PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
campaign, the Oversight Model also proposed implementing public participation in Parliament’s work and recognized the need to develop a Public Participation Model to enhance Parliament’s role in enhancing citizen participatory democracy. The campaign is based on the
premise that public participation in the work of Parliament should involve more than the public being provided with an opportunity to express views. For public participation to be
meaningful, these views must also find expression in the parliamentary programme and lead to concrete action. Public participation should be integrated into Parliament’s core functions, including its oversight work.
Gauging public expectations The public campaign ran between October 2012 and February 2013. Around 250,000 questionnaires were distributed throughout South Africa to gather public input on what the planned framework should look like and public hearings by provincial Legislatures were held throughout the country. Public education initiatives were also carried out, to ensure that the public knew what these hearings were about and how they could participate in a meaningful way.
The nationwide public hearings
drew encouragingly enthusiastic support and the quality of the input from citizens gave rise to optimism. In her opening remarks at one such hearing held in the semi-rural town of Welkom in one of the country’s poorest provinces, the Free State, the acting Speaker of the provincial Legislature, Ms Ouma Tsopo, MPL, stressed that the public hearings, which crossed the boundaries of race, class and age, were a testament to the resolve of the country’s Legislatures to enhance their accountability to the electorate. “The public participation model
is critical to deepen our democracy and foster accountability,” she said. Participants in this province were presented with four questions: how they wished to be involved in law- making, what mechanisms were most
effective for public participation, what support they required to ensure that there was effective public participation and what they expected would be done with their contributions. Some provinces drew a disappointing response. The Speaker of the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, Hon. Peggy Nkonyeni, MPL, attributed the poor response at some public hearings to a poor understanding of what was expected. Some individuals understood the purpose of the meetings but chose instead to use the opportunity to raise concerns about a lack of water and sanitation, widespread unemployment or health care problems. According to Ms Nkonyeni, “communities chose to raise these concerns because whenever they see Parliamentarians they grasp the opportunity to talk about their problems”. In a country where bread-and-
butter issues are generally the primary concern of most citizens, it was often necessary to steer the hearings away from unrelated service-delivery issues, to ensure that participants made a direct contribution on what the new participation model should be.
Practical ideas generated by the public Many ordinary citizens readily understood the need for this focus. For example, a local resident had this to say: “Before a law is passed, Legislatures must ensure that local councillors understand its purpose, because they are the ones who must be able to communicate it to their respective communities. They must hold workshops to educate community development workers, so they are able to explain its intent to their communities. This should involve other institutions that will be affected by it, so people can contribute meaningfully and the intended law can have the desired effect.” Participants at this hearing agreed
that to maximize public involvement in legislative processes, legislation must be made available beforehand and Legislatures must use print, radio and television as well as local libraries, churches, non-governmental and
community-based organizations to publicize its content and inform the public about it. Another citizen at the same
hearing said public hearings should not only focus on rural areas, but should also involve youth in urban centres. Holding such meetings on weekends would help. He suggested holding hearings at universities, and involving the trade unions as a means of reaching out to organised labour. This would help ensure that the hearings pulled together the views of diverse sectors of the population. Other ideas presented at the
series of public hearings were similarly practical and down to earth. One man suggested that prior to public hearings, the Legislatures should hold workshops to ensure that people understood what was required of them.
Another stressed that constituency offices should have access to legislative information and personnel who understood the legislative protocol. He warned that lacking such fundamental information could defeat the purpose of the exercise, noting that “the municipalities are the missing link in our country’s governance chain. We need to bridge the gap between the public participation officers of local municipalities and Legislatures. In fact, they must be inducted together to ensure uniformity in how they conduct public participation. Legislatures should spare no effort in trying to enhance this synergy.” In truth, this energy is critical
to the success of the new public participation model. Citizens were unanimous that
they wanted this model to work and deliver results. This comment showed they would not be easily fobbed off: “Recently, we had a Youth Parliament and 12 people were selected to see to it that its resolutions were implemented. To this day, we have never had a report back. We were never told why issues raised in this event were not implemented. If the Legislature does not give us feedback, it shows that it does not value our contributions.
“This also applies to these public
hearings. We expect the Legislature to return and give us feedback, and explain which issues it has taken on board and why. “(They must spell out) how our contributions will inform the new model. That could strengthen trust between the lawmakers and the people, and the electorate will know that their input is valued.”
Using all the media It is broadly acknowledged that much has to be done to achieve the campaign goals. Campaign project manager Ms Sylvia Sibiya says there is a serious need for more education and awareness initiatives to ensure that the Framework reflects the aspirations of the public. Ms Sibiya says the campaign
reached over 30 million South Africans via public and commercial radio stations, with a footprint covering about 58 per cent of the total population. Five million more people heard about the campaign through community radio stations, which aired the campaign message in all official languages throughout the country. National newspapers reached over 1.8 million people, while 780,000 read about it in regional papers. Other media used included websites, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Together with Parliament’s website, the message reached at least another 1,400 participants. The outreach campaign did not
end there. Among other initiatives, workshops were held with Members of Parliament and Members of Provincial Legislatures to ensure that everyone involved in the campaign had comprehensive information about the proposed public participation framework. It is clear that the need to educate
South Africans about the purpose of the campaign to build an effective Public Participation Framework also needs to target policy-makers at national, provincial and local government level. “It is crucial that Members
understand what is expected of them,” concluded Ms Sibiya.
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue One - South Africa | 79
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199