don’t pitch up to vote to come to the polls, and ensure a significant number of eligible voters register to vote – and make sure everybody goes to the polling station on the day of the election.

We can’t do this without a serious strategy. It will be necessary to prioritise areas where we have the most potential of winning and ensure that volunteers visit every single home to speak to residents. This is hard work but we can print maps of voting districts and divide up areas into different sectors with local volunteers.

It will be necessary to hand out pamphlets so people know why we are knocking on the door. If they are interested in supporting the campaign we can collect their telephone number to ensure we can stay in touch. Don’t forget that there may be more than one voter in each household with different political views and we need to work safely at all times. We can of course also collect the details of potential volunteers and supporters online.

Ultimately we are going to need to decide collectively who in the ward are the most likely to vote for the community candidate, bearing in mind that we will need a plurality to overcome the majority party and this inevitably means that we will need broad support across a range of people and not just the most vocal or politically active.

We’ll need teams who are good at: organising events to fundraise, motivating residents, recruiting volunteers, raising the profile of the campaign and getting the word out. There will be a need to organise local assemblies to flesh out community manifestos and more formal primary elections or ward caucuses.

Figuring out the issues and making commitments in a community manifesto is one thing – but it can get confusing for people if our message is complicated – winning a campaign requires us to focus on one or two issues that are the most important and drive home a compelling message.

Canvasing the support of existing organisations, local businesses and people with a public profile will be essential to maximise our exposure. But we will need a team who knows how to manage press relations and produce snappy social media.

We rarely see ward candidates go head to head and we should definitely challenge the other party candidates to public debates. We face serious issues so we should point them out and explain the solutions but stay away from negative campaigns. Remember that hope inspires and mobilises people. Cynicism doesn’t.

But most important – we have to get people to register and to vote on the day. We can do it!

> See the toolkits for more ideas

We can fundraise locally without big business

Political parties fund their national campaigns by securing donations from big businesses and wealthy individuals. This support is not free – it comes with strings attached. Some donors expect specific direct and often corrupt favours for their donation. Others expect to have the ear of the party to influence them and the political agenda as issues arise.

The depth of support and level of influence from party donors is the best kept secret of all political parties. If we want to open up politics and reclaim local democracy then we need to ensure our campaign is transparent about what funding has been received by who and we need to raise money by as many ordinary residents as possible.

Luckily, big businesses may not see any benefit in supporting community candidates and so the problem may never arise. But we cannot avoid having to fundraise. Money is not everything and much can be done with donations and volunteers but a campaign needs money to win.

We need to put together a realistic campaign budget which could include:

Printing maps, posters, pamphlets and flyers and other campaign material
Data and phone calls for volunteers
Stationery, paper and printer ink
Social media boosting
Taxis and food for volunteers

We can raise funds in many creative ways, including online and through fundraising events but ultimately the best way is for the candidate themself to talk to individuals and convince them to support the campaign.

> There are some ideas in the fundraising toolkit

We can develop our own manifesto

Every ward is different and every community in our ward is different. We are facing different issues and have different needs that may require different solutions and interventions. These cannot be designed from above – they must be built by the people living in the ward. Complex problems cannot be resolved overnight – it takes hard work over the long term.

And yet, every election, politicians return to communities with cheap gifts and wild promises that they cannot keep. They claim initiatives they have not started and take the credit. They look to be seen and heard rather than listening to what others are doing and saying. They come up with an answer for everything. It is a game of power alone.

Generally, political parties publish one manifesto for the whole country when what we need are specific commitments and practical solutions for local problems. It’s simply not clear what they will achieve in the ward in the coming years because they are not a result of local deliberation and democratic decision making.

If we are going to democratise the nomination process for the ballot, and democratise how we make decisions, then we also need to democratise what issues we need to focus on. Manifestos should be local documents developed by and with residents living in the ward.

A ward platform should help compile a manifesto of ordinary ideas – that is the practical issues that need to be addressed and the projects that are achievable. A manifesto of ordinary ideas is not a promise, it is a roadmap for how the ward will come together to solve its pressing problems.

We can form a coalition or federation of Ward Platforms

To reclaim local democracy and shift power down we need to have enough Councillors from wards across the city to drive change from the inside. This is only possible if we form coalitions or federations with other Ward Platforms which have the same goal.

A Coalition of Ward Platforms

A coalition is possible where a number of Ward Platforms come together to support each other. Each Ward Platform would self organise and function independently, maintaining its unique character and local teams while sharing common values and ways of working.

A coalition of Ward Platforms is especially useful in a city as divided as ours and would provide opportunities for solidarity across historical and spatial divides. Community members in Ward Platforms across the city can share learning, knowledge, skills and tactics.

If Independent Councillors are elected to represent the Ward, they can take mandates from Ward Assemblies and act together in Council to achieve shared objectives.

A federation of Ward Platforms

In ward elections the candidate with a plurality of votes is elected Ward Councillor. This means that they need to win more votes than any other candidate.

It is extremely difficult to win a seat in this way because most wards across the city have historically been won by either the Democratic Alliance or the African National Congress by a large majority – often by many thousands of votes.

It’s possible to run a very good campaign as a Ward Platform but lose the election by one or two votes. As votes for Independent candidates cannot be counted towards the Proportional Representation election, these votes are effectively lost.

There is one alternative to maximise the impact of every voter. Some Ward Platforms might choose to collaborate with other Ward Platforms across the city to form a federation.

There are a few benefits to forming a federation. A federation could be registered with the IEC. This would allow Ward Platforms in the Federation to contest seats in the Proportional Representative elections in addition to Ward Councillor seats. All votes cast for Ward Councillors in the federation would also count towards the PR list, maximising the chances of winning a seat. We might pick up the PR votes of residents from across the city who are inspired by the campaigns – even where Ward Platforms are not contesting.

It is possible for a federation to have different candidates on the PR list of the Ward Councillors. This could be a list of candidates who do not represent Ward issues but cross-cutting thematic issues such as housing or safety across the region or city. These could be determined through a radical citywide nominating process.

However, this creates a whole new set of problems, including the need for a much larger central administration in the federation to manage the nomination of a central list. The centralising of power and decision making would inevitably lead to hierarchies and undermine the self-organising spirit and independence of Ward Platforms. It would also require central fundraising which would inevitably lead to contestation and factionalism. The danger here would be that the federation would start behaving much like a political party.

It would be most effective to register all of the Ward Candidates on the PR list. This would mean that Ward Platforms could focus on one campaign to secure the vote for their candidate. Depending on how the Ward Platform performs in the election, the federation can adjust their place on the PR list.

The IEC determines which voting districts and wards consti- tute what proportion of the PR vote and a PR seat is allocated in the subcouncil where the minimum quota is reached in that subcouncil. It is easier to secure across a subcouncil or citywide than it is in a single ward.

All Ward Platforms in the federation would need to work out a fair and transparent mechanism for allocating any seats that may be won in the PR election. For example, a federation could agree that:

Where a Ward Platform secures enough total votes to meet the quota then they should secure a PR seat outright to rep- resent their ward (and in solidarity all the Ward Platforms in the area) on the Subcouncil.
If a PR seat is secured by the federation but no one Ward Plat- form has met the quota, then the seat could go to the Ward Platform which secured the highest numbers of votes in their campaign.

A federation would only require a small coordinating structure and a simple constitution. For example, each Ward Platform could delegate one volunteer to sit unpaid on a co-ordinating committee and the delegation could be rotated every few months. This would need to be handled with as light a touch as possible to ensure basic coordination and encourage mutual support and solidarity between independent Ward Platforms.

We can register an Independent to contest elections

The law allows anybody to stand as an Independent for election to be a Ward Councillor even if they don’t belong to a political party.

The IEC requires that candidates to be formally nominated together with the signatures of 50 voters – this is in fact very easy. We must simply submit the required documents during the candidate nomination period, which is published in the election timetable by the IEC once an election date has been proclaimed. An Independent can be nominated by anybody who lives in the ward and is registered on that municipal segment of the voters’ roll.

There are benefits to registering a community candidate as an Independent.

An Independent Councillor is only accountable to the residents in the Ward and nobody else. This means that they can fiercely represent the ward and its interests in Council. They can stand with residents without fear of reprisal, and avoid having to compromise on values when it comes to issues of solidarity and transformation.

An Independent Councillor, once elected, is more easily able to collaborate with any individual, movement or organisation in the ward without them being seen as acting in support of a political party.

A campaign to elect an Independent Councillor can be man- aged by a Ward Platform that relies on volunteers and doesn’t require much formal structure. An Independent Councillor can demonstrate how to reclaim local democracy and open up politics if they are supported, by committed volunteers, to give effect to these ideals long after winning an election. This may be hard to sustain over a five year period.

The effectiveness of an Independent Councillor relies entirely on their own values and skills. If they don’t perform there is no way to improve the situation unless there is formal community agreement in place which has legal standing.

> See the Toolkit here

We can decide on a community candidate

If more than one community candidate stands in the same ward, they might split the vote of people who want to take back control from political parties and this might result in a political party candidate winning the ward. If we are going to win then we need to choose a single candidate through a democratic process.

Nominations

Taking part in nominating a candidate is one of the best ways to include people in local democracy and build a campaign to elect a community member. Residents coming together in every ward have to determine what will be the best way to take nominations.

Everybody living in the ward should be able to take part in a process that is transparent and fair. It should be widely advertised and easy to engage in. At first, many people won’t understand what we are trying to achieve so we need to be able to educate and explain to as many people as possible.

Nominee campaigns

Ultimately it is up to potential nominees to campaign in the Ward, spread the word and secure support. This may take some work. We may need to encourage well-known people, with standing, to step forward and be nominated – most people don’t want to get involved in politics because they see it as a dirty game but politics will only change if credible honest members of the community move into our political spaces.

Sometimes, a particular nominee in the community will have such a clear ability to lead and will galvanise support and momentum. This is normal and we should encourage natural leadership – but their nomination should still be open to scrutiny and democratic contestation.

We should hold public debates, town-hall meetings and local assemblies where members of the ward can listen to nominees speak and make up their minds who they would like as the community candidate.

Robust debate and contestation of ideas are both healthy and necessary in a democracy. So the more nominees there are and the more diverse these candidates are, the better.

Open Caucuses or Primary Elections

We can choose who the best candidate is by organising our own open caucus or primary election in the ward. We can choose people with experience to manage the process and choose people with standing in a way that builds trust.

Open caucuses are meetings where everybody in an area comes together in the same place to choose who should be the candidate. Caucuses can be held in lots of venues across the ward to improve participation.

A caucus is unique because everybody who wants to vote has to be present. We vote in these caucuses by standing in an area of the room with the other supporters voting for the same nominee as us. The nominee with the least supporters is dropped from the list and their supporters are given the opportunity to support their next preferred nominee. Essentially you repeat this, transferring votes until it is clear which nominee has the support of a majority of people.. We’ll need to think carefully about access and inclusion to make sure that everyone can get involved.

A primary election is held by ballot on paper or online. We can choose what system to use when counting the votes but it should be done in a public way:

Residents vote for one nominee and the nominee with a plurality of votes wins (more than anyone else). This is the simplest way but it does mean that the candidate may not have a majority of support in the ward.
Residents vote for one nominee but the nominees with the least support in the first round are eliminated and the top two nominees go head to head in a second round. This ensures the winner has a majority but may be hard to organise considering the logistics of holding multiple elections.
Similar to a caucus, residents rank the nominees according to their preference and the nominees with the least votes are eliminated one by one. Each time we transfer those votes to the next preference the resident voted for. This ensures the candidate has the support of most people. This can be achieved in one round of elections but can be difficult to manage in a transparent way, although it is not impossible.

Some thought needs to be given to how you will verify who is eligible to vote in a ward caucus or primary election as this will be managed by volunteers from the Ward Platform and won’t be overseen by the IEC. We can easily check if a resident is registered to vote in the ward by checking on the IEC website using their ID number.

While only citizens are allowed to vote in local government elections, a Ward Councillor represents everyone who lives in the ward including immigrant families, refugees and asylum seekers. So we should consider allowing everybody who lives in the ward to take part in the open caucus or primary election.

Justice Democrats – Nominations for Progressive Democrat candidates

In the USA, the Justice Democrats are trying to get more progressive leaning ordinary people from poor and working class communities elected into safe seats that the Democratic Party has historically won in the US House of Representatives. They look for bold leaders, grassroots campaigners, and movement builders.

They call for nominations and select and train potential candidates in the skills and tactics they will need to win in primary elections without taking money from large corporations.

In the US general election in November 2018, a number of young progressive identified by Justice Democrats were elected to the House of Representatives, including 29-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who had been working as a waitress and bartender in New York and who became the youngest woman elected to Congress.

We can organise a Ward Platform

If we want to win a Ward Councillor seat from a political party, then we need a Ward Platform that can bring together residents behind a community candidate and inspire as many people as possible to get involved in the campaign – and vote!

The idea of a Ward Platform is useful because it neatly summarises what we want to prioritise:
• It is based in the communities of the Ward and concerned about reclaiming local democracy in the Ward involving every- one who lives in the ward – while bearing in mind our obligation to build a more socially just and equal city across wards.
• It is a platform because everyone can get involved in build- ing it and it allows a community member to stand who can inspire us.

While we may develop some ways of working it does not need to be a formal registered organisation – the point is to have enough cohesion and structure to be able to come together around a strategy.

Each ward will need to self-organise and deliberate on the best way to set up a Ward Platform. Bearing in mind our shared principles to ensure we find common ground across historical divides, feminise politics and work in non-hierarchical ways. These principles and ways of working must be clear and shared by all.

Our goal is to transform the ward through reclaiming power for residents – not to secure power in and of itself. It is easy to fall back on old ways of working and at every step we need to ask ourselves: Are we replicating the politics of political parties or opening up politics?

> See Open up Politics Section

We can change who is on the ballot

When it comes to governing our wards, we don’t have to limit our choice to the candidates that political parties put on the ballot. We can choose who should be on the ballot.

We all know people who are community leaders and are able to bring people together, build relationships and solve problems. People who are already transforming our communities and can speak from the heart and act with experience.

They may be a well-loved social worker, nurse or teacher who knows the issues. They may be a rabbi, imam or pastor who people turn to when times get tough. Or they may be a community worker or activist who can be relied on to take action. This doesn’t have to be someone older – so many young people have the passion and ideas we are yearning for.

Most of all, we need people to stand as a Councillor whose politics is rooted in a vision of a more just and equal city, and who are willing to stand with the communities in the ward to achieve this when they go to Council.

We don’t have to vote for political party candidates

When it comes to local elections many of us are faced with having to vote for a political party even if we don’t support any of them because there are no other options. On the Ward Ballot, we end up voting for the candidate that the political party has put forward to represent them even if we don’t know them or don’t support them.

Residents in a ward are not consulted or given the opportunity to nominate who should be on the ballot in the first place. When you think about it, limiting the choice of who should govern us to party candidates is fundamentally undemocratic. Especially when you consider how and why they are chosen. Most political parties rely on panels and committees stacked with senior politicians to decide on the candidates standing in wards and for the municipal PR list.

In the end, very few people are involved in making the decision who should be on the ballot and the process is rife with gate- keeping, corruption and factional politics. After all, ensuring particular candidates are selected is a core way to build power within the party or to gain access to resources procured through corruption.

Existing career politicians are chosen again and again because they have influence and know the right people. They have the support of a dominant faction and are retained even when their performance is poor. Well-connected newcomers are parachuted in even if they don’t have much experience.

In fact, senior politicians are shielded from the threat of not being elected by local communities. You will notice that a Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Speaker and Member of the Mayoral Committee are never fielded as ward candidates. They are allocated positions high up on the municipal PR list. This ensures that these members are loyal and follow the party line when it comes to decisions affecting committees because they owe their seat entirely to the party.

It’s possible then to be a career politician without ever having to secure a mandate from a local community.

Considering how many candidates are fielded nationally by the majority parties and how rapidly candidates are selected, there is simply no way that their track record and values can be tested. The first time most residents get to know who the candidate is when the decision has already been made and their face is print- ed on a poster. As for residents, we are forced to choose the least worst person for the job.

What this means is obvious – when it comes to decisions about the ward – party politicians are more accountable to the party than the community.

Understanding local elections

In Metropolitan Municipalities, Council is made up of two types of councillors. Half are Ward Councillors and half are Proportional Representation Councillors (also known as PR Councillors).

Ward Councillors

Ward Councillors are elected by the residents living in ward on a first-past-the-post basis. This means that the Councillor with the most votes wins the seat. You don’t need to belong to a political party to run to be the Ward Councillor. Anybody can register and appear on the ballot as an Independent.

PR Councillors

PR Councillors are elected by everyone living in the municipality on a proportional basis. This means that the seats are allocated to political parties based on what proportion of the vote they received. Only political parties can contest and win PR Councillor seats.
The PR seats themselves are not allocated proportionally. Rather the Independent Electoral Commission or IEC allocates seats using a formula to ensure that Council overall is proportional to the number of votes that a party receives. Parties submit a list to the IEC and they fill the seats from the list based on the number of seats that they win.

Registering as an Independent

As we have mentioned the IEC requires you to be formally nominated together with the signatures of 50 voters, but it is very easy. You must submit the required documents during the candidate nomination period, which is detailed in the election time- table published once an election date has been proclaimed. An Independent can be nominated by anybody who ordinarily re- sides in the municipality in that ward; and is registered on that municipal segment of the voters’ roll.

You have to submit the following documents:

A nomination form signed by the Nominator. This is published before municipal elections.
A prescribed acceptance of nomination form signed by the candidate which includes an undertaking to be bound by the Code of Conduct and a declaration that the candidate is not disqualified from standing in the elections in terms of the Constitution or other applicable legislation together with a copy of the first page of their ID book.
A copy of the page of the candidate’s ID book on which the candidate’s photo, name and ID number appear (this does not need to be certified).
A form containing the names, surnames, ID Numbers and sig- natures of at least fifty (50) voters whose names appear on the voters’ roll of any one of the voting districts of the ward the candidate is contesting.
A deposit of R1,000.00 paid by means of a bank guaranteed cheque in favour of the Electoral Commission.
An A5 colour photo (head and shoulders) of the independent ward candidate as first choice, but black and white will not be rejected.

> See the IEC website here

We can find common ground

Every ward in Cape Town has a different history and brings together many different kinds of people to form a community.We live next to people who have had different experiences, who have different needs, who hold different beliefs and employ different ways of solving problems.

It can be very powerful to communicate and organise with like-minded people who share our worldview. It is easier to convince people who already agree with you what needs to be done. However, there is no one solution to our complex problems.

We cannot hope to transform our ward and resolve the problems we face unless we are able to get the majority of people living in the ward to come on board. This does not mean that we have to give up on our principles but rather we should seek to open up our politics and include as many people as possible.

As long as we share similar values then we are able to discuss different issues, able to learn from each other, able to understand how people experience things differently, and able to compromise where necessary.

Despite our obvious differences, most people want similar things. When we find common ground we are more likely to find radical, creative and pragmatic solutions to challenges.

We can reclaim the City Council

If we can reform how Ward Councillors and Ward Committees work, then in time we can form coalitions with other ward platforms across the city and move to reform how Councillors work in the the higher structures of Council to ensure that as many decisions as possible are made in a public way by elected Councillors at a level that is appropriate for the people who will be affected. Informed by mandates taken in local Ward Assemblies and Ward Committee meetings, our Councillors must play an active role deliberating and making decisions representing our interests in the Subcouncil, in Committees of Council and in full Council meetings.

As we push to take charge and reclaim local democracy, we must be mindful that our City is divided spatially. We must be mindful that some might wish to take more local control in order to put forward ideas that are unconstitutional, racist and exclusionary, or short sighted. We cannot build a socially just, economically equitable and environmentally sustainable city and society if each ward only looks after its own interests. Some decisions require us to come together across wards to ensure that we decide how to spend City resources in a fair and equitable way that helps to transform the city as a whole. So some decisions, such as where to deploy law enforcement or where to build affordable housing must be made at higher levels.

The reality is, that if a majority of wards established Ward Platforms and elected local residents as Councillors, we would be able to ensure these higher structures are alive with democratic debate, deliberate and ultimately negotiation and compromise and our Councillors would be required to work in coalitions to ensure that fair and equitable decisions are made that benefit their constituencies and the majority of people.

Subcouncil

Subcouncils should be one of the most important governance structures in the City. These should bring together Councillors from all the Wards to make decisions on issues that are particular to the region. The issues require cooperation to resolve and should be informed by decisions that have been made in Ward Committees and mandates that have been adopted in Ward Assemblies. If Subcouncils are empowered, this could include:

A defining role in deciding what capital projects to prioritise in the City’s annual budget in the area of its jurisdiction.
The redistribution, disposal, management and use of public land not allocated for citywide transformation projects, including granting tenure security to informal settlement residents, leasing for community use.
Where budget has been allocated towards advancing the right to housing, decisions regarding the specific programmes and locations for investment that would distribute housing opportunities fairly across the Wards and benefit the most people.
Management of regional support services such as mental health and trauma, support for survivors of rape and gender based violence, homelessness.
The provision of basic services such as water, sanitation, electricity.
Regional safety and law enforcement.

Committees of Council

Councillors sitting in the Committees of Council should be responsible for the development and adoption of policy and by- laws to be put before Council. Committees should be responsible for holding Mayoral Committee members and the relevant line departments within the Administration to account for their performance.

Council

Too many decisions that are taken in Party Caucuses behind closed doors are rubber stamped in Council. Full Council should meet more regularly to debate policy and the decision before it before voting. Councillors must report back to Ward Assemblies on the decisions and votes that they took and how they aligned with mandates that were given.

Administration

Many public officials working in the administration take a very poor view of Councillors. They see them as self-serving, corrupt and interfering in the work of the administration. There are powerful officials who would see any attempt at giving Coun- cillors more decision making powers as a problem and decisions should be handed over to technocrats and professionals within the administration.

There is an orthodoxy that has become entrenched in public administration which holds that once Councillors delegate their power to the Executive Mayor, Mayoral Committee and senior officials in the administration, then they should relinquish all at- tempts to influence those decisions. The orthodoxy holds that the only opportunity Council should be given to steer the vision and administration of the City rests in the development and adoption of the 5 year integrated development plan which all new Councils must pass once elected and the annual adoption of the budget. This idea stems from the belief that Council is sim- ply implementing this plan. Councillors should not be giving any instructions directly to officials. Effectively the only way to ad- dress issues in your ward is to gain the attention of the Executive Mayor who must instruct the City Manager who would in turn instruct the relevant line departments and staff.

As it stands, Councillors have almost no decision making powers and so the system requires them to use whatever influence they can summon to influence decisions both within the political realm and the administration. Councillors are constantly trying to upend the order of things so that they can serve their constituents and this is seen as a problem rather than them doing their work.

This results in unelected and obscure officials that are hidden from public scrutiny within the administration being gifted an overwhelming amount of decision making power. The idea that technocrats make more equitable and rational decisions is simply not true – any bureaucracy tends to want to maintain its pow- er and influence. The reality is that the people who make the most influential decisions about our wards are not accountable to the public in any way. Like everyone, officials have their own class and race prejudices.

The solution does not lie in less power for Councillors. It lies in greater local democracy and decision making power for Councillors. We cannot hope that they will always make good decisions or will not act corruptly. But we can ensure that these decisions are taken in the public eye so that Councillors can be held ac- countable.

In turn, the administration should be reorganised in order to provide administrative support at Subcouncil and Ward level to help implement the decisions that have been made. Officials in the administration should simply administer, not decide – their power must be limited to:

Providing competent and expert advice;
The co-ordination and implementation of decisions that are taken;
Procurement, tendering and performance tracking;
The daily management and implementation of City services.

We can reform Ward Committees

South African law allows for the City of Cape Town to establish ward committees whose purpose is to enhance participatory democracy in local government. That is quite a broad mandate and it is up to the local municipality to determine how the ward committee is established and to delegate appropriate powers to it. Ward Committees could and should be the building block for democratic ward decision making and they must be reformed and empowered. We may not be able to change the Council policy, but we can demonstrate a different culture and way of work- ing if we can elect a resident as the Ward Councillor – we don’t have to follow the City’s policy!

Committee Elections

Anybody living in the ward should be able to serve on a Ward Committee not only people employed or representing registered organisations. The Ward Committee should be directly elected by residents living in the ward rather than by registered organisations.

Ward Committee members should be elected on a geographical basis to ensure that all communities in the ward are represented. Each voting district could elect at least one ward committee member. This would mean that every resident living in a ward would have one person that represents their interests in the lowest structure of Council.

Public meetings

The Councillor and Ward committee should meet regularly in public to make decisions and the meeting should be open for anybody living in the ward to attend and observe. Where decisions require deliberation and mandates then these can be obtained through ward assemblies and other forms of participation as required. Ward Committees should be supported by a clerk from the administration who may assist with formal rules and minutes etc.

Community Organising and Public Participation

Ward committee members should help organise the ward, communicate upcoming meetings and facilitate public participation in their districts wherever the views of residents are required. They should update residents in district meetings, online and in newsletters on decisions that have been made in Ward Committee meetings and ward assemblies. Ward Committee members should contribute time on a voluntary basis but should be fairly compensated for transport and other costs they have incurred to do the work. They should also be provided with resources such as access to printing and stationery at Ward and District Community Centres.

Ward budget

Our aim is to ensure that the state supports the resources that already exist in communities. We need to focus on harnessing the resources and agency of communities and reforming how the state supports and empowers this. However, we must complement this with resources from the City.

Every year the City allocates a small amount for each Councillor to spend on projects in their ward – normally around R800,000. These are the only funds that are ring-fenced for the ward over which the Councillor has any decision-making power.. While res- idents give input, it is up to the Councillor and the ward committee to submit a list of projects for the Subcouncil and City Council to approve.

Right now, we can demonstrate how residents can come together to deliberate and make decisions collectively on what to spend the Ward Allocation on. We can crowdsource ideas in meetings and online, help to sort them into viable projects and ensure that they are fairly distributed; and allow residents to vote on these ideas – giving the Ward Councillor and Ward Committee a firm mandate for which projects to take to Council for approval.

In time, we must secure greater control over the budget and ensure a larger share of the capital expenditure is delegated to the Ward Committee to decide.

Social auditing

It is equally important to ensure that money that has been allocated to the Ward is spent effectively.

The Councillor and Ward Committee may make a decision that a service is required but should never make decisions about which service providers secures a tender or contract. Rather, the Ward Committee can help to lead social audits of the services, projects and programmes that are run in the Ward.

A social audit is a community-led process where residents collectively review verifying government (or private company) documents such as reports, plans, documents and contracts by comparing them with the realities on the ground and the experiences of the community. It is a way to decide if the outcomes reported by the government reflect the public money spent and the services received by the community.

> Read more about social audits here.

Ward Committees should be delegated decision making powers

Councillors and Ward Committees, chaired by the Councillor, should be delegated formal decision making powers for local issues at the ward level informed by Ward Assemblies and other local structures like CPFs and Civic Organisations. If empowered, Ward Committees powers could include:

Local traffic management measures and placement and safety of transport infrastructure like bus stations and taxi stops.
Priorities in terms of cycling and walking infrastructure.
Community empowering Ward waste recycling schemes and management and the placements of depots.
Local integrated safety plans including priority and placement of street lighting and the integration of community based interventions with other stakeholders such as SAPS, Gender Based Violence support services, neighbourhood watch and CPF structures.
Local economic interventions such as community run Wifi schemes in public places and across communities as well as the operation of informal markets, stalls and trading.
Allocations of public land to residents as allotments for urban food gardens or other public use.
Identification of spaces and co-ordination of community education initiatives such as night classes, apprenticeship programmes and skills exchanges.
Management of local advice offices and social support services for youth and the elderly.
Use of public streets and facilities for cultural programmes, concerts, dance, art exhibitions and music concerts.

We can hold our Councillor accountable

Once a Councillor is elected there is no formal platform or mechanism for communities in the wards to hold them accountable for poor performance. We need to invite new ways to do this and to decide on community agreements to enforce them.

Ward Agreement

As soon as we elect a resident to be Ward Councillor and our new Ward Committee we must ensure that we come together in an assembly to deliberate on a Ward Agreement and Code of Conduct for our Councillor. Our Councillor is not accountable to a political party.e or she is only accountable to residents in the ward so we need an agreement which will make it clear what our shared values are; what work we expect our Councillor to do; how we expect our Councillor to communicate; how we will participate in decisions and how our Councillor will report back and be accountable to the communities in the Ward.

State of the Ward Address

Once a year the President is required to give a state of the nation address or SONA in which he or she outlines the achievements of the government and presents a political programme for the year ahead. What happens in our ward is just as important and we should give it the same attention but we can do it a bit differently – let’s work collaboratively on a state of the ward address or SOWA.

Instead of the SOWA being attended by politicians, dignitaries and celebrities, let’s make sure that it is open to everyone living in the ward. Let’s listen to a summary of everything that has been achieved together with our elected Councillor both in the ward and in Council on behalf of the ward. Instead of listening to the Councillor make promises for the year ahead, let’s work collaboratively on a programme of action, review our structures, reaffirm our ways of working and reconsider our ward agreement with the Councillor.

Ward Mandates

At regular assemblies held in the ward, our Councillor should present any by-laws or policies that Council is planning to adopt, any maintenance, initiatives or projects that the administration is planning, and any issues that will be debated. He or she should listen to what the needs are in the Ward and after deliberation seek a formal mandate from the Ward on the positions they will take and the votes they will make in the administration, commit- tees and Council meetings.

These ward mandates should be seen as binding and we should hear back from our Councillor regularly on how they have tried to implement ward mandates. Being accountable means that they explain what they have done, what could be achieved and what could not be achieved with reasons both in Ward Assemblies and in any newsletter, online participatory platforms or social media posts so that everyone is informed.

Recalling a Councillor

If we feel that our Councillor is not honouring the Ward Agreement or being accountable to the Ward then we must have the right to choose a different Councillor.

If the Councillor was elected as part of a ward platform that registered as a party, then the platform has the right to recall the Councillor and should have a fair mechanism in place that has been developed.

If the ward platform was formed to elect a Councillor as an independent then the criteria and mechanism must be clearly articulated in the Ward Agreement, a form of social contract.

Either way, when a Ward Councillor no longer has the confidence of the Ward and is recalled or resigns this would trigger a by-election in which political parties could contest.

There will always be people who are unhappy with the performance of a Councillor in the ward – it is hard to please everyone. There will always be political parties and formations who wish to secure power for themselves and their agenda. So we cannot be naive in putting forward a mechanism to recall a Councillor – but it is a necessary mechanism to ensure ultimate authority lies with residents and accountability can be enforced through local democracy. The mechanism should therefore be available but should not be able to be so easily triggered otherwise a duly elected Councillor will spend most of their term defending themselves against motions to recall them.

We have too little power in our wards

Many people think that a local municipality is run like the national and provincial governments where the party with the most support in an election gets to govern.
A municipality is very different because the Council performs both the legislative functions of a parliament (passing by-laws, adopting a budget and doing oversight) and the executive functions of a government (entering into contracts, making policy and plans and high level decisions) at the same time.

In theory, all Councillors in the City of Cape Town could sit every day to deliberate and vote on every decision that needs to be made, but this would not be a very efficient government, so Municipalities delegate specific powers to people and committees.

The City has adopted an Executive Mayoral system. This means that Council has chosen to delegate nearly all of its powers up to the Executive Mayor, members of Mayoral Committee and to the senior officials in the administration. But it is important to realise that executive authority to govern ultimately always lies with the full Council.

Councillors

As it stands, once our Councillors have delegated their powers, they do not have much authority to make decisions about the wards they represent.

At the Council meeting every month they effectively rubber stamp decisions and policies that have already been made. While some of these are administrative and have little consequence, others have very serious consequences for everyone living in the city.

And so the best that Councillors can do is try to recommend, advise or influence the decision makers or act as a switchboard forwarding requests for information and complaints to the right department.

In truth, a Councillor is no longer a representative of the people in Council. They have become a ward liaison or ambassador sent to the people to represent the views of the City, sell or de- fend decisions that have already been made by their political superiors or the administration.

You may end up meeting with the Councilor or a Mayoral Committee member if there is frustration or crisis that needs to be resolved but there is no meaningful way for community members to engage in local decision making on a regular basis. What passes for participation is managed by a small team of officials in the administration and is limited to ad hoc public meetings, information sessions and a few opportunities to object or comment in writing.

Ward committees

Ward committees were intended to play a large role in this regard but membership is not even open to residents but reserved for representatives who are nominated by registered organisations. The Councillor gets to choose which sectors are represented with approval from the Sub-Council and elections are only held if there are more than one nomination. Only representatives from organisations can vote in these elections.

While some organisations may have community mandates and constituencies, this is not guaranteed or required. There is clearly a lack of opportunity for democratic participation in the election of the ward committee as residents cannot vote for who should represent them. In fact, you don’t have to live in the ward to sit on the ward committee.

The City of Cape Town does not delegate any decision making powers to ward committees. They are required to meet a few times a year and are meant to play an advisory role for the Councillor and support the City with public participation but their views are rarely taken into consideration. No wonder Ward Committees are mostly dysfunctional and rarely meet or have any impact in the ward.

We can shift where power lies

Power lies in the authority to make or influence a decision. Right now, when it comes to what happens in a ward, not only are our elected Councillors, but everyone in the community, is left almost entirely out of the decision-making process. But if we’re honest, this suits those in power just fine, even if it results in spending on projects and services which are not what we actually need.

If we are going to take back control from politicians and political parties in our communities then over the long term we must ensure that Council delegates decision making powers down as close as possible to the people who are affected.

We may not be able to change how decisions are made in Council straight away, but we can elect an ordinary resident from a community platform to change the decision making culture in our own ward right now. We need a culture where our Councilors debate and formulate policy in full view of the public, making decisions through deliberation, consensus and holding meaningful votes.