Local political capture impedes SA's post-1994 planning and development

Mail & Guardian

10-07-2025

Political interference, weak capacity and patronage hinder South Africa's post-apartheid planning, leading to dysfunctional local government. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy/M&G
South Africa's planning and development trajectory has been positioned as a tool for transformation, equity and redress since the country's democratic transition in 1994. However, the promise of developmental governance and spatial justice has not been substantially realised after 30 years of democracy.
This failure is not accidental but symptomatic of a structural problem — planning and development cannot thrive in the hands of local-level politicians who are often driven by patronage, electoral interests and administrative incapacity rather than long-term strategic vision or inclusive development imperatives.
Before 1994, South African planning was rooted in apartheid ideology. Spatial planning served as a tool of segregation, with policies like the 1950 Group Areas Act and 1913 Land Act dispossessing black South Africans and relegating them to the peripheries of urban and economic life.
Planning institutions operated with a top-down (rather than bottom-up), technocratic logic, serving the goals of white minority rule. Development was narrowly defined, often conflated with infrastructure delivery for white areas and the broader African, Indian and coloured populations were systematically excluded from both the process and the benefits.
Despite sporadic attempts at 'homeland' development and urban townships upgrades in the 1980s, planning under apartheid entrenched inequality. By 1994, South Africa had one of the world's most spatially fragmented and racially skewed urban and rural systems.
Post-apartheid South Africa inherited this divided spatial logic. In response, the government developed progressive legislative frameworks to guide transformation, including the Reconstruction and Development Programme in 1994 aimed at meeting basic needs and rebuilding infrastructure (later replaced by the Growth, Employment and Redistribution plan). The Development Facilitation Act of 1995 emphasised integrated development. The Municipal Structures Act (1998) and Municipal Systems Act (2000) established Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) as the primary tool for local-level planning. The National Development Plan 2030 outlines long-term inclusive growth and spatial equity objectives.
While these frameworks were progressive, their implementation has been marred by political interference, weak capacity and administrative paralysis at the local government level. Instead, the promise of 'developmental local government' has often produced dysfunctional municipalities.
According to the 2023 State of Local Government Report by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, only 5% of municipalities are classified as well-functioning, while more than 60% are underperforming or dysfunctional. Auditor general Tsakani Maluleke's 2022-23 municipal audit revealed that only 38 out of 257 municipalities received clean audits and unauthorised, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure reached R20.4 billion.
Theoretical models underpinned post-apartheid planning, such as communicative planning, emphasising stakeholder participation and collaborative governance. These ideals assumed rational dialogue and shared visions for development. However, in practice, the technocratic rationality of planners has often clashed with the political rationality of local councillors, who view planning instruments like IDPs as tools to secure votes and allocate tenders.
Marxist geographers such as David Harvey and Edward Soja remind us that space is always political. This forms clientelism in South Africa, where political allegiance, rather than necessity, is a mediator for development access. Thus, rather than serving as a forum for equitable growth, planning becomes a site of power struggles.
Furthermore, municipalities imitate planning frameworks (for instance, by drafting IDPs) without internalising or implementing them, as explained by institutional isomorphism derived from new institutional theory. This leads to form without substance — documents are produced but transformation remains elusive.
Local politicians, often lacking in technical understanding of spatial planning, play a vital role in shaping development priorities. Rather than being facilitators of professional planning, many become gatekeepers. Municipal councils routinely override technical assessments to prioritise politically expedient projects. Tender processes are manipulated to reward loyalists and community participation processes are reduced to box-ticking exercises.
In addition, the planning apparatus has been weakened by cadre deployment. When qualified professionals are sidelined or enlisted in political conflicts, evidence-based planning is undermined. This trend is more pronounced in small and rural municipalities, where planning departments are under-resourced or non-existent. As a result, municipal spatial development frameworks, meant to guide land use and infrastructure investment, are either outdated or ignored.
Despite massive investment, South Africa remains spatially unequal. According to Statistics South Africa figures from 2022, more than a third of South Africans live in informal settlements or backyard dwellings. Access to basic services like water and sanitation has stagnated, with some rural municipalities regressing coverage. Economic opportunities remain concentrated in urban cores, with rural youth facing unemployment rates above 60%.
This reflects a more profound crisis — planning is not merely a technical function but a state capacity issue. When the state at the local level is captured by party politics, service delivery and equitable development become casualties.
Suppose South Africa was to realise the spatial justice envisioned in its Constitution and policies. A shift must occur in that case;
Depoliticise planning functions by ensuring professional planners are insulated from political interference. This could mean ringfencing planning directorates within municipalities under provincial oversight.
Re-professionalise local government by investing in skills development, enforcing minimum competency frameworks and creating independent planning tribunals.
Strengthen accountability mechanisms, including public audits, citizen review panels for IDPs and real-time transparency in tender awards.
Restructure spatial governance by rethinking the role of metros, district municipalities and traditional authorities in planning, especially in rural contexts.
The failure of post-1994 planning and development in South Africa is not a consequence of the absence of vision or policy; it is a by-product of the political hijacking of development processes at the local level. Until we insulate planning from political expediency, transformation, equity and sustainability objectives will remain lip service. Planning is too important to be left in the hands of politicians.
Siyanda Kate is a PhD candidate (political studies) at Nelson Mandela University and a lecturer at Walter Sisulu University.