Joburg – a city in crisis

What can be done to

fix the City?

PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTIONS OF

SUMMIT HELD ON 7 OCTOBER 2023
 Introduction
• On 7 October 2025, the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation
hosted a Summit to discuss what we can do
together to save the City
• 130 (check) attended, representing XXX different
organisations across the City. Also in attendance
where concerned residents
• Part A of this presentation sets out the options
presented to address the current crisis while Part B is
the summarised resolutions of the meeting
• Also available on AKF website (
https://www.kathradafoundation.org/) are the
presentations made by the speakers and the
detailed report of the meeting
 PART A:
OPTIONS
TO
CONSIDER
 There are a range of options open to
individuals, organisations and government…
Option Who can do this
Change the political leadership Residents of Joburg through an election
Initiated by a motion of no confidence
Put the metro under administration NT or provincial government

Change the system of local government COGTA

Mass/public action Organised labour – socio-economic dispute in terms of Section 77 of
LRA
Residents associations, concerned groups, civil society, NGOs

Legal action Civil society, NGOs, residents associations and advocacy groups
Partnerships Between social partners, civil society and government (Joburg and other
spheres)
Alternative service delivery/co- NGOs, rate payers and other civil society organise alternative
production mechanisms e.g. micro grids, water tankers
Individual action Individuals do not pay rates, go off grid, leave the City
 Considering the options
• Options are not mutually exclusive, often they are interdependent
• Some are already happening – put City right
• Joburg is big and complex – like the Titanic, easier to sink, harder to turn around, problems
are systemic and have been coming for a long time
• Should there be a single focus on the relationship between the political leadership and
governance or should we focus on a few issues:
• where we can diagnose the problem sufficiently to determine a workable strategy
supported by sufficient stakeholders; and
• can make the biggest difference such as water provision, energy, roads and safe housing
in the Inner City and informal settlements
• Will require sustained commitment, sophisticated strategies and tactics, principled unity and
impeccable behaviour

Next slides discuss the options

 1. Dissolve the Council and hold new elections
in 90 days
What this could involve Pro’s and con’s
• After a two-year period had • Pro’s
passed, it is legally permissible • With the next local govt elections only due in Nov
2026, a fresh mandate from citizens could send a
for a party to Council to submit a bold message that coalition-chaos is not supported
motion to dissolve the Council • It is an opportunity to put up candidates who can
and have new elections within 90 more genuinely serve the City (in political parties &
as independents)
days.
• Cons
• DA has raised this as an option • There is no guarantee that a newly elected council
Can also start planning now for 2026 local would not also be hung
government elections including for civil • Fixing the City remains a problem for political
society representatives to stand as leadership and a weakened administration
independents Lobby for
changes in local • Will it address the single person/ small party
govt problem?
 2. Calling for the President to intervene to
place Joburg under administration

What this could involve Pros and cons

• Section 139 of the Constitution has • Pro’s
enabled legislation which provides for • The seriousness of the situation is
provincial govt to appoint an acknowledged
administrator to take over running of • Con’s
municipality – usually when no budget or • An unrealistic amount of responsibility rests
IDP passed with one individual

• Councillors remain in place • Experience has shown that Section 139

interventions are not sustainable & also open
• National government can step in if to legal attack (? Makhanda)
provincial government refuses • No provision for civil society oversight
3. Change the Mayoral Committee System from an
mayoral executive system to a collective executive
system
What this would involve Pro’s and Con’s
• The City would need to apply to the province • Pros
to make this change
• More political stability - political parties
• If it happened, there could be: could place stability and service over
executive power
• Proportional representation of the
largest parties on the Mayoral • Reduced votes of no confidence
Committee • Could be achieved relatively quickly
• A principle based co-governance • Cons
agreement between the largest parties
• Does not address the calibre of existing
• Responsibility could be ceded to the political leadership in the City
party with the most seats in Council
 4. Mass action and active citizenry
What it could involve
• Set of demands backed up by:
• Grassroots protests, marches,
pickets, demonstrations
• Rates boycotts (area/city wide)
• Socio-economic protest in terms of
Section 77 of LRA by organised labour
• Demands focus on:
• delivery of services
• holding City leadership accountable
vs corruption, cadre deployment and
financial mismanagement
• transparency and openness
Pro’s and con’s
• Pro’s
• Is visible
• Demonstrates support for change
• Puts pressure on political leadership to
be responsive (especially in an election
year)
• Organised labour needs to be an actor
for use of Section 77 of LRA
• Con’s
• Rates boycott can lead to further
reduction in services
• Setting up a trust is possible but
complex
 5. Legal
What could this involve
action – law fare
Pro’s and Con’s
• Taking the City and/or City • Pro’s
entities/issues to Court e.g. • Can safeguard rights

• Constitutional challenge on • Can push for information/transparency

right to water, housing etc • Con’s

• Stay evictions without • Expensive

alternative housing • Time consuming and can take time if

not an urgent matter
• Action can be taken by NGOs, • Not easily enforceable if the ruling
civil society organisations, rate requires funding
payers
 6. Partner with the City
What could this involve? Pro’s and con’s
• Civil society organisations (businesses & NGOs) to • Pro’s
demand/agree/are requested to partner with part/all of
City to address common crises together. • Goodwill, concern and skills about the
• These organisations provide their expertise for ‘free’ – future of Joburg can be harnessed
in return for a City that is safer, investment friendly etc
• Con’s
• Existing examples including OUTsurance and
Discovery on potholes, fire engines, points men • There is no free lunch
• Examples can include: • Assistance can be provided and still
• SAPOA working with JPC to turn it around abused if not sufficient oversight and
• Inner City housing companies working with Region to transparency
make City safer, cleaner
• Banks working with City Treasury to address fiscal
constraints
 Doing it yourself!

7. Co-production of service delivery

What this can involve
• Communities and businesses, often
supported by NGOs get directly involved in
delivery of services e.g.
• Clean up campaigns (e.g.
Yeoville/Bellevue)
• Micro grids
• Common boreholes
• Repair of potholes, road markings
• In Diepsloot, Eskom told residents they
must pay for new transformer themselves
Pro’s and cons
• Pro’s
• Service delivery happens
• Active citizenry and community solidarity
is built
• Con’s
• Not all residents can afford
• Public services are privatised
• Risk that local entrepreneurs (good and
bad) take over service delivery and
charge a fee
 8. Individual action
What does this involve Pros and Con’s
• Individuals • Con’s
• Stop paying rates • City looses revenue – starves the City
• Go off the grid completely (solar, • Vacant buildings are illegally and
boreholes) and cross dangerously occupied
subsidisation model of City is
undermined
• Steal services (illegal
connections)
• Leave the City
 What outcomes would we want?
Service delivery
• We should consider what are the key issues to
focus on
• Can include:
• Water provision (water shifting, leaks,
relationship with power)
• Inner City (enforcement, bad buildings,
urban management)
• Energy (non-technical losses, tariffs,
renewable partnerships)
• Enforcement (fire, safety, traffic)
Citizen accountability and
oversight
• By people who would account to a wider
forum of civil society (more than is
provided for in S139 of constitution) to
focus on:
• Agreed service and accountability
standards
• Clear consequence management
measures for failure
• Could be for key city entities as well as
budget and performance monitoring
systems
 All these options require…

• Dedicated and focused leadership

• Organisation and mobilisation – using but beyond social media arm-
chair activism
• Deepened understanding of the issues – including through drawing on
research bodies and getting data
• Resource mobilisation (people, funds)
• Unity of purpose around a few agreed goals
• Depth and diversity of participation - a city wide coalition.
PART B: RESOLUTIONS OF 7 OCTOBER
SUMMIT
 What should be done? Demand that the President
and relevant senior
Ministers provide a national
• Meeting supported the following options which
response to the crisis of the
can be deployed appropriately in an
interdependent way: City.
• Call for political stability and sustained political The demands should
leadership as well as citizen accountability by civil include a call for City to be
society to restore effective governance
put under administration
• Active citizenry and public action
but it should be with citizen
• Law fare
accountability and
• Partnerships
oversight
• Alternative service delivery and co-production

• Meeting agreed that we are not politically aligned

What attendees from the meeting should do

• It is proposed that between now and the next Crisis Summit

proposed for 23rd November 2023, attendees and their organisations:
• Engage on the options presented and how they could be applied in their
own areas/sectors
• Determine how to address priority issues are water, energy and safety
(especially fire, and ambulances)
• Consider immediate, medium and long-term actions
• Initiate community-led investigations - can liaise with Daily Maverick
• Get a mandate to participate where required
• Report back at next Summit
A working group is set out to co-ordinate the
process
• Volunteers from here should agree to play a coordinating role between now and the next meeting to:
• Distribute the resolutions of this meeting to all attendees.
• Tighten up the political call /demand/ with due regard to the current instability and possible calls to
dissolve the Council
• Reach out to other key stakeholders – business, labour, research etc
• Map existing initiatives
• Encourage sectoral initiatives e.g. all town planners and set up teams where necessary
• Mobilise initial resources
• Manage media relations
• Encourage and share information about local activism
Volunteers to email:
• Identify quick wins neeshanb@gmail.com
• Report back to meeting in November /possible launch of the Coalition
 What do we call this initiative?
• Johannesburg Citizen/Crisis Alliance/Committee made up of:
• Residents Associations
• NGOs and NPOs
• Concerned individuals
Convened jointly by Outa and
the AKF Foundation initially
• To also extend invites to:
• Business associations
• Organised labour
• Professional associations
• Research and academic organisations
• Migrant community organisation s
Follow-Up
Meeting
in November
2023