A future for the provinces? New rethink needed on role of provinces
Caroline Kihato and Thabo Rapoo, CPS policy analysts

Provincial Governance Series 23, June 2001

What is the role of provinces in a democratic South Africa? Are they an asset or a hindrance to social delivery and democracy?

The debate about the future of the provinces is as old as the provinces themselves. But the discussion usually offers nothing beyond tired ideological clichés and party-political diatribes. This paper attempts to examine a new set of concerns and questions which point towards a need to rethink the current role of the provincial sphere in the wake of the far-reaching transformation of local government. It also attempts to explore questions such as: Is the current role of the provinces clearly defined? Is it time to rethink their role in the wake of changes to the local sphere? Do we still need the provinces, or is it highly premature to talk of abolishing them? The objective is to recast the largely stale public debate on the role of provinces, which has, for a long time, been conducted within the restrictive and outdated party-political agendas of the pre-1994 constitutional negotiations era.

Recasting the debate

The debate needs a serious face-lift if not an entirely new direction. This will allow new ideas to come forward to help redefine and re-conceptualise the role of second-tier government in a new era in which concerns about public service, efficient and effective service delivery, governance, democratic participation, responsiveness and direct accountability have come to the fore. Public discourse is no longer dominated by political questions such as federalism or provincial autonomy; they have been eclipsed by bread and butter issues. And when questions such as the structure of the state are raised they are often linked to enhancing the capacity and improving the effectiveness of service delivery.

For far too long, the role of provinces in South Africa has been - and still is to a large extent - dominated by the political concerns which dominated the constitutional negotiations of 1992 to 1994. The central political preoccupation of that time was the issue of ‘power’ and the fear of minority parties that central government would become too overbearing. The notion of 'countervailing power' was and is very central to current definitions and conceptions of the role of the second sphere in South Africa. In other words, major opposition parties, academics and proponents of a multi-tier system of government saw provinces serving not only as multiple centres of power outside of central government but also as ‘countervailing’ sources of political, legal and constitutional authority to be counterpoised against the power of central government. Provinces were positioned as second-order prizes to be won by political parties which perceived no prospects of capturing power at central level.

This conception of the role and significance of the provinces is still dominant among some political parties. While it could be argued that provinces offer opposition parties access to the levers of power at sub-national level and hence a stake in the current constitutional order, there might be an unintended political consequence of reducing the provinces to mere trophies to be captured and displayed as trappings of power by parties unable to win power at the centre - as a reward for parochial or inward-looking parties.

This explains the knee-jerk reactions early in 1998 to even the slightest rumours that the African National Congress (ANC) might be thinking of radically restructuring or abolishing the provinces. For instance, when the ANC introduced its ‘megacities’ or ‘unicities’ reform initiative for local government, a number of articles appeared in local newspapers suggesting that the party was thinking of abolishing the provinces and giving more constitutional powers to metro councils and their mayors at the expense of provincial premiers. This was seen by critics as a cryptic attempt by the ANC to do away with what was clearly seen as alternative centres of power to an ANC-controlled central government – the provinces.

Although the role of provinces as potential ‘countervailing’ or alternative sources of power cannot be overlooked, this potential may have been exaggerated at the expense of stifling frank public debates on whether the provinces are still relevant to the needs of the country. We need to avoid turning provinces into sacred cows whose significance cannot even be questioned, lest those who do so be accused of desiring to centralise power. Moreover, for various reasons the provinces have not had a noticeable track record as bulwarks against a dominant central government. Although instances can be cited where KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape have successfully challenged the constitutionality of central government decisions at the Constitutional Court, in general these do not really amount to significant evidence that provinces serve as ‘countervailing’ centres of power.

This general failure of provinces to fulfil the role of ‘countervailing’ centres of power perhaps provides an opportunity for us to expand the parameters of the debate and to rethink their role under changing conditions of governance. One of these conditions is the newly transformed local sphere. In the wake of this transformation process, a paradigm shift appears to be on the cards, which might help recast this debate. Therefore, concepts of ‘power’ or ‘countervailing power’ might be inappropriate or inadequate to capture the essence of the current significance, role and relevance of second-tier institutions of government.

Current thinking about the future

The likely impact on the role of provinces of the new system of municipal government might just be the sort of shot in the arm the debate needs.

This arises out of practical challenges rather than theoretical speculation on the likely development of provincial-local government relations. It is unclear what the long-term impact will be, but many commentators have begun to make bold statements about the possible short-term impact of these new institutions on the system of intergovernmental relations. Serious questions are being raised about how the new system of local government will impact on the role and place of the provinces – this by fairly senior ANC politicians, academics, commentators and smaller political parties.

Essentially, there are two clear perspectives to this debate, with a possible third endorsing the status quo or enhanced provincial powers.

The first proposes that the provinces be abolished, while the second calls for them to be restructured into oversight structures to allow municipalities to become central institutions for implementing policy and delivering services to citizens. The ANC has traditionally been less enthusiastic about the provinces than the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the former Democratic Party (DP) and the National Party. Historically, it perceived provinces as an unnecessary additional layer of government and, since 1998 leading to Thabo Mbeki’s ascendance to the presidency, there has been a perceptible hardening of attitudes in the ANC to the provinces due to their perceived inefficiency, corruption and ineffectiveness in delivering services.

This should easily place the ANC within the perspective that seeks to abolish provinces. But its position on this matter is not monolithic. In fact, various political leaders have expressed both views within the party. In 1998 former Mpumalanga MEC for Finance, Jacques Modipane, argued for provinces to be abolished to concentrate capacity-building efforts as well as redirecting resources to municipalities, but other ANC leaders have recently endorsed the ‘oversight-role’ perspective.

Eastern Cape Premier Makhenkesi Stofile recently gave an interview to a newspaper in which he proposed that provinces be scaled down, stripped of some of their powers and turned into oversight structures. He argued that provincial civil servants should be deployed to the municipalities to boost their institutional, administrative and service delivery capacity. Firoz Cachalia, Speaker of the Gauteng legislature, echoed this perspective recently, arguing at the opening of the legislature in February that a new era in intergovernmental relations is about to dawn where provinces will play an oversight role in relation to municipalities.

While it is likely to be unpopular within the high echelons of the ruling party, the 'abolitionist perspective' appears to be gaining popularity among smaller parties, particularly those with a smaller number of members holding positions in the provinces or those unlikely to win power at provincial level. Some have recently endorsed this perspective, arguing that the provinces are gradually becoming superfluous in the wake of the newly created and much more streamlined municipal system. They argue that the new local government institutions are better geared to achieving local economic development goals and promoting democratic citizenship than the provinces. Parties such as the Pan Africanist Congress, the United Democratic Movement and the Azanian Peoples Organisation (AZAPO) have in the past expressed the view that provinces should be abolished. AZAPO has recently called again for their abolition, accompanied by the strengthening of local government, adding that metropolitan municipalities will inevitably render provinces redundant. Many of these smaller parties do not have much to lose should provinces be abolished and this explains their readiness to forsake them. The stated reason behind the desire to abolish provinces is that there will be efficiency gains from service delivery by local government.

There is a third possible perspective which is likely to endorse the status quo or call for more powers for the provinces. The IFP and Democratic Alliance (DA) are likely to endorse this perspective. These two parties have actually stayed out of debates on the matter of the likely restructuring or rethinking of the role of the provinces. However, given its well-known stance on the political significance of provinces – that sees them as ‘countervailing’ sources of power against a dominant central government – the IFP is likely to prefer the status quo, if not demand increased powers for provinces. The former DP’s position was always vacillating between seeing provinces as an essential bulwark against an ANC–controlled central government, and being indifferent to them. However, the newly formed DA might have changed this. Going by its recent election campaign messages in the Western Cape, its push for the province to be an ANC-free zone clearly indicates the continuing importance of the notion of ‘power’ and desire to use provinces as ‘countervailing’ sources of political authority.

The new local government system

To understand the context within which this debate is occurring it is important to delve briefly into the current nature of local government. Last year’s municipal elections ushered in a new form and structure for the third sphere. They were preceded by the passage of three laws, the Municipal Structures Act, the Municipal Systems Act and the Municipal Demarcation Act, which not only attempt to provide a more equitable, efficient and effective system of local government but also increase the scope and powers of municipalities. The Municipal Structures Act establishes the different types of municipalities, their structures and functions. The Municipal Systems Act develops management systems and mandates municipalities to interact with citizens and promote democratic participation. The Municipal Demarcation Act establishes a Demarcation Board responsible for redrawing municipal boundaries to create more efficient, optimal-sized local units. Ideally, this legislative framework should ensure equity in the distribution of resources at the local level, provide social services to all in a resource-efficient manner and create a financially viable sphere of government capable of meeting these demands.

Further, the overall vision for local government is that it is a ‘developmental’ sphere, putting municipalities at the forefront of social service delivery and local economic development. It has also tasked municipalities with promoting local democracy because of the nature of their functions and their proximity to citizens. The significance of local government in strengthening democracy is further reinforced by the existence of constituency-based councillors. Local government is the only sphere of government to directly elect 50% of its representatives. For other spheres, proportional representation is the basis for the election of all candidates. Thus, the importance of local government in enhancing democracy cannot be ignored because in theory constituency-based councillors are more directly accountable to the electorate than those elected from party lists, who are likely to be more accountable to party structures. Also, given its role in a democratic polity and its centrality in service delivery and economic development, the importance of local government relative to other spheres is substantial. Since it has been designated the major economic and social delivery vehicle at local level, and a key player in strengthening local democracy, it is easy to understand the impulses to abolish provinces. For with the creation of an effective viable local sphere, provinces would seem redundant.

Recent legislative changes in the structure of South Africa's major cities have created the space for urban municipalities to control socio-economic activities in some of the wealthiest regions. The establishment of six mega-cities headed by an executive mayor, who in some cases controls a budget larger than that of most provinces, has further reinforced arguments that provinces are slowly being rendered obsolete by strong local structures. It is envisaged that ‘mega-cities’ will be well-run, efficient delivery machines with the capacity not only to deliver to the poor but to be the engines of economic growth. It is the establishment of ‘mega-cities’ and ‘super-mayors’ that has rekindled the debate on the future of provinces. It is still conducted largely in the realm of academia, where comparisons have been between the roles, powers and functions of mayors and premiers, with inferences drawn as to how this would eventually undercut the importance of the second tier. Some commentators believe that a new era in intergovernmental relations has dawned, due to the inevitable rise in the political status and prestige of the position of executive mayor to match the vast executive powers and functions attached to it at the expense of the status and prestige of the position of premier. They argue that this will have a potentially far-reaching impact in undermining the role of the provinces.

Yet while local government in South Africa is conferred legislative recognition – the constitution refers to it as a ‘sphere’, implying that it is an equal partner to the other levels – it is de facto subordinate to national and provincial governments. A cursory glance at the legislation reveals that it is considered the ‘small brother’ within the government system. The Municipal Structures Act, for instance, gives the demarcation board, with provincial MECs for local government, the power to establish and disestablish municipalities, while the establishment and disestablishment of provincial and national governments requires changes to the Constitution. Provinces also play a huge role in overseeing municipal planning activities – they are responsible for approving municipal integrated development plans and, where municipalities fail to perform their functions, provinces have the mandate to take over those functions.

Moreover, political commentators argue that local government policy has been determined at higher levels without substantial participation of local actors. The demarcation process provides a case in point in which a number of municipalities claimed that they had not been adequately involved in defining their own boundaries. The same is said of current plans to implement a free water policy. Local officials argue that the decision has been made at higher tiers and imposed on local government. Thus, while the Constitution acknowledges local government as a 'sphere', this, it is argued, is largely a symbolic gesture. And while the legislation acknowledges the importance of local government and confers numerous functions on it, it seems unwilling to relinquish the power and authority required to give effect to this.

As the current legislation stands, there is still space for the provinces to operate within the new framework for local government but the nature of this ‘space’ is far from clear and needs thorough debate. Provinces and their functions were established before the new legislation on local government. Given this, there is a need for exhaustive debate on the functions provinces can play in the new local government legislative framework. For instance, a primary reason for the establishment of provinces was to promote democratic participation because of their close proximity to citizens when compared to national government. This function has become less clear with the establishment of a democratic sphere of local government, closer to citizens than provinces whose primary function is the promotion of local democracy. The current arrangement implies several ambiguities on the functions of provincial and local government. A thorough look at the objectives of provinces in the light of legislative changes in local government and their most appropriate functions given these changes is necessary.

Debates on local government in South Africa regurgitate rhetoric about creating a strong third sphere, while the policy remains biased against making this a reality. To some extent the inadequate devolution of authority and power to local government stems from a tradition of looking down on local government. Historically, black local authorities (BLAs) were unable to provide adequate services and were considered illegitimate by most township dwellers. To some extent, this perception has carried over into the elected third sphere, particularly because it has been slow in delivering services. Also, the extent to which local government has historically been eclipsed by national politics is clear when one looks at the Kempton Park constitutional negotiations in which the ‘high stakes’ issues were around national and provincial government. Negotiations on local government – perceived as a less important level – were only addressed much later. Historically, therefore, attitudes to local government by policy-makers, politicians and citizens have been at best disdainful and indifferent and it has been difficult to reverse these attitudes within the new dispensation.

These attitudes are further intensified by government’s current technocratic approach to local government. Local government is increasingly seen as an agent of delivery. Its existence is justified insofar as it implements national (and provincial) policies. Recent changes in local government, particularly in the major cities, have seen the rise of a new wave of management terminology used to drive local government transformation. Terms such as ‘efficiency’, ‘effectiveness’, ‘downsizing’, ‘privatising’ and ‘cost-saving’ have driven the urban transition process, giving the impression that local government is merely a vessel for state service delivery programmes. This has tended to undermine the status of local government, placing it firmly in the somewhat disparaging position of the ‘hands and feet’ of higher spheres of government where the brains behind local government operations belong.

It has also tended to perceive local government as apolitical. This has continued to feed into attitudes that local government is not a significant political platform, with several consequences. Firstly, parties often place their ‘prime’ candidates in national and provincial spheres. Secondly, local government is often considered a transition point for those who aspire to higher office, which means that it loses its ‘best’ candidates to other spheres. These attitudes have served to politically weaken the status of local government and to some extent this subordination has become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The huge delivery backlogs and disparities in service delivery in urban areas and between urban and rural areas, brought about by the financial crisis, the lack of basic infrastructure and management systems particularly in the rural areas, and the poor levels of participation in local government, all suggest the need for a continued role for the provincial level to bolster local government institutions. It also suggests the need for provinces to maintain their oversight function in monitoring local government performance. And, because they are well positioned to see the bigger picture, provinces play a crucial co-ordinating role, ensuring greater coherence in planning and economic strategies at regional level. However, as argued earlier in the paper, this role has to be recast within the context of the changes in local government. For instance, questions should be raised on whether this function is an inherently provincial one or whether national government structures could take it over.

The pros and cons

Debates on the future of provinces beg some questions. If provincial resources were to be redirected to local government, would this guarantee a system that works well? Do provinces have to be abolished for the system to operate efficiently, or are there ways in which provincial and local governments can be restructured to enhance resource efficiency and delivery?

The perennial debates on the future of the provincial system appear to signal that there is dissatisfaction about their current role and an increasing feeling that their role needs to be redefined. The central motive here is the widespread perception that there will be gains by way of enhanced local government efficiency and effectiveness in delivering services to citizens. Thabo Mbeki heavily emphasised the theme of efficiency, effectiveness and speedy service delivery during his first speech as president in 1999 and continued to do so thereafter. This theme received cross-party support at national level and from all provincial premiers. This has prepared the ground for a re-examination of the current role of provinces in relation to local government.

However, as a ruling party governing most provinces, it would seem not to be in the interest of the ANC to abolish the provinces, as it has more to lose by doing this than other parties; it has more members occupying positions of authority and enjoying privileges of patronage at provincial level than other parties. This means that, should provinces be abolished, the consequences of loss of positions, power and pecuniary benefits by its members could result in considerable political tension. Clearly, provinces currently not only serve a political function by providing an outlet for regional party political leaders without prospects, or as stepping stones for those destined for high offices at national level. They also provide employment for many of the party’s functionaries at regional level, which explains why the ‘abolitionist’ view remains very much a minority view in the ANC. Despite its initial lack of enthusiasm for the provinces, at a material level many of its members have developed a stake in the continued existence of provincial institutions.

Therefore, the ‘oversight function’ option is likely to be more acceptable within the ANC leadership than abolition. It holds prospects for regional party leaders to continue playing a political role and to wield some form of political influence, however symbolic, at an intermediate level. The option of scaling the provinces down to oversight structures, therefore, enables it to achieve two related objectives: shifting the centre of administrative and service delivery capacity to local government, while retaining some role for many of its regional political leaders. Also, there will be opportunities for local political leaders to serve in local government institutions which might enhance the political status of the local sphere if, in the long term, it is perceived as an acceptable recruitment avenue for aspiring local political leaders.

On a more practical level, would the abolition of provinces provide local government with the status, power and capacity that it requires to become a strong political sphere? The argument that provinces should be abolished assumes that this will ensure local government efficiency. But even if resources are diverted from provinces to local government, there is no guarantee that this would build stronger municipalities. Indeed, if the problems experienced by local government revolved solely around resources, the solution to its plight would be relatively simple. Local government currently suffers illegitimacy and attitudinal problems which undermine its position as a sphere of government and consequently impact negatively on its functions. It needs more than the abolition of provinces to overcome these problems. Moreover, the abolition process would need to be well thought through to ensure that the third sphere can carry the required burden in a two-tier system of government.

Abolishing provinces raises even more concerns. If the argument against them is their inefficiency, corruption, and ineffectiveness, those in favour are in effect saying that abolishing them will eradicate these problems. But international literature on decentralisation reveals that, in some cases, devolution relocates points of corruption and inefficiency to lower spheres of government. So rather than getting rid of the problem, it is transferred and replicated in the new points of authority. This raises questions about the rationale for abolishing provinces.

Notwithstanding this, there does appear to be a case for the role of the provinces to be re-examined. However, both the ‘abolition’ and ‘oversight’ functions would unavoidably entail lengthy constitutional amendment processes which could rekindle long-standing and acrimonious party-political divisions over the provinces. It might also entail a referendum. While 'efficiency gains' and 'enhanced effectiveness in service delivery' are the perceived central objectives, a convincing case has yet to be made as to how this will be achieved in practice. There is nothing inherent in either of the options to guarantee that local government will be efficient and effective in delivering services in the absence of provinces. For those poorer and predominantly rural regions such as Northern Province and Eastern Cape which are facing considerable social services backlogs and inadequate resources, a reform process that abolishes provinces could worsen service delivery and hence the plight of impoverished citizens.

It is also important to recognise the differences among the provinces which could render any uniform restructuring process inappropriate. For instance, in the case of well-endowed provinces such as Western Cape and Gauteng, which are home to reasonably well-functioning metropolitan municipalities with considerable capacity and resources, the ‘oversight’ option might be appropriate. For the poorer regions, though, especially where municipalities are still weak and lacking adequate fiscal, human and administrative capacity to deliver services efficiently and effectively on their own, the provincial government might need to adopt a more than 'oversight' role in relation to municipalities within their boundaries: where local governments are still dependent on provinces for institutional and fiscal support to deliver services, a more extensive role for provincial governments would be warranted.

What this implies is that both the 'abolitionist' and 'oversight' perspectives are still too crude and lack the nuance to capture the complexity of the dynamics characterising current relations between provincial and local governments. More innovative ideas and options need to be examined to deal with the challenge of adapting the role of the provincial sphere in such a way that it adequately reflects the changing conditions of governance on the ground. For instance, one option could be for provincial governments to tailor their roles vis-à-vis local government to reflect existing local conditions, such as the extent to which local governments are still dependent on the provincial sphere for delivering services to citizens. However, there would have to be a set of clear legal or constitutional principles to ensure minimum service delivery requirements to prevent the emergence of highly unstable multiple provincial-local relations shaped in accordance with the whims of regional or local political leaderships in the provinces.

The current debate on the future of provinces has instigated a potentially powerful and necessary process of revisiting the role of the second sphere. But the parameters of that debate have so far been narrow, failing to deliberate seriously on the nature of provinces, their current form and what structure they should take in the future. While it is within these narrow parameters that the potential for improving on the three-sphere system has emerged, discussion around the future of provinces will add little value to governance if the debate remains confined within narrow political interests. Debates around the future of provinces should be informed by questions such as: Do provinces provide greater representation? Do they enhance direct accountability? Do they promote greater participation of civil society decision-making processes? And finally, do they enhance service delivery capacity?