‘The feedback from this meeting, held on October 8 at City Council Chambers, highlighted numerous areas of concern. Many community members left feeling that their voices were not truly heard and that the City was more focused on defending its legal right to impose changes than on engaging in meaningful dialogue.’ Picture: Supplied
by Bridgette Lloyd
Public participation is at the heart of democratic governance. It ensures that the voices of communities are heard, that citizens have a genuine say in decisions that affect their lives, and that government processes remain transparent and accountable.
In Cape Town, however, the reality seems far from this ideal. A recent meeting between City officials and the Collective Ratepayers’ Association (CRA) has revealed significant shortcomings in the City of Cape Town’s public participation processes.
What should be a collaborative dialogue has too often become a mere tick-box exercise, where the engagement is more symbolic than substantive.
The feedback from this meeting, held on October 8 at City Council Chambers, highlighted numerous areas of concern. Many community members left feeling that their voices were not truly heard and that the City was more focused on defending its legal right to impose changes than on engaging in meaningful dialogue.
To restore trust and ensure that public participation becomes more than a procedural formality, Cape Town’s city officials need to rethink their approach to turn public engagement processes into genuine, collaborative governance.
One of the most frustrating aspects of the meeting, as expressed by CRA members, was that many important questions were either ignored or inadequately addressed.
While attendees were encouraged to submit written questions ahead of time, it became clear that these were not intended to be answered in any meaningful way.
The chairperson of the meeting, Alderman Eddie Andrews, had the freedom to reformulate questions and only addressed them toward the end, often choosing which questions to answer and how to answer them. This selective engagement not only eroded trust but also undermined the entire purpose of public participation.
Throughout the meeting, City officials also appeared to be more interested in defending their legal right to make changes than in engaging with the concerns of the community.
Rather than fostering a collaborative dialogue, the City took a defensive position, continuously emphasising their legal authority without acknowledging their responsibility to engage citizens in meaningful ways. This stance left many attendees feeling that their participation was irrelevant and that the decisions had already been made without their input.
One of the most significant issues raised by the CRA was the widespread mistrust in the City’s ability to enforce its own by-laws, let alone new ones. Numerous instances of illegal developments were mentioned, but the City’s responses were either dismissive or vague.
While fines for specific infractions, such as the cutting of indigenous trees, were mentioned, these measures did little to address the broader concerns around enforcement, such as illegal developments or boarding houses, overdensification in underserved communities, and the strain on infrastructure.
Moreover, the lack of transparency in how these decisions are made only deepens the divide between the City and the communities it is supposed to serve.
To address these concerns and rebuild trust between the City and its communities, we propose three actionable steps that City officials can take to transform their public participation processes from mere tick-box exercises into genuine platforms for collaboration.
The meeting underscored the need for an independent mediator to facilitate future engagements. Currently, City officials like Alderman Eddie Andrews have the power to choose which questions to answer and how to frame their responses. This dynamic creates an imbalance, where the City controls the narrative and avoids accountability.
An independent mediator, respected by both the City and the community, would ensure that all questions are addressed fairly and that community concerns are given the serious attention they deserve. By establishing a neutral party to guide these discussions, the City can foster a more balanced dialogue that encourages transparency and accountability.
The mediator would also act as an advocate to ensure that engagements result in concrete actions that work for both residents and those who they have elected into power.
One of the most effective ways to ensure that public participation is meaningful is to prioritise written questions and provide thorough, data-driven responses. However, as evidenced by the recent meeting, written questions were seemingly used to gauge the mood of the audience rather than to engage with the substance of their concerns.
This is demoralising to residents, who, as volunteers, have spent large amounts of time preparing their comments and questions. In future engagements, the City must commit to answering all pre-submitted questions during the meeting, and where detailed answers cannot be provided immediately, written responses should follow in a timely manner.
Furthermore, these responses should be backed by data, allowing community members to understand the rationale behind the City’s decisions. For example, if densification is a priority, the City should provide clear statistics on population growth, housing shortfalls, and infrastructure capacity, broken down in a way that is relevant to individual communities.
Public participation must be more than just a listening exercise – it must lead to action. One of the key frustrations expressed by the CRA was that the City officials seemed to treat the meeting as a formality, without any real intention of acting on the concerns raised.
To address this, the City should establish clear mechanisms for accountability and follow-up. After each public engagement, a report should be published that outlines the issues raised, the City’s responses, and a timeline for action on specific concerns.
There should also be civic oversight over the process that compiles the report in order to ensure that all comments are accurately grouped and meaningfully addressed.
To ensure that all parties understand the impact of proposals, it is also recommended that a Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) is done for all significant legislative changes, as is required for provincial and national legislation
For the citizens of Cape Town, this is not just about being heard – it is about being an active and respected partner in shaping the future of their communities.
* Bridgette Lloyd, Spokesperson of the Collective Ratepayers’ Association of the CoCT.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to arglet@inl.co.za.
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication)
Related Topics: