The debate about governance and service delivery in Nelson Mandela Bay often begins with one question: who is to blame?
When electricity is interrupted, infrastructure projects are delayed, grants are returned or communities wait for services, political leaders are understandably the first to face public criticism.
But a more important question needs to be asked: who is responsible for what, and are those responsibilities being fulfilled?
Effective local government requires accountability from communities, political leadership and the municipal administration, each playing a distinct but interdependent role.
A municipality can be likened to a three-legged pot.
The three legs are the residents and communities, the political leadership, and the administration.
Each has a different purpose, but none can function effectively in isolation.
The stability of the entire municipality depends on all three.
If one leg weakens or collapses, the pot becomes unstable.
This analogy is particularly relevant to the governance challenges facing Nelson Mandela Bay municipality.
Political leaders must account to residents for the decisions they make and the performance of the municipality they govern.
However, political accountability should not automatically translate into political responsibility for every operational failure.
At the centre of municipal governance is the integrated development plan (IDP), which is intended to reflect the priorities and aspirations of communities and guide the municipality’s budget, programmes and service-delivery priorities.
Residents participate through ward committees, public meetings, IDP consultations and other platforms where they identify their needs.
Council must consider those priorities, adopt policies and budgets, and provide political oversight.
The administration, led by the municipal manager and supported by executive directors and other officials, must then translate those decisions into implementation.
This is where accountability becomes complicated.
When millions of rand in grants are returned or withdrawn because municipalities fail to spend them, the political reaction is understandably one of anger.
These are resources that could have been used for roads, electricity, water, sanitation, housing-related infrastructure and other pressing needs.
Councillors and members of the executive have a responsibility to provide oversight, ask difficult questions, monitor performance and ensure council decisions are implemented.
Ultimately, elected representatives must account to the electorate.
But political accountability is not the same as administrative responsibility.
Municipal officials are employed because municipalities require professional and technical capacity to implement policies and decisions.
Once council has adopted a budget and approved programmes, the administration must ensure those programmes are properly planned, procured, implemented and monitored.
Where projects are repeatedly delayed, expenditure targets are missed or grants are lost because of administrative failures, there must also be accountability within the administration.
It’s therefore unfair to suggest every service-delivery failure is the fault of politicians.
Politicians should also not use officials as convenient scapegoats.
There are concerns among some residents and political observers about the relationship between political leadership and parts of the municipal administration.
There is a perception that, in some instances, officials may be slow to implement decisions or that communication with political leadership is not always effective.
Such concerns must be approached responsibly.
Allegations of deliberate sabotage are serious and should not be presented as fact without evidence.
However, repeated delays, unexplained failures, poor communication or decisions that appear inconsistent with council resolutions are legitimate reasons for residents and political leaders to ask questions.
There have been occasions when opposition politicians have appeared to be better informed about unfolding service-delivery problems than members of the governing political leadership.
The response of DA politician Retief Odendaal to the electricity infrastructure failure affecting areas around Summerstrand, Chelsea and Walmer raises a broader question about how information moves within the municipality and whether political leadership is adequately informed when major infrastructure failures occur.
The question then is whether the municipality has an effective communication and incident-management system that ensures the responsible political leadership is informed promptly when major infrastructure or essential services problems arise.
Residents are entitled to ask why one community may experience a prolonged interruption while another appears to receive a quicker response.
There may be legitimate technical reasons, but where communities perceive unequal treatment, the municipality must provide clear explanations.
Residents should never have to wonder whether the quality or speed of service they receive is influenced by their political affiliation, geographic location or the party they support.
This brings us back to the three-legged pot.
Residents have the right to demand services, but also a responsibility to participate in municipal processes, report problems, attend public meetings and hold representatives accountable.
Political leadership must provide direction and meaningful oversight.
Politicians must resist blaming officials for everything, but must also refuse to accept administrative failures without consequence.
Oversight must be more than political theatre.
The administration must provide professional and impartial implementation.
Officials must execute lawful council decisions, manage resources responsibly, meet performance targets and communicate honestly with political leadership and communities.
Political leaders must understand that the administration is not a political campaign machine.
Ultimately, Nelson Mandela Bay does not need another debate about who is to blame.
If grants are lost because projects are not implemented, political leadership must demand answers.
If council resolutions are not implemented, officials must explain why.
If officials fail to perform, consequence management must follow.
If politicians improperly interfere in administration, that must also be confronted.
And if residents are excluded from meaningful participation, the municipality must correct that failure.
A municipality cannot function effectively when its three legs are pulling in different directions.
Sinethemba Matshaya, executive support officer in the office of the MMC for electricity and energy
