Notwithstanding the evident issues of bad governance, corruption and chaos, there is a general acceptance that the post-colonial state in Africa has not met expectations. Poverty, violence, repression and many socio-economic ills continue unabated. Consequently, a widely held belief exists that life was better under the oppressive and abusive colonial era. From Senegal and Zimbabwe to Kenya and South Africa, people yearn for what Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja calls the “second independence”.
Nevertheless, one issue that seems to elude everyone is that the state administration model imposed on colonies was not only flawed but also bore no resemblance to what European settlers had back home. This is unsurprising, as colonial territories were governed differently to empower white European settler minorities and excluded the vast majority of natives.
Amidst the enduring turmoil across former colonies, the seemingly insurmountable challenges faced by the post-colonial state, whether in Africa, Asia or the Americas, raise critical questions about the legacy of European colonialism. This article contends that the state administration model bequeathed by colonialism conceals a deeper issue: an inherently flawed structure that hinders democracy, state administration innovation and development.
Furthermore, this poisoned chalice, rooted in an antiquated theorisation of the state, has led to a state of chaos that cannot be fixed or amended but demands deconstruction, re-imagination, and building from scratch. Not even noble ideas like the ‘developmental state’, ‘Thabo Mbeki’s ‘African renaissance’ or Mariana Mazzucato’s ‘entrepreneurial state’ appear adequate enough to address multidimensional problems facing African states, South Africa included.
Post-colonial states are inherently weak, badly designed, and ill-suited to achieve political, social, and economic goals. Unlike their European counterparts, which are founded on the long tradition of villages and people-centred development and governance, former colonies are a conflation of poor central planning and dysfunctional neoliberal outlandish designs.
From the outset, villages have been the heart of European society for centuries, providing a sense of community and belonging. They have also been a source of innovation and creativity, as villagers have worked together to solve problems and improve their lives. Villages and regions play a crucial role in shaping the cultural identity, economic vitality, and overall character of European towns, cities and countries.
Villages are the custodians of traditions, the bedrock of innovation, and the driving force behind social change. Their contributions are not merely symbolic; they are tangible and deeply embedded in the fabric of European society. Consider Swiss villages in the Alps, renowned for their exquisite cheese-making and precision watchmaking. This expertise has established Switzerland as a global symbol of quality and innovation.
Similarly, northern regions of France, with vast vineyards and thriving car manufacturing, have left indelible marks on the country’s economic landscape, shaping both French identity and global commerce. Villages in southern Germany have cultivated a culture of innovation, propelling the country to the forefront of industrial advancements and influencing not only its economy but also the world’s technological landscape.
Villages and regions extend their influence beyond the economic and cultural spheres, functioning as incubators for social change and reform. Consider Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the renowned philosopher and social reformer whose ideas were deeply shaped by his upbringing in Geneva and the surrounding French territories. His ground-breaking works on social contract theory and individual liberty continue to shape political discourse and ignite movements for equality and justice.
In contrast, former colonies grapple with centralised power structures that leave local governments starved of resources, a stark contrast to the autonomy enjoyed by villages in Europe. The reason for this situation is that Europe has a long tradition of local autonomy, with many villages and regions having a significant degree of self-governance.
For example, Belgium and Germany could survive without national governments for extended periods since their local government infrastructures are strong and self-sufficient. These two countries stand as European examples where local autonomy has thrived, allowing regions to manage their budgets and legislate on matters crucial to their communities.
This local government-friendly trend, emphasised in the ‘Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities’, contrasts sharply with the South African dilemma, where the national government wield disproportionate power, leaving municipalities as the neglected orphans of the system. The stark reality is that the municipal levelin South Africa, despite its proximity to communities, remains starved of the resources necessary to tackle the country’s pressing challenges.
The Division of Revenue Act (DORA) distribution formula allocates 42.3% of revenue to the national sphere, 56.3% to the provinces and a paltry 1.3% to the local sphere. The local sphere, which includes the 257 municipalities and their agencies, bears the brunt of this hierarchical distribution of funds, perpetuating the ‘triple challenge’ of poverty, unemployment, and inequality.
Moreover, this results in a deteriorating local government in South Africa, where municipalities grapple daily for survival. Despite being portrayed as stemming from inherent human flaws, issues like corruption, maladministration, chaos, and violence are deeply rooted in the flawed design of colonial territories. The scramble for riches is an old method for the greedy, whose raison d’etre was to impoverish many.
The crux of the issue lies in the outdated theorisation of the state and its administration. The Westphalian state model, developed in the 17th century, fails to address the multifaceted challenges of modern societies. The debate between centralisation and decentralisation persists, yet neither extreme provides a clear solution. The South African state is also caught in a web of centralisation and struggles to maintain functionality at both national and local levels. This exacerbates issues of inefficiency, corruption and under-resourcing.
Historically, state power has been gauged by metrics like military strength, foreign policy, macroeconomics, legislation, law enforcement, migration control and sovereignty preservation. Local municipalities are often marginalised and are not seen as political power sources or societal engines. In many instances, state policy on foreign affairs, trade and the economy is centralised, requiring local governments to seek recognition and support from the national level.
The ongoing debate between centralisation and decentralisation lacks a clear solution for effectively administering a modern state that balances national and local imperatives. Many Third World countries have tended towards centralisation, leading to notable failures at both the national and local levels. South Africa, too, seems entangled in this dilemma, facing challenges in maintaining a well-run and functional state across all spheres.
On the other hand, states such as Belgium and Switzerland have embraced decentralisation to varying degrees. Switzerland’s decentralised system appears to have been resilient over time by attempting to balance national and regional interests and thus foster stability and unity despite its linguistic and cultural diversity.
In contrast, Belgium, despite its confederal structure, faces serious challenges that could lead to the splitting of its regions, Wallonia (French-speaking) and Flanders (Dutch-speaking), into two independent countries. While ethnic tensions play a role in the Belgian situation, this example nonetheless underscores that even confederations are not immune to the difficulties of maintaining viable states. This also suggests that we need to find new ways of organising states that are more adaptable and responsive to the multiple challenges that exist today.
According to Ntiyiso Consulting estimates, municipalities are guaranteed between 10% and 15% of funds received from both national and provincial spheres. This means that municipalities are guaranteed only a fraction of their required budget to address various pressing issues and deliver essential services to their communities.
In this regard, municipalities are entrusted with numerous responsibilities, including providing public services such as water, electricity, sanitation, waste collection and more. Additionally, they must maintain infrastructure, promote local development, and address social and economic challenges within their jurisdictions.
Then municipalities face the task of determining how and where to generate the necessary funds. To offset budget shortfalls, they must generate additional funds beyond government grants. Rates and taxes levied on residents and property owners play a crucial role in financing essential services and infrastructure operation and maintenance. However, revenue collection encounters challenges due to various reasons.
The Auditor-General’s newly published assessment of municipal finances for 2021/22 shows that the state of municipal financing and financial reporting remains dire. Only 38 of the 257 municipalities received clean audits, while the financial state of many municipalities is so bad that there is significant doubt about their ability to operate. This includes the City of Tshwane and Mangaung Metro, which together represent 10% of the total local government budget and are supposed to deliver services to 9% of South Africa’s households.
Furthermore, the ongoing privatisation of Eskom and the increased involvement of Independent Power Producers (IPPs) in electricity provision are significantly affecting municipalities. This is expected to result in a decrease in revenue for municipalities since they currently receive a share of the revenue from Eskom’s electricity sales. Presently, it remains unclear how municipalities will diversify their revenue sources and reduce their dependence on electricity sales.
Municipalities in South Africa face serious challenges, including skill shortages, under-resourcing, corruption and inefficiencies. These issues, coupled with unique challenges in delivering public services, are attributed by the Development Bank of South Africa to a lack of resources. This scarcity hampers fundamental service provision as well as undermines economic development and growth in impoverished communities, leading to regular service delivery protests.
While the country has grown used to violent protests, ratepayers in Durban’s Westville suburb are withholding more than 1.2 million rands in rates and taxes to protest high tariff rates and inadequate services. The residents withheld funds in a special account until the municipality addressed their concerns about service quality and affordability. This protest follows legal provisions, including Section 102 of the Municipal Act, which allows ratepayers to withhold payments if they question tariff increases and service integrity. Elsewhere, communities self-manage issues like fixing potholes. In predominantly poor black areas, the only form of protest entails street blockades and violent action.
Oxfam’s Phelisa Nkomo advocates for a reconfiguration of macroeconomic policy, including fiscal policies, to address income inequality and ensure a safety net for vulnerable populations, particularly black women. Her view is that the current expectation of municipalities raising their own taxes is not working. The insistence on resourcing central government diverts the resources that local government needs to address the socio-economic challenges that the country faces.
The current arrangement inadvertently gives the ultra-rich more leverage to withhold financial resources from municipalities, as is the case in Westville. Nkomo argues that it is not acceptable that in a country as well-resourced as South Africa, only 10% of the population is wealthy enough not to worry about buying milk. It is for this reason that she believes that the macroeconomic framework needs to be reviewed to address the plethora of issues that are impacting citizens’ ability to afford essential goods and services.
The current trend in Europe leans towards a supportive approach to local governance. Robust local authorities, particularly prominent in Scandinavian countries and Germany, play a central role in providing essential local services and promoting public welfare. Northern European local governments also benefit from a substantial level of financial autonomy.
A 2020 study conducted by Germany’s Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning concluded that “a minimum degree of local financial autonomy and own-source revenues promote effective public service provision by local governments”. The study further advocated for empowering local governments to make decisions across a broad spectrum of tasks and emphasised the need for robust organisational structures to facilitate effective steering and coordination.
Yearly budget speeches talk to trees, and social grant expenditure will continue to swell since people continue to suffer from marginalisation.