Citizen participation, decentralization and inclusive development : a survey on citizen participation and decentralization in South Africa with specific reference to the Eastern Cape c.2005

Contemporary debates about development confer a prominent role to citizen participation and decentralization. Growing scepticism about the efficacy of narrowly conceived measures add pressure to reform development both theoretically and in practical terms. There is a greater understanding that ‘traditional’ development approaches and policies need to be reformulated and decentralization and citizen participation have been proposed as remedies to previous development failures. It is frequently argued that citizen participation will improve the efficiency and efficacy of public services. Citizen participation is meant to render local government more accountable and to contribute to deepening democracy, by reinforcing representative democratic institutions with participatory forms. At the same time, decentralization reforms have been proposed as a response to the failures of highly centralized states. From a political perspective, it is argued, decentralization reforms can help the central state gain legitimacy and have been seen as a strategy for maintaining political stability. It has been repeatedly suggested that physical proximity makes it easier for citizens to hold local officials accountable for their performance. From an economic perspective, decentralization can improve the match between the mix of services provided by the public sector and the preferences of the local population. It has also been noted that people are more willing to pay for services that respond to their priorities and that increased competition between local governments generates spaces for more creative responses adapted to local needs. But then, can decentralization and citizen participation live up to the faith and expectations that they have inspired? I argue that the literature commonly over-emphasises the role of citizen participation and decentralization in development and what these processes and reforms can achieve. Much of the evidence is anecdotal in nature and tends to neglect the specific contexts in which these processes take place. Also largely ignored are political economy considerations and a critical exploration of the relationship between these two key words. At best, when their interrelationships are addressed decentralization and citizen participation are conceived as based on a symbiotic relationship. I suggest, however, that the relationship between these two processes is not as straightforward as most of the literature assumes. The meanings of these two key words in current development lexicon are explored and critically assessed. I argue that whether or not the rising prominence of these two words actually means the emergence of a new development agenda is a moot point. It critically depends on the understandings of these ambiguous terms. The thesis adopts a political economy approach. Combined with this is an awareness of the broader historical and socio-economic context in which citizen participation and decentralization take place. The thesis applies these ideas triangulating diverse research methods and data sources. It combines a literature review and documentary analysis, a survey conducted with municipal authorities and civil society organizations in the Eastern Cape as well as structured interviews with Ward councillors and with key informants. From a theoretical perspective, the study lays a foundation for understanding the relationship between development policies outcomes and the nature of citizen participation and decentralization in developing countries. This, in turn, provides a basis from which citizen participation and decentralization in South Africa can be assessed and understood. The thesis presents evidence from a case study of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. By revealing how different dimensions of decentralization and citizen participation operate and intersect, the findings demonstrate, that contrary to common knowledge, citizen participation and decentralization are frequently at odds. Moreover, contrary to frequent statements, the research also shows that opening new spaces for participation in decentralized local governance can result in fewer changes and disappointing results at best, undermining the transformative potential of the concepts of participation and decentralization