Towards an Exploration of the Significance of Community Participation in the Integrated Development Planning Process in South Africa

Abstract

The IDP serves as a comprehensive plan that outlines development priorities for a municipality’s jurisdiction. Its aim is to coordinate the efforts of all levels of government in order to improve the quality of life for residents in a particular area. The plan is developed based on the needs and priorities of the community, with opportunities for community involvement in identifying the most pressing needs. All stakeholders are invited to participate in the creation and execution of the plan. This study seeks to explore the significance of community participation in the IDP, using the Tzaneen municipal area as a case study. Despite various challenges, such as a lack of resources and protests, active participation in the IDP process can lead to improved service delivery, enhanced democracy, accountability, responsiveness, and community empowerment. This study adopted a convergent parallel mixed-method research approach. The study was conducted in the Tzaneen municipal area, South Africa, and four hundred and ten (410) participants were sampled in the area through probability and non-probability sampling techniques. The data were collected and analysed until saturation was reached. An online, closed-ended, structured questionnaire and face-to-face semi-structured interviews to collect empirical data were used in addition to a review of the existing literature. The study found a continuous lack of community participation in municipal affairs. The service delivery backlog is still a challenge despite the constitutional mandates and democratic principles. The participants indicated that they are unable to hold municipal officials accountable. Lastly, there is a lack of political willingness to partake in the IDP process. Thus, this study concludes by recommending that municipal policies ought to be influenced by community participation. The study found that democratic principles are still weakened. Thus, the study recommends that the Greater Tzaneen Municipality’s officials and politicians (Councillors/Ward Committee members) should always uphold democratic principles as stated in the Constitution of 1996 by ensuring active public participation, transparency, and accountable governance.

1. Introduction

One of the key objects of local government in terms of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 and the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000 2000) is to embolden local community based-organisations and communities to actively partake in municipal development planning; this is known as the integrated development plan (IDP) that was introduced in 1996. South African municipalities are legally obliged to create conditions for communities to partake in municipal affairs. In this manner, the IDP is a tool that allows communities and community-based organisations to set out their desired needs and aspirations (Mushongera and Khanyile 2019). Dywili (2017) opines that community participation is “The means by which community demands and standards are incorporated into government and business decision-making. Again, the IDP is an example of a local government instrument designed to encourage community engagement in order to meet the demands of the community”. Mushongera and Khanyile (2019) indicate that an IDP is a medium-term strategic plan that provides an inclusive framework for the development of a municipality and is annually revised. Each municipality in South Africa is constitutionally required to create and approve a single, inclusive strategic plan for development at the start of each election term. This IDP connects, integrates, and coordinates the municipality’s numerous sectoral plans, aligning them with the budget, departmental business plans, and leadership performance plans to clearly identify where resources and capacity will be allocated for development implementation according to the Municipal Systems Act and Mathebula (2016). Communities and organisations in communities should be engaged in the development of this plan for the municipality to take their needs and expectations into account in the final draft of the IDP document (Mathebula 2016; Dywili 2017; Mushongera and Khanyile 2019).

With all of this being said, it is evident through many studies that the municipalities are not constitutionally complying with the legislative framework to encourage an active and conducive environment for effective community participation. There is a persisting lack of community participation in the IDP process. An empirical study conducted by Yuwanto et al. (2021) in Palu City, Indonesia, concurs that a lack of community participation hinders the implementation of public policies such as an IDP. Again, Idris et al. (2022) indicate from their personal experience that “When impacted communities are excluded from development planning, it can lead to a lack of trust and buy-in, as well as a lack of community participation in the dissemination of public policy among those communities’ members”. Rowe and Frewer (2005) found there are continuous poor community participation in municipal processes. Therefore, there is a need to enhance public participation by the typology of community engagement mechanisms. Thus, this study’s area of concern—or condition to be improved upon, also referred to as the problem statement—is based on poor or a lack of community participation both in South African municipalities and globally. This study intends to determine the significance of the IDP process as a means for improved community participation in the Tzaneen municipal area. The study question of this study is “what are the benefits of improved community participation in the IDP process?”.

This study will discuss different legislative frameworks applicable for facilitating community participation in the IDP process, a related literature review, the methods and materials used in this work, the results found, a discussion of these results, and finally, a conclusion along with strategic recommendations.

2. Legislative Framework for Community Participation in the IDP

The study seeks to comprehend and articulate the value of the IDP process as a tool for increased community participation. It is also critical to examine various pieces of law that encourage increased community participation in municipal issues. The Municipal Systems Act, 2000 (Act 32 of 2000 2000), the Municipal Structures Act, 1998 (Act 117 of 1998 1998), and The White Paper on Local Government (1998) are pieces of legislation that govern the administration of the IDP process and community participation in local government. As a result, the Republic of South Africa Constitution of 1996 is the first supreme legislation to encourage active involvement. In terms of Chapter 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, one of the objects of local government is “to encourage the involvement of communities and organisations in matters of local government” such as IDP policy and decision-making processes; the above is also applicable to Chapter 10, which makes a similar provision. Chapter 7 and Section 153 paragraph (a–b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 further state that a municipality must structure and manage its administration and budgeting and planning processes (IDP) to give priority to the basic needs of the community and to promote the social and economic development of the community and participate in national and provincial development programmes. Section 16(1), paragraph (a) of the Municipal Systems Act 2000 (Act 32 of 2000 2000) mandates that municipalities “develop a culture of municipal governance that complements formal representative government with a system of participatory governance, and must, for this purpose, (a) encourage, and create conditions for, the local community to participate in the affairs of the municipality, including in (i) integrated development planning and (v) strategic decisions relating to services. The rationale behind this Act is to ensure that beneficiaries of the municipality are involved in the municipal processes”. Equally, Chapter 5 of the Municipal Systems Act indicates that the municipality must develop an IDP to achieve the objective set out in Chapter 7, Section 152 (1) of the Constitution. In line with Sections 72–74 of the Municipal Structures Act of 1998 (Act 117 of 1998 1998), Ward Committees are established as a mechanism to facilitate community participation in municipal affairs. Municipalities must have ward committees in order to consult and involve community members in their affairs (Foster 2019). Lastly, The White Paper on Local Government (1998, p. 53) states that municipalities should create mechanisms to guarantee participation and good governance in policymaking and uphold decision-making appraisal. The White Paper on Local Government (1998, p. 53) states that one of the key functions of the municipality is to shape local democracy and to improve strategies and mechanisms that comprise participatory planning to constantly involve the people, community organisations and corporate businesses (Mathane 2013, p. 107). Dyum (2020, p. 32), indicates that The White Paper on Local Government (1998) emphasises the significance of the IDP as a tool for facilitating and enabling the prioritised incorporation of municipalities’ development strategies with reinforced collaboration between the state organs and other relevant stakeholders in decision-making processes.

3. Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

3.1. Theoretical Framework

The study utilized the democratic decision-making theory as explained Enwereji and Uwizeyimana (2020) as its theoretical framework. Enwereji and Uwizeyimana (2020) asserted that public participation is crucial in decision-making processes as it fosters a better relationship between communities and the government. The study also highlights that public participation is a legal requirement in South Africa, as enshrined in the Constitution. The democratic decision-making theory aligns with constitutional requirements and emphasizes the need for leadership styles that allow community members to participate in the decision-making process. Democratic leadership, which is participative or shared leadership, allows group members to have a more active role in the decision-making process. Community members are significant stakeholders in democracies and have the right to participate directly or indirectly via elected representatives in the formation, adoption, and application of laws and policies that affect them. The United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (2021) supports this idea, stating that governments should ensure that all residents have access to services, support, and information to guarantee that no one is left behind. To achieve sustainable and equitable development, governments must practice inclusivity and accountability, ensuring that marginalized populations are included in public governance, planning, decision-making, and service delivery. Ulrich and Wenzel (2017) stated that leaders who follow the democratic decision-making theory agree to equity, equality, fairness, and transparency in the process of management. While the democratic leadership style has its advantages, such as a transparent and perceived fair process, it can also have its drawbacks, such as vulnerability to political campaigning and a lack of ownership in implementing decisions. The democratic decision-making process involves assessing situations, developing options, scheduling meetings, assigning advocates, holding discussions, and voting for options. Public participation, involving various stakeholders such as government agencies, political leaders, non-profit organizations, and business organizations, is crucial in the formulation and implementation of public policies and programs. Overall, promoting and strengthening public participation in decision-making processes is essential in South African municipalities, as it is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996.

In this study, the new public management (NPM) theory is used to reform traditional public administration for a more capable and effective government operation, with the goal of reducing service delivery backlogs. NPM is consistent with participatory governance and democratic decision-making theory, and public participation in municipal affairs is imperative for the NPM approach (Maserumule and Herbet 2009; Islam 2015; Munzhedzi 2020). To encourage active public participation, the study adopted Arnstein Sherry’s ladder of citizen participation theory, which includes eight steps that guide who has power when imperative decisions are made. The ladder of citizen participation theory is presented as ascending from “manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegation and citizen control” (Arnstein 1969). By using the steps, recognised by Arnstein’s theory of citizen participation, municipalities can ensure that public participation is achieved, including the involvement of communities in policy and decision-making activities, the identification of service needs, budget prioritisation, and preparation of the IDP. Hereunder, the ladder of the citizen participation model is presented in Figure 1.

The ladder of citizen participation theory is presented as ascending from “manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegation and citizen control”. Each stair of the ladder is explained below from Arnstein’s theoretical perspective:

• Manipulation and therapy: “Both steps are non-participative. The aim is to cure or educate the participants. The proposed plan is best, and participation is to achieve public support through public relations. Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom step of the ladder indicates the distortion of participation in the public” (Arnstein 1969; Mamokhere and Meyer 2022).
• Informing: “A most significant first step to legitimate community participation. However, the emphasis is on a one-way flow of information too frequently. There is no channel for feedback and no power for negotiation” (Arnstein 1969).
• Consultation: “This is also a legitimate step attitude surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. This further implies that inviting citizens’ opinions, like informing them, can be a legitimate step toward their full participation. However, when the consultation process is not combined with other modes of participation, this step of the ladder is still a shame since it offers no assurance that citizens’ concerns and ideas will be considered” (Arnstein 1969; Mamokhere and Meyer 2022).
• Placation: “Participation as placation occurs when citizens are granted a limited degree of influence in a process, but their participation is largely or entirely tokenistic: citizens are merely involved only to demonstrate that they were involved” (Arnstein 1969; Mamokhere and Meyer 2022). For instance, placation permits communities to advice or plan, but the authorities retain the power to judge the legitimacy or viability of the advice.
• Partnership: “In this step, the power is genuinely redistributed over negotiation among citizens and powerholders. Therefore, planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared”, for instance, through joint committees (Arnstein 1969; Mamokhere and Meyer 2022).
• Delegation: “The citizens hold a clear majority of seats on committees with delegated powers to make decisions. The public now has the power to assure accountability of the programme to them” (Arnstein 1969; Mamokhere and Meyer 2022).
• Citizen control: Participation as citizen control occurs when, according to Arnstein (1969); “residents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy-making and be able to negotiate the conditions, under which ‘outsiders’ may change them. In citizen-control situations, for instance, public funding would flow directly to a communities’ organisation, and that organisation would have full control over how that funding allocated” (Arnstein 1969; Gaber 2019).

Researchers argue that communities should have control over the planning processes, specifically the IDP, in order to identify service priorities and successfully implement local government programs. To achieve this, public participation should not be viewed as a compliance measure, but as a means of achieving desired results by encouraging interactive and consultative participation. The importance of providing feedback to communities is emphasized in step three of Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, which involves informing the public. However, municipalities often fail to provide adequate feedback, undermining the constitutional mandate to involve communities in municipal affairs. Methods such as media announcements, public notices, ward committees, and ward meetings can be used to provide feedback to communities. It is important for municipalities to avoid manipulating communities and promoting non-participation, and to instead view public participation as a legitimate mandate for promoting community involvement in decision-making processes (Rowe and Frewer 2005; Kgobe and Mamokhere 2021).

The theories utilized in this study are coherent and well-supported, and they all advocate for the promotion of active public participation in planning processes. Together, these theories contribute to the growing body of knowledge on the subject.

3.2. Literature Review

When communities participate in the IDP process, there are some benefits of significance that the municipality will experience. Researchers argue that community participation in the IDP improves service delivery. Community participation in integrated development planning is necessary because it deepens democracy and makes the government more responsive and effective. Furthermore, community members will feel a sense of ownership when they are at the centre of formulating their development initiatives.

Community participation in the IDP process ensures that service delivery is improved and accelerated. Mamokhere (2019) contends that in South Africa, there are service delivery challenges that require urgent intervention. Further affirmations by Mathebula (2018) and Mamokhere (2019) show that service delivery is a global challenge of the 21st century, particularly in developing countries such as South Africa and other Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries. As such, local municipalities should be responsive and proactive to ensure adequate service delivery by formulating and applying realistic IDPs which address communities’ needs and priorities. Furthermore, Mathebula (2016) indicated that local municipalities adopt the IDP as a strategic and management instrument to respond to service provision in South Africa and accelerate the provision of basic needs or service delivery. Again, Mathebula (2018, p. 564) posits that a proper application of the IDP process assists a foundation in which service delivery can be of better quality in municipalities. However, failure to implement the IDP effectively, efficiently, and adequately can result in undeliverable services to communities. Mathebula and Sebola (2019, p. 121) and Asha and Makalela (2020) affirm that community participation in the IDP, policy-making, and decision-making processes tends to “speed up service delivery”. Ndevu (2011) argues that without the contribution of community members in the IDP process, the municipality will never achieve its maximum results in service delivery. Fruitful application of the IDP has a great chance of assisting the municipality in realising its service delivery mandate.

Van der Watt and Marais (2021, p. 3) assert that community participation is necessary or significant for drafting the IDP. The direct involvement of community members in issues that affect them improves accountability and transparency and guarantees them a high degree of responsiveness to their needs and issues by municipal officials. Ababio (2004) emphasises that continuous feedback in community accountability is critical in improving service delivery. The participation of community members in the IDP expands the decision-making processes, whereby municipal officials respond to the community’s needs and enhance resource management within the local government (Mashamaite and Hlongwane 2015). On the other hand, Mamokhere (2020) opined that community participation would assist in reducing the level of corruption in South African municipalities, as communities will be working closely with the municipalities to create and adopt the IDP. If the municipality fail to deliver on the needs of the communities, members of the communities have the chance to hold the municipality accountable or protest, demanding answers. Ndevu (2011) and Thebe (2016) opined that “a responsive, accountable and openness application and administration of the IDP process produce a good relationship with the communities and reduce service delivery protests. In other words, community participation in the IDP is a cornerstone of democracy which should be seen as a transparent and accountable process where members of the communities exchange views and influence the decision-making process. Community participation in the IDP is necessary since it consolidates democracy and makes the government more responsive and effective”. Kgobe and Mamokhere (2021, p. 1) state that enhancing public accountability is essential to the advancement of service delivery. Hence, the officials should account for the implementation of the IDP projects. Mamokhere et al. (2021), cited in Kgobe and Mamokhere (2021, p. 2), suggest that “accountability should be practiced in accordance with the law. This means that politicians should be held accountable to legislatures, while administrators should be answerable to the general public as they are paid from taxpayers’ funds. All stakeholders in governance, including the government, private sector, and civil society, have a responsibility to be accountable to the public for their actions. Public officials and other stakeholders should willingly and voluntarily be answerable to the public, considering the constitutional obligation to do so”.

According to Leboea (2003, p. 38), empowerment is the process by which people, communities, and profit and non-profit organisations gain confidence, self-esteem, and power to confront their issues and take actions to handle them. Dyum (2020) asserts that the IDP process is viewed as a strategic and transformational instrument, promoting community participation in decision-making. Thus, community participation is mandatory in the IDP process and a legal obligation that empowers communities and consolidates democracy. According to Tshabalala and Lombard (2009), enabling community members to participate in decisions that affect them is an empowering process that allows them to improve their skills and abilities to negotiate for their needs and demands. The IDP process provides such a platform for community members and the municipality to deliberate and interact on matters related to local government, including service delivery, while Molosi and Dipholo (2016) argue that if community members and other stakeholders are involved in municipal affairs, they feel belonging and are empowered.

Moreover, community empowerment can yield good results, such as the successful application of developmental projects, as community members feel a sense of ownership and involvement in the projects, while a lack of empowerment has a negative impact on the participative IDP. Empowering people is intensely encouraged and maintained by the IDP to improve their lives. Similarly, Dyum (2020) indicates that “the empowered community members in different communities’ institute empowered municipalities, by growing community participation in decision-making processes, as they growly shared decision-making process through different views in discussion”. Molale (2019, p. 58) argues that “the principle of empowerment, which is a key aspect of public administration, does not accurately reflect the relationship between local government and the communities it serves. This may help to explain the recent trend of violent protests in local municipalities, which are often accompanied by damage to public properties”. Mamokhere (2019) and Mamokhere (2020) affirm the above statement by indicating that citizens often resort to protest actions when they do not feel belonging or are not empowered by their municipalities.

Like an IDP, community participation in strategic planning can be viewed as a significant part of democracy. “The active involvement of communities and community organizations is crucial to the effective operation of local government. In fact, one of the constitutional objectives of local government is to promote such involvement in matters of local governance” (Lachapelle and Austin 2014). Gaventa (2004, p. 18) indicates that “participatory methods and strategies have greater potential to influence when they are backed by legal rights to participation. Claims to participation as a legal right are a more empowered form of engagement compared to participation that is only by invitation from governments, donors, or higher authorities. The right to participation also complements and extends other significant democratic rights, including the right to free and fair elections, assembly, and freedom of expression. In essence, legal recognition of the right to participation reinforces the importance of participation and gives individuals a stronger voice in decision-making processes”. Thebe (2016) opines that community participation in the IDP process is essential because it amalgamates democracy and makes the government more effective and responsive. Thus, the researcher concurs with the above statements that strategic planning or policy formulation decisions are prepared transparently and democratically through active participation by communities and other stakeholders. In that regard, the engagement of communities in municipal affairs strengthens democracy. “The goal of the IDP process ought to be to strengthen democracy in the area by establishing a forum for all interest groups to identify their needs and voice their concerns for the Ward Councillor to compile a whole area need analysis and priority list” (Rowe and Frewer 2005). Mashamaite and Madzivhandila (2014) found that the IDP has been associated with the new democratic government’s development planning paradigm for addressing socio-economic challenges.

4. Methods and Materials

This study utilized a mixed methods research approach which involves both quantitative and qualitative research methods to investigate and comprehend the study topic. The rationale behind adopting this approach was to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the significance of the IDP process as a tool for improving community participation. By combining the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the researcher(s) aimed to achieve balanced results and ensure reliability and validity in data analysis through analytical, descriptive, comparative, and statistical analysis. This approach was deemed appropriate for addressing the research problem and allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the topic at hand.

4.1. Study Area

This study was conducted in the Tzaneen municipal areas within the jurisdiction of Greater Tzaneen Municipality in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The researchers sampled this area because it is one of the areas facing a service delivery backlog due to the inadequate participation of communities in the IDP process.

4.2. Target Population

As per MacMillan and Schumacher (2001), the target population refers “to a group of elements, situations, humans, objects, or events that meet specific criteria and to whom the research findings are intended to be generalized”. In this study, the target population included key informants such as municipal officials and ward councillors/committee members who are involved in the IDP process and community participation. Additionally, community members from the study area also form part of the target population.

4.3. Sampling

According to Gelo et al. (2009, p. 274), “sampling involves selecting a group of units that are representative of a population to draw conclusions that can be applied to the entire population. There are two main types of sampling methods: probability and non-probability sampling”. For this study, both probability and non-probability sampling techniques were used based on the study’s nature and scope. Probability sampling, also known as random sampling, is “preferred when a large group of people has a good chance of participating in the study” (Salkind 2012, p. 96). Simple random sampling was used to randomly select four hundred (400) community members from the study area who completed an online questionnaire (survey). These respondents were sampled using the probability sampling technique. Non-probability sampling, on the other hand, “involves the researcher’s professional judgment in selecting units that represent the population” (Burger and Silima 2006, p. 663). In this study, the researchers interviewed ten (10) key informants from the study areas using non-probability sampling because they believed these individuals would provide valuable, contextual, and in-depth information. The sample size for this study was four hundred and ten (410) participants.

4.4. Data Collection

The process of gathering information in this study is referred to as data collection, which involves the systematic and precise gathering of information relevant to the research objectives or hypotheses (Burns and Grove 2005). In this study, the researcher utilized a combination of primary and secondary data collection techniques. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to collect primary data. Specifically, online closed-ended questionnaires/surveys were used to gather quantitative data, while qualitative data were obtained through face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The secondary data were collected by reviewing published documents and relevant literature.

4.5. Data Analysis

This study utilized a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis methods to gather and analyse empirical data. Closed-end questionnaires were administered electronically and analysed using Microsoft Excel, with descriptive statistical data used to interpret the results, including frequencies, tables, bar graphs, and pie charts. In addition, face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data, which was analysed through the thematic content analysis method and NVivo software. The process of data collection and analysis continued until saturation was reached, ensuring comprehensive and thorough findings.

4.6. Ethical Clearance

Ethical clearance was obtained before collecting empirical data. The researchers confirmed all the necessary research ethics and integrity requirements.

5. Results and Discussion

This section presents an overview of empirical results obtained through an online questionnaire and face-to-face interviews. The section further discusses the results by determining previous studies and legal grounds. The sections begin by analysing the quantitative results and this is followed by the analysis of qualitative results. The results are outlined and discussed below.

5.1. Presentation of Quantitative Results

This study aimed to determine the benefits of the IDP process as a tool for improved community participation. It is acknowledged in the literature review that when communities participate in the IDP process, there are several benefits of significance that the communities will experience and gain. Some questions emanate from this aim and are analysed below.

5.1.1. IDP Process and Desired Results

The questions asked in this section to community members were: “Has community participation in the IDP process yielded desired results in your community?” and “Has service delivery improved?” In answering the question above,

Table 1. IDP process and desired results.

	Frequency	Percent
Strongly agree	51	12.8
Agree	62	15.5
Strongly disagree	69	17.2
Disagree	90	22.5
Unsure	128	32.0
Total	400	100.0

below shows if participating in the IDP process has had desired results for the Tzaneen municipal area communities. This section intends to understand increased service delivery through effective community participation in the IDP process. The results below indicate that 128 (32.0%) respondents were unsure if there has been improved service delivery because of their effective participation. On the other hand, 90 (22.5%) respondents disagreed that service quality had improved and 69 (17.2%) of the respondents strongly disagreed that service quality had improved, both stating that there is still poor service delivery. In contrast, a minority of the respondents, 62 (15.5%), agreed that service quality had improved, and 51 (12.8%) of the respondents strongly agreed that service quality had improved, implying that participating in the IDP process has yielded desired results and improved service delivery in the Tzaneen municipal area.

Unsurprisingly, service delivery remains a problem in the twenty-first century, despite successful involvement in the IDP process. The majority of communities believe that their involvement in the IDP process has not aided the municipality in improving service delivery in their neighbourhoods. The above findings are true of most South African municipalities, including the Greater Tzaneen Municipality (GTM), because they are failing to implement all the projects and services due to a variety of socio-economic challenges, including corruption, poor leadership, a lack of community involvement, the mismanagement of public funds, and political instabilities (Mamokhere 2020). Asha and Makalela (2020) share the same sentiments with the findings above by stating that “the IDP is one of the tools that assist local authorities in executing their developmental mandate. In practice, local authorities have been struggling with the ineffective implementation of IDP, which resulted in service delivery upheavals”. Equally, all the South African municipalities are mandated “to ensure there is adequate service delivery to all the communities in a sustainable manner”, as prescribed by Section 152(1) of The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996).

5.1.2. IDP Process, Community Participation and Accountability

In this context, the question asked to community members was: “By participating in the IDP process, can you voice your concerns and hold public officials accountable for the unfulfilled promises?” Thus, the information presented in Figure 2, below, was collected with the intent to understand whether communities can voice their concerns and hold public officials accountable by participating in the IDP process. Figure 2, below, shows a solid agreement that the IDP process, as an instrument for improved community participation, has the ability and potential to encourage communities to hold municipal officials accountable for unfulfilled promises. The findings below indicate that most of the respondents agreed—124 (31%) answering ‘agree’ and 88 (22%) answering ‘strongly agree’—that they can voice their concerns and hold municipal officials accountable by participating in the IDP process. In contrast, 95 (23.8%) of the respondents were unsure if they can hold municipal officials accountable by participating in the IDP sessions, while a minority of the respondents, or 35 (8.8%) strongly disagreed and 58 (14.5%) disagreed that even if they participate in the IDP, they are still unable to hold municipal officials accountable in the Tzaneen municipal area.

It was found that communities can voice their concerns and hold officials accountable by participating in the IDP process. These findings are in line with the existing literature and legislative provisions. Section 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 provides that “local government must provide a democratic and accountable government for local communities”, and equally, Section 195(1) also states that “public administration must be accountable”. Furthermore, the Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act 2 of 2000 2000) also “fosters and promotes a culture of transparency, accountability and access to information”. Researchers are confident that the Tzaneen municipal area encourages transparency and is accountable to the citizens when rendering services to community members.

5.1.3. Sense of Belonging and Empowerment

In this section, the researchers asked the community members the following question: “Can you feel the municipality’s sense of belonging and empowerment?” Figure 3, below, seeks to understand whether communities feel a sense of belonging and are empowered by the Tzaneen municipality when participating in the IDP process. The findings below, in Figure 3 illustrate that the majority of the respondents agreed—117 (29.3%) answering ‘agree’ and 83 (20.8%) answering ‘strongly agree’—that, by participating in the IDP, they feel belonging and are empowered by their municipality. In comparison, 97 (24.3%) of the respondents were unsure. A minority of the respondents, amounting to 35 (8.8%), strongly disagreed, and 68 (17%) disagreed, stated that they do not feel any sense of belonging and empowerment.

In this regard, the above findings show that the majority of the respondents are empowered by and feel a sense of belonging in the IDP process, while a minority disagreed. These findings are supported by existing literature. Molaba (2016, p. 39) indicated that “IDP is participatory in nature because it involves the participation of all stakeholders”. Furthermore, Molaba (2016, p. 39) indicated that stakeholders’ empowerment is a foundation of our new democratic dispensation, and for municipalities, this means that communities and community organisations ought to be involved in all the decision-making processes that affect them indirectly or directly. However, meaningful participation necessitates the community’s participation. Therefore, the Molaba (2016) argues that the communities of the Tzaneen municipal areas “ought to be empowered with the required information and knowledge on issues that need to be addressed. This will ensure constructive, practical, and achievable objectives”.

5.1.4. Democracy, Effectiveness and Responsiveness

In this section, the questions asked to community members were: “Do you assume community participation in the IDP process is essential?” and “Can it contributes to democracy and influence the government to be more effective and responsive?” Figure 4, below, shows whether community participation in the IDP process is vital to contributing to democracy and effective and responsive government. The findings below indicate that the majority of the respondents agreed—161 (40.3%) answering ‘strongly agree’ and 118 (29.5%) answering ‘agree’—that by participating in the IDP, they realise democracy and an effective and responsive government. In comparison, 82 (20.5%) of the respondents were not sure. In contrast, a minority of the respondents, which constitutes 24 (6%), disagreed, and 15 (3.8%) strongly disagreed, stating that even though they participate in the IDP process, the democratic principles are still undermined, and that the local government is not effective and responsive enough in the Tzaneen municipal area.

In this sense, it may be concluded that the Tzaneen municipal area is abiding by the constitutional obligations that demand effective and responsive democratic governance. Rowe and Frewer (2005) acknowledge that “public participation is an integral part of local democracy and participatory local governance and that the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government is one of the objects of local government”. Musyoka (2010) opines that participatory democracy must inform, negotiate, and comment on such decisions during the planning and decision-making process, in order to guarantee that all people of the municipal area have an equitable opportunity to engage in the IDP process, community involvement should be created.

5.2. Presentation of Qualitative Results

The aim of this study, as outlined in the quantitative results section, is also tested in this section. The present study aimed at determining the benefits or significance of the IDP process as a tool for improved community participation, using the Tzaneen municipal area as a case study. The key informants were interviewed face-to-face using a semi-structured interview guide. There were themes and sub-themes which emanated from this aim, and the findings were carefully analysed and are presented below.

5.2.1. Benefits of Community Participation in the IDP Process

The researchers asked the key informants if there were any benefits of involving community members in preparing and implementing the IDP in the municipality. This theme was relevant to this study because it intended to understand the benefits of involving communities in the IDP process. The responses are articulated below.

In response to the above, the key informant indicated the following benefits:

“To consult, negotiate and monitor service delivery”. He further indicated that “community participation in the IDP process affords communities with different benefits. The participation of communities in the IDP helps them develop problem-solving and decision-making skills, makes them take responsibility for their development, and ensures that the needs and problems are adequately addressed”.

On the other hand, the ward councillors/ward committee members indicated that:

“The advantage of including our community members in the IDP process is that the municipality will be able to recognise and understand the real needs and service delivery challenges and will be able to budget appropriately to address those needs and challenges”.

The involvement of community members in the IDP has a beneficial influence, since it allows community members to identify their needs so that the municipality can provide solutions that can assist in providing the identified community needs. No man is an island; as a result, municipalities and key stakeholders such as communities and community organisations should address community and service delivery problems.

5.2.2. Accelerate Service Delivery, Promote Accountability, Community Participation, and Empowerment

The other theme that the researchers posed to the key informants was to analyse if the IDP process can accelerate service delivery and promote accountability, community participation, and empowerment. In response to the above theme, all the key informants indicated that:

“We agree with the narrative as the IDP assists in the identification of community needs and assists them in knowing what will be done when and where”.

In this context, the Tzaneen municipality is urged to continue to follow the public administration’s essential values and principles in terms of Section 195(1) and the objects of the local government in terms of Section 152(1) of The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). Mamokhere et al. (2021) state that active public participation, accountability, transparency, and openness are the cornerstones of democracy. Therefore, it is ideal for municipalities to always comply with the basic values and principles governing public administration.

5.2.3. Feedback to Communities

The theme posed to the key informants by the researchers was to determine if the Tzaneen municipality provides feedback to communities when they have participated in the IDP process. In response to the theme above, all key informants agreed that:

“Yes, the IDP report back sessions are done by Ward Councillors every quarter and the municipality provide reports through the Service Delivery Budget and Implementation Report (SDBIR)”.

In this regard, the study conducted by Zwane (2020, p. 27) indicates that when residents make concerns, it is significant that they receive compassionate and favourable feedback from either ward councillors or municipal officials. To minimise violent community protests, it is critical to have the capacity and desire to respond if things do not go as planned. Molaba (2016, p. 9) indicates that “municipalities also need constant feedback from the recipients of municipal services to improve their operations. It is further indicated that the mere objective of promoting community participation is to strengthen the community’s capacity to identify problems and come up with solutions, carry out action plans, as well as monitor the progress and make an appropriate evaluation, measurement, and analysis of the impact and results and give feedback to stakeholders, community and others who wish to learn about the programme” (Molaba 2016, p. 51).

5.2.4. Improvement of Community Participation in the IDP Process

The last theme posted to the key informants was to determine if the municipality could do something to improve community participation in the IDP process. In response to the abovementioned theme, the key informant indicated that:

“One of the challenges that we face as the municipality is lack of political willingness to participate in the IDP process. Thus, there is a need to improve the willingness of Councillors and Ward Committees”.

Meanwhile, the ward councillors/ward committee members indicated that;

“The Greater Tzaneen Municipality should use comments, consultation sessions and report back sessions and public hearings to enhance participation”. Other Councillors and members of the Ward Committee go so far as to state, “Communities should be included from the start. As soon as the council has recognised a need for policy, it should inform the communities about it. The policy should be influenced by community involvement. For community involvement to be effective, residents must believe that their input will impact decision-making. In addition, communities should receive feedback on each consequence of their contributions, and transparency should be encouraged”.

According to the finding above, it was found that councillors and ward committees are not actively participating and contributing to the development of the IDP, even though they are voluntarily appointed to represent the interests of their communities. The findings again show that the councillors and ward committees are not upholding their roles as stated by CoGTA (2020), which posits that the ward committees are seen as a legal structure acknowledged by the municipal council as its consultative structure and communication network on issues affecting their wards. The ward further responsible for representing the community in the preparation and implementation of the IDP (CoGTA 2020).

6. Conclusions and Strategic Recommendations

There are several benefits of involving communities in the IDP process, yet there is also the continuous challenge of service delivery and the lack of community participation in certain municipalities. This study was limited to the greater Tzaneen municipality alone; future studies will be conducted to focus on the challenges that the Mopani district municipalities face. This study concludes by offering strategic recommendations of which Tzaneen Municipality. However, the recommendations can also be generalised to other South African municipalities that experience similar challenges. The strategic recommendations are based on this study’s theoretical and empirical findings. Finally, this study recommends the following:

• Community involvement should have an impact on municipal policies.
• The study found that democratic principles are still undermined. Thus, the study recommends that the Greater Tzaneen Municipality’s officials and politicians (councillors/ward committee members) should always uphold democratic principles as stated in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, by ensuring active public participation, transparency, and accountable governance.
• The study also suggests that all municipal functions and activities should adhere to the Batho Pele principles as outlined in the White Paper on Local Government. A harmonious relationship between the municipality and its constituents may be ensured through the Batho Pele principles. Communities’ expectations for service delivery will be realistic thanks to efficient consultation and other Batho Pele principles. Communities, for instance, ought to be treated with respect in order to make them feel like they belong and have a say in municipal decisions. The municipality should continue to foster an atmosphere where all citizens feel a feeling of empowerment and belonging.
• The Greater Tzaneen Municipality and other South African municipalities, including those with service delivery backlogs, are acknowledged in the research. In order to make better use of their resources and improve the implementation of service needs, the study advises that the GTM build and innovate institutional and organizational skills. Therefore, the municipality should likewise give the delivery of services and the implementation of the IDP projects first priority when allocating its resources.
• Another difficulty the municipality encounters is a lack of political willingness to take part in the IDP process. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the willingness of the ward committees and ward councillors. In order to encourage ward councillors and ward committee members to actively participate in the IDP process as community representatives, the study advises that the municipality provide incentives for transportation.

Finally, it was discovered that communities do receive some response/feedback, although this is limited. In light of this, this study suggests that the GTM can provide response/feedback to communities through press releases, announcements to the general public, ward meetings, and award committees. The GTM should put suggestion boxes in place at frequently visited customer service centres to provide and strengthen community feedback.