The recent water crisis facing municipalities in Gauteng has exposed long-standing and structural failures in service delivery.

Minister of Water and Sanitation, Pemmy Majodina’s characterisation of the issue is both misleading and misguided. Typical of African National Congress (ANC) cognitive dissonance, Majodina suggests that Gauteng’s residents are to blame for their own water challenges.

Yet, she overlooks her party’s role in commodifying basic services like water, pricing it as if it were a luxury item, even for those who struggle to afford it.

This policy, heavily influenced by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cost-recovery model, reflects a neoliberal approach that prioritises profitability over accessibility.

Before 1994, local councils had the capacity to deliver essential services like clean water, waste collection, landfill management, sewage treatment, and road maintenance.

It was not the apartheid National Party’s competence or inherent skill that enabled this, but rather a public-service model that treated these services as basic human rights.

Municipal workers in blue overalls were employed on a permanent basis, receiving incentives and pensions, and had a clear mandate to ensure community welfare.

This structure, while far from perfect, emphasised sustainability in service delivery without the interference of profit motives.

The dumping sites in areas like Bophelong and Sharpeville, for instance, were well-maintained and operational. Electricity in Kanana was reliable, unaffected by environmental factors like wind.

Sewage systems in Small Farm flowed smoothly, while the roads in Sebokeng were well-kept and accessible. This practical and effective system ensured that many essential municipal functions could be executed efficiently and sustainably.

In the period leading up to the democratic transition, conversations around forming regional service councils, embracing privatisation, and the role of big businesses in delivering municipal services marked a shift in the way public services were managed.

The awareness that racially segregated councils and services divided along racial lines would end was accompanied by a shift in perspective regarding public service delivery.

However, by the late 1980s, the influence of the IMF and the World Bank led to the emergence of a cost-recovery model for municipal services.

This model emphasised a leaner government and redefined public services as commodities, treating citizens more like customers than members of a community.

The implications of this model were deeply problematic. The assumption that most people could afford to pay for essential services ignored the deep socioeconomic inequalities entrenched by colonisation and apartheid.

For over 300 years, economic participation was denied to the majority, who were largely relegated to roles as cheap labour.

The economy remains geographically concentrated in a few metropolitan areas, specifically in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, the Western Cape, and the Eastern Cape.

These areas experience economic development, but much of the country still suffers from high unemployment, poverty, and lack of economic opportunities.

Majodina’s analysis ignores this context entirely. The post-1994 government has certainly claimed credit for achievements such as electrification, the construction of RDP houses, and educational expansion.

However, the reality is that the spatial planning established under apartheid remains largely intact. Predominantly white areas continue to be bordered by informal settlements with primarily Black African residents.

Structural inequality persists, and the crisis of unemployment and poverty exacerbates municipal challenges.

With few avenues to raise revenue, many municipalities rely almost entirely on equitable share allocations and conditional grants to deliver essential services.

Currently, municipalities receive R101.1 billion from the equitable share, a mere 9% of the total national revenue.

Only a limited number of municipalities have meaningful revenue streams through property rates or by providing services like electricity and water.

These disparities have led to the collapse of numerous municipalities over the past three decades. Hence majority of municipalities are considered dysfunctional, at worse collapsed.

The system has deteriorated further with the rise of corruption and inflated contract prices, making basic service delivery even more elusive.

In this context, the neoliberal cost-recovery model proves to be an outright failure.

As service costs are passed onto consumers, the affordability of basic services plummets, further alienating impoverished communities and reducing the state’s accountability to its citizens.

By operating as trading entities instead of public service providers, municipalities drift further from their core mandate of serving the public.

This profit-driven approach erodes the social contract between local government and the communities it is meant to serve, creating a perpetual cycle of service delivery crises.

Moreover, the current funding model for municipalities is outdated and inadequate. Adjustments to the equitable share formula alone are insufficient; a more fundamental transformation is required.

Municipalities must be recognised as essential providers of public functions, not as corporations trading in basic services.

Public funding should be directed towards municipalities to ensure they can fulfil their roles effectively, focusing on public welfare rather than revenue generation.

A comprehensive, publicly funded model would build local capacity, ensure that services remain accessible to all, and support long-term municipal sustainability.

Public service delivery should be grounded in the principle that essential services are rights, not privileges or commodities.

Shifting from a market-driven approach to a state-supported system is essential for restoring trust in local government and ensuring equitable access to basic services.

In summary, to address the deep-rooted issues facing Gauteng’s municipalities — and others across South Africa — requires a paradigm shift. The government must abandon policies driven by neoliberal cost-recovery principles and commit to a model that truly prioritises the well-being of all citizens.

Investing in municipalities and restructuring the funding model to prioritise state-backed, rights-based service delivery will ensure that every resident has access to clean water, reliable electricity, and safe, maintained infrastructure.

Only then can we hope to restore a dignified quality of life for all South Africans, particularly the most vulnerable among us. We need to bring back the public in public service.

* Isaac Khithikha is the EFF Sedibeng Regional Chairperson and a councillor at Sedibeng District Municipal Council

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media

IOL Opinion