Under Construction @ Keele 2018 Vol. IV (II) | Page 33

25
success of participatory institutions. This is because more work is needed for success where
there has been conflict than where there is a history of cooperation. 12 The importance of
understanding pre-existing conditions to the success of democratic innovations is backed up
by findings of research in Southwest Finland and Sweden. 13 Consideration of pre-existing
conditions, therefore, brings to prominence the South African context. The country has seen
a racial conflict that lasted for centuries and only officially ended recently, and that is bound to
have an effect on the work needed for democratic innovations to succeed and ensure
participatory governance.
With all the above contextual challenges, South Africa has a stated commitment to
participatory governance. The literature that this paper focuses on addresses itself specifically
to the ward committee system and Integrated Planning process as two democratic innovations
that were introduced as part of South Africa’s experiment with participatory governance.
Understanding Participatory Governance
Participatory governance is a subsect of governance theory that puts emphasis on democratic
practices like participation in decision making. 14 It is about the public participation in the
governance of their country beyond regular elections. In recent years, there has been a
growing acceptance of the concept of participation in governance, with varied justifications
and rationale for it.
These rationales can be grouped into those that are instrumental, substantive and
normative. The normative rationale is that participation is a good thing to do as democratic
ideals demand it. Its aim is the countering of the power of incumbent interests and allowing
those that are affected by a decision to influence it. 15 The instrumental rationale claims that
participation legitimises decisions, and it also leads to improved results. This rationale tends
to focus on the details and falls short of calling for the discussion of policy goals. Incumbent
interests tend to favour it. The instrumental rationale is different from the substantive rationale
that allows for policy goals to be changed. 16 Instrumental rationality perceives public
participation as also a strategy to achieve goals. Outsiders to power see it as a way of
Chris Ansell and Alison Gash, “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice”. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 8 (2007): 550
13 Joachin Astrom et al., Democratic Innovations: Reinforcing or Changing Perceptions of Trust?”,
International Journal of Public Administration, 40(7) (2017): 575-587; Henrik Christensen et al,.
“Democratic Innovations to the Rescue? Political Trust and Attitudes Toward Democratic Innovations
in Southwest Finland”, International Journal of Public Administration, 39(5) (2016): 404-416).
14 Fischer, Frank. “Participatory Governance”, Jerusalem Papers in Regulation & Governance, 24
(2010).
15 Anna Wesselink, et al., “Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and
Governance: Practitioners' Perspectives”, Environment and Planning, 43 (2011): 2688-2704.
16 Wesselink, “Rationales for Public Participation”.
12