The private sector is about to have a bigger role in our municipalities

This story has significance for readers across Africa and beyond.

The DAâs election manifesto is explicit about its view of the private sector in providing council services.

With regard to water, where it says councils donât have capacity, âThe DA will partner with the private sector to get it done under strict service level agreements that protect communitiesâ interests.â

It continues: âMunicipalities must be empowered to buy and sell electricity directly from private energy companies without waiting years for national government approval. Contracts with private suppliers can deliver power more quickly and do not require additional funds from the National Treasury.â

On crime, the DA manifesto says it will be âpromoting collaboration among SAPS, municipal police and the private security industryâ.

Even in the area of public spaces and shared resources, it says councils led by the DA will âpartner with responsible private sector organisations to maintain, upgrade and improve public spaces such as municipal clinics, libraries, parks, beaches, pools and sporting facilities.â

All of this shows how extensive the role of private providers could be in local government.

Attractive, for some

For those in the middle classes, this could be a hugely attractive proposition. It holds out the hope that council services can improve without councils having to make huge capital investments.

And given the state of publicly owned entities such as Joburgâs City Power, Johannesburg Water, or so many other council departments, it might be the quickest, surest route to improvements.

This would also be part of the unseen tsunami of the past six years, of how the role of the private sector has grown so dramatically and so quickly.

For many people, this has been hugely successful.

Eskom has conquered load shedding, while Transnet is improving as it allows private operators to run our ports and control some trains on our railways.

But the ANC and many other parties will completely oppose this.

They will argue that the government has a constitutional obligation to provide these services directly to residents. They will also say the DA is creating a situation in which companies can profit from the needs of ordinary citizens.

And they will point to the scope for corruption â that companies will bid for contracts to provide services.

However, it appears that if the DA can win control, or near-control, in certain municipalities, it will press ahead with this agenda.

That means in those areas, the private sector will have a much greater role to play.

Cost of government failure

There is an awful inevitability about all of this. Because this will not just happen in those areas. It is likely that in areas where services do not improve, services become run by the private sector anyway.

In Joburg, currently run by a group of parties that are ideologically opposed to privatisation (if the Joburg coalition actually stands for anythingâ¦), frustrated residents have begun to pay people to collect their rubbish.

Those who can, generate their own power through solar panels and many harvest water or use boreholes (registered or otherwise).

Officials have even allowed a community group to take over the running of a municipally owned swimming pool, essentially giving up a large measure of control over an asset that is publicly owned.

In areas where the DA, or other parties that promote a greater role for the private sector, do not win, this process will continue and become more entrenched.

In Joburg, for example, if the current coalition were to continue after the elections, more and more people who can will buy their way out of using government services â as would also be the case in Ethekwini were the MK party or a weak coalition to come to power there. (It is also worth noting that we are likely to have more fragile coalitions in many places after the elections â weakening governance further and probably increasing corruption.)

Those people would also become much more likely to find ways to pay less to their councils. Why pay someone when you get nothing for it?

As a result, council capacity would weaken further.

Divided delivery

This would leave the vast majority of people, those who are poor and the most vulnerable, with services that are even worse than they are now.

The tragedy of this is that those with the loudest voice in society, the rich and the middle classes, would no longer be using government services, and thus would no longer be using their voice to drive a national debate to improve them.

One of the important dynamics in Joburg right now is the large middle-class constituency that has grouped around water issues. Because you cannot buy your way out of using council-provided water services very easily, this group has every motive to drive change.

Many of these people may not be as vocal about electricity or rubbish services because they can buy those services (through solar or private collection) much more easily.

This illustrates how important it is to ensure richer people use the same government services as poorer people. Strangely, richer people will use their voice in a way that protects the interests of poorer people.

As a result, the DA might well be able to argue that its model, where rich and poor receive services provided by private suppliers, but arranged through one council, is the better model, particularly because it allows the rich to subsidise the poor.

Certainly, compared with the alternatives at present, this might be the better option. However, that does not mean this model is the best-case scenario.

It is only acceptable because of the complete collapse of so many councils controlled by parties that oppose privatisation.

To their utter and everlasting shame. DM

Reporting originally appeared via Daily Maverick. Read the full source for additional context.