BARBARA HOLTMANN | How to choose the right people to run our cities

On November 4, South Africans will head to the polls to elect local government representatives. Between now and then, voters will be bombarded with promises, slogans and carefully crafted political narratives. Yet one question is worth asking before we cast our votes: do we fully understand what local government is responsible for?

The answer matters because accountability depends in large part on understanding. We cannot hold councillors to account for their performance if we do not know what powers they have, what responsibilities they carry, and where the limits of their authority lie.

At the UN-Habitat World Urban Forum in Baku, Azerbaijan last month, experts from around the world debated the growing pressures facing cities.

Despite vastly different contexts, a common theme emerged: governing cities is becoming increasingly complex. South Africa is no exception.

Many of our municipalities are struggling. Infrastructure is deteriorating, service delivery is uneven, public trust is low and financial pressures continue to mount. Residents have every right to be frustrated.

Yet while criticism is often justified, it can sometimes obscure the reality that local government is one of the most demanding and complicated areas of public administration.

If only a small minority participates in shaping municipal priorities, then decision-making becomes less representative and accountability weaker

Since 1994, municipalities have been expected to transform institutions designed to serve a minority into institutions capable of serving everyone.

This does not excuse poor governance, corruption or incompetence. It does, however, help explain why simplistic political promises are rarely in step with reality.

The scope of municipal responsibilities is considerable. Councils oversee water and sanitation, electricity distribution, refuse removal, firefighting services, municipal roads, public transport, land-use management, parks, libraries, local tourism and aspects of public health. They pass by-laws, collect rates, manage assets and, where necessary, raise finance for development projects.

Municipalities are also required to develop integrated development plans (IDPs), which guide planning and budgeting over five-year periods and are reviewed annually. In theory, the IDP process offers residents a meaningful opportunity to influence priorities and spending decisions. In practice, participation is often limited.

Many communities have become cynical about public consultation processes because they see little evidence that their input leads to change. Some of this scepticism is justified. A lack of transparency, constrained resources and weak institutional capacity frequently undermine implementation.

Yet disengagement creates its own problem. If only a small minority participates in shaping municipal priorities, then decision-making becomes less representative and accountability weaker. Young people are particularly absent from many local government processes, despite having perhaps the greatest stake in the future of South Africa’s cities and towns.

Ward committees were intended to help bridge the gap between officials and communities. Comprising community representatives and chaired by the ward councillor, they provide a mechanism for participation and local engagement. Unfortunately many do not function as intended.

Many of our urban systems were not designed for the populations they now serve. Rapid urbanisation, persistent inequality and mounting infrastructure pressures demand new approaches and collective responses

This brings us back to the election itself. What qualities should voters be looking for in a councillor?

Integrity is an obvious starting point, but it is not enough. Effective councillors need a working understanding of governance, budgeting, community engagement and public accountability. Most importantly, they must be willing to serve all residents rather than only those who support them politically.

These qualities rarely feature prominently in campaign posters. Instead, voters are often presented with simplistic solutions to deeply complex problems. One candidate promises to eliminate corruption. Another promises to fix service delivery. Others promise to transform cities that have accumulated decades of infrastructure backlogs, spatial inequality and financial strain.

Such promises may be politically effective, but they rarely reflect the realities of governing a modern city.

It is also easier to assign blame than to solve problems. Political actors frequently point fingers at undocumented migrants, previous administrations, current office bearers, corrupt officials or incompetent contractors. While each may contribute to particular challenges, none provides a complete explanation for the difficulties facing South African cities.

The deeper challenge is that many of our urban systems were not designed for the populations they now serve. Rapid urbanisation, persistent inequality and mounting infrastructure pressures demand new approaches and collective responses.

The local government elections therefore present an opportunity not only to choose leaders but also to rethink our relationship with local democracy.

If we want better governance, we need greater participation. And if we want meaningful change, we need to move beyond slogans and engage with the realities of how cities are governed.

The question is whether we will use our votes to reward promises or to support the leadership, competence and accountability that effective local government requires. In the end, it is our democracy, and it is on us.

• Holtmann is an urban safety and community development practitioner and president of the board of the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (Montreal)