Public participation in integrated development planning: a case study of the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

English: Public participation in the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process does not take place in a vacuum; it is juxtaposed within contextual community realities of power, politics, institutional systemic practices and cultures, as well as inequities in resource capacity amongst other relational social practices. The value system, history, economy, socio-political dynamics, legal and administrative cultures, social conditions and power dynamics shape in critical ways the context of how public participation influences IDP outcomes. An exploration of public participation power dynamics is critical, since it signposts public participation constraints, deepens critical consciousness in public officials, and enables them to ameliorate injustice, thereby promoting community empowerment and distributive justice in integrated development planning and municipal strategic planning. The purpose of this study is to explore the nature and extent of public participation power dynamics during the IDP process and explain how these dynamics influence IDP outcomes in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (BCMM). Public participation power dynamics pervasively influence the outcomes of IDP processes, in that forms of power shape the dynamics and outcomes of that process. The dialectical relationship between manifestations of power and community agency shape in complex ways why and how public participation may or might not be a space for giving voice to community priorities and needs. The study uses an exploratory and explanatory case study research design and a mixed method research approach. A survey questionnaire located within the positivist paradigm and quantitative methodology, as well as focus group discussions situated within the interpretive paradigm and qualitative methodology were used as data collection methods. A final purposeful sample (n=229) consisting of ward councillors, ward committee members, IDP representative forum members and community stakeholders was used for the survey questionnaire. For the second method of data collection, focus group discussions, a final sample (n=34) was used. The results of the study suggest mixed views on respondents’ satisfaction with public participation in the IDP in BCMM. Findings also reveal lack of adequate requisite knowledge and understanding of the strategic nature of the IDP, as well as lack of competences for the public to meaningfully participate. Lack of capabilities and functionings disempowered, marginalised and excluded the public from participating and articulating community priorities and needs. Results further show that some residents get excluded from public participation spaces in the IDP, based on their political beliefs and affiliation. Other critically important voices are thus excluded. Furthermore, the study findings indicate that residents in BCMM have low to stable levels of trust in the municipal council’s ability to deliver services in response to community priorities and needs. Findings thus suggest that public participation in the IDP in BCMM is tokenistic, mostly done to comply with statutory and regulatory precincts. This implies that public participation spaces in BCMM often fail to influence IDP outcomes in response to community priorities and needs. Thus, public participation power dynamics in the IDP in BCMM, marginalises and excludes less powerful interests. This study contributes to practice in that it reveals the underlying dynamics that are undocumented and not well understood in municipal planning. By exposing power dynamics, the study contributes to the empowerment and conscientisation of municipal residents, municipal public officials and other stakeholders with an interest in local governance and especially, public participation in the IDP processes. The study is therefore valuable as it reveals the complexities of how individuals and communities navigate forms of power. The study thus raises critical consciousness in municipal residents, communities and public officials, thus enabling them to address and challenge visible, hidden and invisible forms of power through behavioural changes, collective agency, local institutional, systemic and social reforms, and thereby promoting distributive justice and social equity.