Johannesburg, South Africa's largest city, is struggling to perform basic functions such as providing clean water and electricity, maintaining roads, and ensuring citizen safety. The city's problems are not unique, and its crisis has been escalating over the last decade. According to Ivor Chipkin, a researcher who has spent years studying local government in post-apartheid South Africa, the conventional diagnosis of poor governance and weak leadership is insufficient to address the city's deep-seated issues.
Chipkin's research, published in a paper commissioned by the Centre for Development and Enterprise, argues that Johannesburg's problem lies in its institutional and legal framework. The city's administration exists only in name, with all power concentrated in the council. The city manager has limited authority to make operational decisions or hire staff, hindering the city's ability to effectively manage its services. This has resulted in a hybrid arrangement where utilities are expected to operate like businesses but are hamstrung by centralized and politically contested decision-making processes.
The creation of Johannesburg as a metropolitan entity over the past 30 years has led to the absorption of other towns and municipalities. The iGoli 2002 plan restructured major service functions into corporatised entities, including City Power, Johannesburg Water, and Pikitup. While these reforms aimed to create efficient, technically competent entities, they have been marred by controversy and opposition from some quarters. The South African Municipal Workers Union and the Anti-Privatisation Forum have criticized the reforms as concessions to neoliberalism.
The Municipal Systems Act of 2000 created the position of municipal manager, but failed to provide a clear separation between political direction and administrative authority. Councils remain heavily involved in appointments and senior administrative arrangements, leading to dispersed accountability. The coalition period, which began in 2016, has further weakened the administrative space, with various factions vying for influence over departments and entities.
Medellín, Colombia's second-largest city, offers a useful example of how to address similar challenges. In the 1980s and 1990s, Medellín was notorious for its violence, but by 2013, it had become recognized as the most innovative city in the world. The city's recovery was driven by the restoration of public authority in areas where criminal and armed cartels had displaced the state. The municipal utility, Empresas Públicas de Medellín, played a central role in this process, providing essential services, generating revenue, and financing the city's investment program.
The experience of Medellín highlights the importance of protecting utilities from political interference and ensuring they have clear authority, competent management, and commercially disciplined operations. For Johannesburg's utilities to be part of the city's renewal, they require shareholder compacts with the city, billing and treasury rules, performance targets, and protection from political interference. This will not be a straightforward process, as vested interests will resist change and the city's utilities have become sites of patronage and factional control.
Ultimately, Johannesburg's recovery will depend on its ability to confront the political and criminal networks that benefit from the current disorder. The city's utilities must be given real operational autonomy to drive rebuilding and renewal. By drawing on the lessons of Medellín, Johannesburg can develop a new approach to governance and institutional reform, one that prioritizes effective service delivery, technical competence, and accountability.
Key points
- Johannesburg's crisis is driven by institutional and legal failures, rather than simply poor governance and weak leadership.
- Medellín's experience shows that utilities can be a key driver of city renewal if they have clear authority, competent management, and protection from political interference.
- Johannesburg's utilities require operational autonomy, shareholder compacts, and performance targets to drive effective service delivery and renewal.
