Does partnering with local government work for citizen-centred accountability?
At Integrity Action, we usually partner with civil society organisations to support citizen-led accountability. But what happens when we partner directly with local government instead?
This is something we explored on the COMPACT programme in South Africa – a four-year collaboration with the Public Affairs Research Institute (PARI) and the South African Local Government Association (SALGA). Working with SALGA - an autonomous body who support local government - gave us direct access to local government, involving them as partners who would pilot the approach.
This was a new experience for Integrity Action, offering new opportunities, but also new challenges. Here’s what we learned from the experience.
A different way of working
We worked with PARI and SALGA to design an approach to citizen-centred accountability that enabled citizens to hold local municipalities to account for the delivery of water projects. This formed part of a set of tools and resources to strengthen local government accountability.
Ward committee members were selected as monitors, with a focus on including women, young people, and those from lower-income areas. Ward committees are a group of citizens within each ward, who represent the interests of the community. Their role is to bridge the gap between community and municipality, so they were well positioned to represent their community as citizen monitors.
The approach was piloted in Kouga and Oudtshoorn municipalities. Citizen monitors were supported to monitor local government-funded water projects, visiting projects and recording their findings on a customised version of the Kobo app. Monitors shared their findings with the municipality, and were encouraged to engage with the responsible authorities to resolve issues.
The local municipalities in Kouga and Oudtshoorn were invited to play a key role in the approach. Municipal staff were involved in the design process and the selection of projects to monitor, and they helped to set up the training and monitoring visits. Staff from the Public Participation Units in each municipality played a crucial role in coordinating and championing the approach.
This contrasts the approach we usually take, where local government is informed and engaged but does not take a lead role in supporting implementation. So how did this affect the programme?
The challenge to remain citizen-led
One thing we noticed was that partnering with local government changed how the monitoring process was perceived.
The monitoring was intended to be citizen-led, supporting citizens to exercise their rights to access project documents and engage with projects that affect them.
However, the close involvement of municipal staff led to some of the monitors perceiving the process as municipality-led. Monitors looked to the municipality to organise monitoring visits and initiate engagement, rather than leading this process themselves.
This may also be because the monitors were ward committee members. By working with ward committees, we aimed to strengthen them to better represent citizens. And this worked – the COMPACT evaluation claimed that ‘CBM contributed to strengthening ward committee functionality and accountability’. But although ward committees are autonomous, they function within the structure of local government, which may have added to the perception of the monitoring as government-led.
So how we can ensure that citizen-led monitoring is truly citizen-led, when local government is so closely involved?
We learned that it is important to continuously communicate to all stakeholders that it is intended to be a citizen-led initiative. We framed it this way in training and engagement with the monitors, but we could have had more discussion on what this would look like for all stakeholders.
It also highlighted the importance of partnering with local civil society in addition to government. We usually partner with locally-based CSOs who work closely with the community and directly support the monitors. Our partners on COMPACT (as a research institute and a local government association) did not have these direct ties to the communities, and were based a long distance from the monitoring.
Partnering with civil society brings a connection to the community and helps to frame the approach as citizen-led. Working with SALGA – the local government representative - shifted the focus towards government. It was good to have the connection with government, but we need that connection with citizens too.
Bringing on civil society as a partner could also help mitigate against co-option of the approach by government. Civil society can provide objective oversight, independent from government. Ideally, locally-based civil society could continue to play this role beyond the programme end.
Navigating stricter protocols
Working in the South African municipal context with these partners also offered another new experience for Integrity Action – supporting citizen-led accountability in an environment with strict protocols around how monitors could communicate with government.
In other contexts we have worked, such as the village-level in rural Kenya and Ghana, communication between citizens and local authorities is more informal – people can meet with local authorities and raise issues at public participation meetings. This is particularly the case in areas like Kwale, Kenya, where governance is very devolved.
At the municipal level in South Africa, we found that there were more formal procedures for communicating with government. Citizens report to the ward councillor, who then reports it within local government. Unlike more informal settings where we have worked, the monitors did not have direct communication with those who can solve the problem, making it difficult to escalate and resolve issues. Working with ward committees possibly also made the process more formalised, as they were very aware of and used to following government protocols.
This context made it more important than ever to work with local government and monitors to set out a clear process for reporting and solving problems. This was discussed within the design and training but still faced challenges in implementation. More time was needed to really work through how this could work effectively within the protocols, and how to escalate issues when bottlenecks were reached.
This again highlights the value of partnering with local civil society partners with experience and knowledge around where informal processes may be used, and how to effectively navigate formal processes.
Embedding the approach
Despite these challenges, partnering with local government created an opportunity for us to embed the approach. At Integrity Action we are always reflecting on how we can make our work and its impact sustainable, and embedding citizen-based monitoring within local government is one way to support this.
The COMPACT monitoring approach was designed to fit within existing government processes – ward committees with existing stipends and existing meetings with municipal staff. Monitoring can be carried out with no additional resources, as monitors can use Kobo, which is free and open access.
The strong commitment of the local municipalities offers an opportunity to sustain the monitoring process beyond the end of the programme. By working closely with municipal staff and involving them in the design process and the training, they became familiar with the approach and enthusiastic about championing it.
And the strict government protocols also provide an opportunity to more easily embed the approach by working it into the existing procedures. Ward committees and municipal staff follow clear roles and responsibilities, so integrating citizen-based monitoring within the responsibilities of the ward committees, Public Participation Unit and Project Management Unit could help to sustain it.
We saw that there is an appetite for embedding citizen-based monitoring within South African local municipalities. The pilot municipalities were enthusiastic about the approach, and the COMPACT team have been approached by other municipalities who are interested in introducing the monitoring in their areas.
‘CBM strengthened community oversight, accountability, and civic competence’ – COMPACT Evaluation, reflecting feedback from the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
In response to this interest, we have developed an institutionalisation guide. The guide walks local municipalities in South Africa through how to establish and embed citizen-led monitoring.
So is partnering with government a good idea?
The COMPACT programme showed the benefits of partnering with local government, providing opportunities to embed and sustain the approach. But we found that there is a need to involve civil society and carefully consider how the approach is framed, to truly engage and give voice to citizens.
By testing new ways of working, we continue to learn what it takes to make accountability both effective and lasting - and how to ensure that citizens remain at the heart of the process.
Our tips for partnering with local government on social accountability programmes:
|