Citizens no longer want to be mere voters and consumers of basic services offered by both the central and local levels of governments – they demand to be effectively and actively involved in their own governance.
A budget is the most important policy document expressing public policy. It forms the cornerstone of realizing improvements in the provision of public services. Therefore the people who are directly affected by the decisions made need to be involved in the whole process.
This ensures that their input is factored in the budget at every stage to ensure that they are catered for and ensure a common vision and purpose in the achievement of an efficient service delivery system.
Mutekede (2007; 3) reiterates that “People are the principle wealth of the cities and are both the object and the means through which sustainable human development is achieved.”
The foundation of participatory budgeting is that local government budgeting should not be treated as a piecemeal initiative, whereby residents are involved at a later stage – but from the initial stages of the process. In this regard there is need for the complete demystification of the budget in order to enhance the active participation of the residents in service delivery issues that directly affect their lives. It is important to recognize that participatory budgeting improves democratic processes, promotes responsive public administration and exerts transparency, accountability and integrity.
Sub-national governments in Zimbabwe in general and Harare in particular have been marred by various service delivery challenges as there has been a general mismatch between the demand for services and their provision. Harare City Council has faced a myriad of service delivery challenges as a result of the failure by some residents to pay for the services which the city fathers seldom provide.
The general lack of commitment by residents to pay for the “services” provided to them and the absence of political will to fully engage the citizens on the decision-making processes creates the “messy” kind of relationship that exists between the council and residents as the most strategic stakeholder who ensure that the service delivery agenda is championed forward. In the same vein, women should be empowered in the budgeting process by active involvement to ensure that their needs are also incorporated. This initiative has been practiced piecemeal, and key aspirations of women are not brought at the fore when the budget isfinalized.
For example, water woes are the order of the day for most urbanites. It is women who endure the full wrath of these shortages as they have to toil for hours in order to ensure that their household has enough water. Women’s needs should be addressed in the budgeting process as they are the most affected by the decisions made.
Citizens’ participation provides a strong foundation for establishing good governance, cementing the relationship between the government and the governed. Such a relationship aids the delivery of services at the local level. Residents’ associations are social movements which act for and on behalf of the citizenry on matters that directly affect them – hence the state, both at local and central level, should recognise their legitimacy as they have the mandate from the people in order to ensure active engagement on matters of service delivery.
Civic participation in the budgeting process promotes accountability and helps to legitimise the activities of council and its constituencies. It is noteworthy that participation in the budgeting process has not adequately impacted on the governance process due to the exclusionary nature of the legislative provisions embedded in the Urban Councils Act (Chapter 29:15) and silence on the participation of the residents in the budgeting process.
In city by-laws and other regulations, there is no clause compelling local authorities to engage the citizenry during the budget making processes. Participatory budgeting demonstrates that a truly democratic and transparent administration of resources is one of the most effective ways to avoid corruption and mishandling of public funds and to ensure that resources are directed towards the most pressing needs of the poor and other disadvantaged groups of society.
Community participation in the budgeting process transforms the citizens from passive involvement to intensive active orientation and responsible residents who have an ownership in the governance process.
The HRT reiterates that there is need to establish systems and structures to allow civic participation in municipal governance by accommodating the people in the budgeting-making process.
The whole budget should be subjected to public scrutiny by all stakeholders. With such a scenario, consumers will have the ability to pay for services and the service providers will timeously, affordably and efficiently provide these services.
There is need for the sensitization of the citizens through awareness campaigns. This empowers them to understand the gains and benefits associated with participation in the budgeting process. Citizens should be aware of their roles and responsibilities, deepening their understanding of how their finances are utilised in the improvement of basic services. This demystification of the budget formulation process will harmonise relations between residents and the council, an important ingredient in the improvement of services.
The HRT calls on the Harare City Council and the Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development to reorient themselves towards genuine active involvement of the citizens in the budgeting process and not a piecemeal approach to residents’ involvement in the budgeting process. In this regard, residents demand greater involvement from the prioritisation stage in the budget and the final budget should reflect this at implementation.
Failure to abide by the residents’ demands will continually result in the mismatch between the demand for the services and their provision as residents are not willing to be sidelined on important affairs that directly affect their livelihoods. In this view a demand for a greater say in the governance process is ideal and legitimate.
Charles Mazorodze,
HRT Communications
Post published in: News