i UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND FACULTY OF COMMERCE, LAW AND MANAGEMENT, SCHOOL OF GOVERNANCE Limitations of the Integrated Development Plan as a public participation tool in decision making in Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. By Tebogo Sarah Ramone Student Number: 2418683 Supervisor: Mr. Matlala Setlhalogile This research is submitted to the Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, in fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Management. 2022/23 Contact number: +27 728931199 Email address: 2418683@students.wits.ac.za mailto:2418683@students.wits.ac.za ii Copyright The copyright of this research report vests in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in accordance with the University’s Intellectual Property Policy. No portion of the text may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including analogue and digital media, without prior written permission from the University. Extracts of or quotations from this thesis may, however, be made in terms of Sections 12 and 13 of the South African Copyright Act No. 98 of 1978 (as amended), for non-commercial or educational purposes. Full acknowledgement must be made to the author and the University. An electronic version of this research report is available on the library webpage (www.wits.ac.za/library) under Research Resources. For permission requests, please contact the University Legal Office or the University Research Office (www.wits.ac.za). http://www.wits.ac.za/library iii Table of Contents Cover page .................................................................................................................. i Copyright page ............................................................................................................ ii Table of contents ........................................................................................................ iii Abstract .................................................................................................................... viii Declaration ................................................................................................................. ix Dedication .................................................................................................................. x Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... xi List of figures ............................................................................................................. xii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................... xiii CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction and background of the study ............................................................ 1 1.2 Problem statement .............................................................................................. 3 1.3 Purpose of the study ............................................................................................ 4 1.4 Research questions .............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Research objectives ............................................................................................. 4 1.6 Significance of the study ...................................................................................... 5 1.6.1 Theoretical contribution ..................................................................................... 5 1.6.2 Practical contribution ......................................................................................... 5 1.7 Outline of the dissertation ..................................................................................... 5 1.8 Chapter summary ................................................................................................. 6 CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Overview of the Dr. Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality ................................... 7 2.3 The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) .............................................................. 8 2.4 South African legislative frameworks that underpin IDP ..................................... 11 2.4.1 South African Constitution ............................................................................... 11 2.4.2 Municipal System Act (MSA) 32 of 2000 ......................................................... 12 2.4.3 Amended Municipal Structures Act, Act 117 of 1998 ...................................... 13 2.4.4 The White Paper on Local Government .......................................................... 13 2.5 Importance of public participation in IDP process .............................................. 15 2.5.1 Municipalities and developmental service delivery ........................................ 18 iv 2.6 Suitability of Integrated Development Plan in fostering service delivery............ .19 2.6.1 Lack of capacity by the municipality ............................................................... .24 2.7 Shortcomings of the IDP .................................................................................... 24 2.8 Challenges that hinder public participation in IDP process ................................. 26 2.8.1 Time constraints .............................................................................................. 26 2.8.2 Inadequate funds to facilitate public participation ............................................ 27 2.8.3 Poor communication and lack of information flow about IDP .......................... 28 2.8.4 Tension between stakeholders ....................................................................... 29 2.9 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 3: Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 32 3.2 Theoretical framework ........................................................................................ 32 3.2.1 People Centered Development Theory ........................................................... 32 3.2.2 Assumptions of the theory ............................................................................... 33 3.2.3 Relevance of the theory to the study ............................................................... 34 3.3 Research approach ............................................................................................ 35 3.4 Research design ................................................................................................ 36 3.5 Data collection instruments ............................................................................... 37 3.5.1 Document analysis .......................................................................................... 37 3.5.2 Semi-structured interviews .............................................................................. 37 3.6 Target population ............................................................................................... 38 3.7 Sampling frame .................................................................................................. 39 3.8 Sample technique ............................................................................................... 39 3.9 Sample size ........................................................................................................ 40 3.10 Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 40 3.11 Data analysis .................................................................................................... 41 3.12 Limitations of the study ..................................................................................... 41 3.13 Ethical considerations ..................................................................................... 42 3.14 Chapter summary ............................................................................................. 42 CHAPTER 4: Results, Analysis and Discussion v 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 44 4.2 Response rate .................................................................................................... 44 4.2.1 Profile of participants’ positions ....................................................................... 44 4.3 Demographic characteristics of participants ....................................................... 45 4.3.1 Gender of participants ..................................................................................... 46 4.3.2 Age range ........................................................................................................ 47 4.3.3 Experience with the organisations ................................................................... 48 4.3.4 Participants’ professional qualifications ........................................................... 49 4.4 Participants understanding of Integrated Development Planning. ..................... 50 4.5 Limitations of Integrated Development Plan process. ....................................... 51 4.5.1 Inconsistent public participation time schedule ............................................... 51 4.5.2 Advertisements of public meetings doesn’t reach the entire community ......... 52 4.5.3 Inadequate resource allocation ...................................................................... 53 4.5.4 Lack of proper communication in IDP process ................................................ 54 4.6 Role of IDP in redressing service delivery. ........................................................ 55 4.6.1 Act as Municipality guideline ........................................................................... 55 4.6.2 IDP used for budget planning ......................................................................... 56 4.6.3 Fostering participation ..................................................................................... 57 4.7 Municipal challenges in the implementation of Integrated Development Planning. ................................................................................................................................. 59 4.7.2 Unavailability of funds and human skills .......................................................... 60 4.7.2 Lack of interest in participation from the public and officials ............................ 60 4.7.3 Duplication of processes ................................................................................. 61 4.7.4 Tension between stakeholders ....................................................................... 62 4.8 Existing participation strategies and mechanisms in the IDP process. .............. 63 vi 4.6.2 Public consultations ......................................................................................... 63 4.8.2 Monitoring and regular IDP reviewing ............................................................ 64 4.8.3 Community meeting with stakeholders ........................................................... 66 4.9 Mechanisms/strategies should be taken to further strengthen or build capacity to allow for effective public involvement in the IDP ...................................................... 67 4.9.1 Aligning municipal mission and objectives with the IDP .................................. 67 4.9.2 Utilise Ward Development Plan (WDP) in IDP process ................................... 68 4.9.3 IDP Representative Forum meetings .............................................................. 69 4.9.4 Effective communication and recruit qualified and competent people ............. 70 4.9.5 Proper utilization of scarce resources ............................................................. 72 4.9.6 Awareness and regulatory enforcement and increase IDP tenure .................. 73 4.10 Chapter summary ............................................................................................. 74 CHAPTER 5: Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 76 5.2 Summary of the study ........................................................................................ 76 5.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 80 5.3.1 Limitations of Integrated Development Plan process in Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. ................................................................................................. 80 5.3.2 Existing participation strategies and mechanisms in the IDP process in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. ..................................................................... 80 5.3.3 Mechanisms/strategies should be taken to further strengthen or build capacity to allow for effective public involvement in the IDP ...................................................... 81 5.4 Recommendations ............................................................................................. 82 5.5 Areas for future study ......................................................................................... 83 5.6 Chapter summary ............................................................................................... 84 vii REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 85 APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT............................................ 89 APPENDIX B: LETTER SEEKING PERMISSION .................................................... 90 APPENDIX C: PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY GRANTED ........................... 92 viii Abstract This study examines the limitations of the Integrated Development Plan as a tool for public engagement in decision-making within the context of the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. The study is grounded in the People Centred Development Theory, which emphasizes the participation of all stakeholders in the development process. The study employs a case study research design and qualitative methodology, with data gathered through interviews and document analysis. The findings reveal that the IDP plays a significant role in facilitating service delivery within the municipality. It serves as a guideline for identifying needs, setting priorities, and implementing strategies to enhance service provision. The IDP also fosters stakeholder participation and enables continuous reporting, thereby promoting inclusive development. However, several limitations in the IDP process were identified. Public participation was inconsistent, with meetings often held during working hours, excluding many community members. This lack of inclusivity resulted in the underrepresentation of diverse perspectives in decision-making. Moreover, certain critical sector departments did not participate, hindering integrated development goals. Communication and induction processes were also lacking, with stakeholders and communities not effectively engaged or informed. Beyond the planning aspect, the study also identified challenges in the implementation of the IDP. These challenges ranged from limited funding, lack of skilled personnel, limited community interest, duplication of processes and projects, and a lack of political will and effective leadership. The inadequate resource allocation led some projects being unimplemented. To address the limitations identified, the study recommends comprehensive awareness campaigns to educate the public about the IDP, increased accessibility through multiple languages and digital platforms, and the use of diverse engagement methods. It also suggests aligning municipal objectives with the IDP, utilizing the Ward Development Plan, conducting IDP Representative Forum meetings, improving communication and recruitment practices, effectively utilizing scarce resources, and increasing the tenure of the IDP. Key words: Integrated Development Plan, Public Participation, and Service Delivery ix Declaration I declare that this research report is my own unaided work. It is submitted for Master’s Degree in Governance Management at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before for any other degree or examination to any other University. ____________________________________ Tebogo Sarah Ramone Student Number: 2418683 x Dedication I dedicate my Masters dissertation to my little girls, Lintle Ramone, Khanya Ramone and Hlonolofatso Ramone. You are the pillars of my happiness. I am happy to have pursued this journey. xi Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to God for giving me the strength and courage to successfully complete my research. Your word guided me and gave me hope each day. I would like to thank my supervisor Mr. Matlala Setlhalogile who supported me throughout the dissertation. I further extend my gratitude to my beloved members Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality for their participation and fruitful contribution to this study. Thank you for sharing information without hesitation. Lastly, I would like to thank my husband for supporting me and understanding when I had to work long hours on my dissertation. xii List of figures Figure 4.1 Current positions of participants .............................................................. 43 Figure 4.2 Gender distribution of participants ........................................................... 44 Figure 4.3 Age distribution of study participants ....................................................... 45 Figure 4.4 Experience of participants ....................................................................... 46 Figure 4.5 Professional qualifications of participants ............................................... 47 xiii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations DRKKDM Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality IDP Integrated Development Plan MSA Municipal Structures Act PCD People Centred Development RDP Reconstructive Development Plan SEOs State-Owned Enterprises SDBIP Service Delivery and Budget Implementation Plan TCA Thematic Content Analysis WDP Ward Development Plan 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and background 1.1 Introduction and background of the study Local government is regarded as the main supplier of services in South Africa (Cogta, 1998). In South Africa, municipal service delivery is permitted by Schedule 4 and Part 5 of the Constitution. Municipalities are therefore expected to more than satisfactorily fulfil this fundamental requirement (Selepe, 2017). Nevertheless, local government has encountered difficulties fulfilling its legal duties to provide essential services. A coordinated approach to service delivery is essential due to the complexities and diverse dynamics present in municipalities across the nation. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons that this paper examines, the IDPs created by municipalities to fulfil this constitutional obligation usually fall short. Chapter 5 of the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 mandates that all South African local municipalities produce an Integrated Development Plan to allow them to offer services for the communities under their authority (Madumo & Koma, 2019). The necessity of enabling public engagement in local government making decisions, as required by South Africa's legal framework, is fundamental to the IDPs. According to the White Paper on Local Government from 1998, people should be consulted on the type and quantum of services they receive. If it is possible, they should also be given options for the services they would like to receive (Cogta, 1998). This is clearly stipulated in the Municipal Systems Act of 2000 as it makes it a requirement to consult local communities on its development needs and priorities. Municipalities must provide democratic and accountable governance in addition to providing efficient and effective services, according to Chapter 7 Section 152 of the South African Constitution (1996). Mahlinza (2013) makes this assertion when he contends that in order to improve the provision of services, an IDP should encourage community involvement in local administration. IDPs are an essential tool that municipalities can use in the areas that fall under their purview to lower unemployment, eradicate poverty, and boost local economies (Selepe, 2017). Section 152 of the Constitution states that it is the duty of IDPs to see to it that municipal objectives are carried out. The suitability of district development plans and the just recently 2 developed "One Plans" should also be assessed as part of the IDP process (Madumo & Koma, 2019). The IDPs are developed in relation to the amenities and initiatives offered to local government. Community members and all spheres of government must coordinate their planning efforts in order to implement the municipality's participatory Integrated Development Plan. The Constitution of South Africa, 1996a, states that the objectives of IDPs are to carry out the statutory duties of local government, which includes providing viable, democratically elected and transparent governance for communities in the area, as well as fostering economic and social growth, a healthy and safe atmosphere, and citizen participation in matters pertaining to local government. However, most of these projects view community involvement as either misguided or inadequate. The IDP creation process is frequently seen as co-optation and interpreted as being neither rigorous nor robust enough (Buccus, 2011). Monitoring and evaluation connected to development are almost non-existent, in addition to the subpar quality of community interaction. Municipalities' local economic development is at the core of both "One Plans" and district development plans. This suggests that local governments have an increasing obligation to support and foster economic growth in their communities. In an attempt to counteract the increasing levels of unemployment and poverty, socioeconomic development is ensured. In addition to addressing social, economic, and environmental issues, IDP strategy plans also need to be considerably more inclusive by utilizing a variety of public involvement approaches. It is important to remember that IDPs are flexible and that the budget adjustment procedure allows for any changes to be made to the priorities stated in the plans. The Municipal Financial Management Act (MFMA), Section 28, is followed in carrying out this process. The main purpose of this is to guarantee that projects are finished as anticipated. In spite of IDPs and their vital role, numerous towns have consistently fallen short in providing the necessary services. This failure has been attributed to a number of things, including unethical practices and intra-party disagreements (Govender and Nwafor, 2019). Additionally, there are institutional "fault lines" that result in a "pressure cooker" situation because some municipalities cover large geographic regions. De Visser, (2009) stressed that when coupled with impractical demands on the IDP and 3 the necessity for the IDP to be prepared promptly after the election of a new council, these elements establish a "pressure cooker" scenario. Smilarly, Coetzee (2010) referred to the IDP "as an inadequate system that is not widely recognized, supported, and esteemed by the leaders and participation" and likened it to "an octopus with too many muscles." The current study sought to identify the limits of the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality's Integrated Development Plan as an instrument for the delivery of services in light of policy and regulatory requirements. Integrated Development Plans are meant to help municipalities fulfil their developmental mandates, but in the case of the municipality in question, this has not been the case, as shown by the ongoing reduction in service delivery, and the absence of public participation in the IDP process has been concerning. The current investigation assessed the extent of public participation in the developing of the IDP document. The Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality is a region in the southern part of the North West Province, bordering the provinces of Gauteng and the Free State. Maquassi Hills, Matlosana, and JB Marks are its constituent local municipalities (Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality, 2022). 1.2 Problem statement Like all municipalities in South Africa, Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality also embarks in a process of formulating an Integrated Development Plan process in order to fulfil their constitutional mandate to better the lives and aspirations of their communities (Dlamini & Reddy, 2018). Although the five-year municipal councils’ tenures are linked to the IDP, it has become apparent that the IDP developed is incompatible with the community needs and expectations because the process of IDP formulation has been characterised by numerous limitations such as a lack of substantive public involvement and disintegrated planning among others. This has been found in Lepelle-Nkumphi Municipality, Limpopo province and Mahikeng LOCAL Municipality (Makalela, 2020; Maseng, 2021) respectively. With the persistent shortcomings experienced in the development of the IDP, the IDP has seemingly become unsuitable to serve its intended objective i.e., serving the community (Makalela, 2020, Dyum, 2020). The level of service delivery at the Dr Kenneth Kaunda 4 District Municipality has deteriorated. This corroborates with Asha and Makalela (2020) who found challenges in the implementation of integrated development plan and service delivery in Lepelle-Nkumphi Municipality, Limpopo province. Given the manifold challenges that have presented themselves in relation to the development and implementation of the IDPs, there is limited attention given to understanding the challenges from a practitioners’ perspective i.e., from the perspective of municipal officials whose responsibilities include partaking in the development and implementation of the IDP, particularly in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda district municipality. Their perspective and insights might aid in resolving some of the prevailing challenges regarding both the development and the implementation of the IDP. 1.3 Purpose of the study The aim of this study was to assess the level and scope of public participation within the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) process as a means of service delivery at Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality, in accordance with relevant South African regulations. The study also seeks to identify any limitations or constraints that may exist in the current public participation practices and provide recommendations for improvement. 1.4 Research questions Against the above problem statement, the research question and sub-questions are as follows: 1. What are the limitations associated with the utilisation of the Integrated Development Plan as a mechanism to improve service delivery within Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality? Sub-questions (a) What are the specific limitations encountered in the IDP process within Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality? (b) What are the current strategies in place for public participation within the IDP process in Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality, and are they considered effective? 5 (c) What measures or strategies are currently being implemented or should be implemented to enhance and build the capacity for effective public involvement within the IDP process? 1.5 Research objectives (a) To investigate the specific limitations encountered in the Integrated Development Plan process within the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. (b) To evaluate the current strategies in place for public participation within the IDP process in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality and assess their effectiveness. (c) (c) To analyse the measures or strategies currently being implemented or that should be implemented to enhance and build the capacity for effective public involvement within the IDP process in the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality. 1.6 Significance of the study While the subject at hand has received some attention, more could be done to enhance an understanding from a local government institutions’ perspective. The significance of this study is two-fold. Firstly, the study makes a contribution to the literature in understanding limitations of the IDP and its processes from a practitioner’s perspective. Secondly, it cast light on some of the intricate issues contributing to the limitations of the IDP as a tool to facilitate the provision of services by the municipality. The study can make a contribution towards shedding light on the connection between outcomes of service delivery in the context of the IDP process and public participation. The study also has a potential to draw attention to the necessity of activities for strengthening capacity to enable residents and local government local representatives to actively participate in the IDP. The study also draws attention to some specific strategies, mechanisms, and best practices for ensuring meaningful citizen engagement, such as improving communication channels, providing accessible information, and promoting community involvement. To this effect, the study makes recommendations. 6 1.7 Outline of the dissertation The study is structured into five chapters. The first chapter presents the introduction to the topic together with the problem statement research objectives and background information on the study area. Chapter two (Literature Review) reviews both the theoretical and empirical literature. The chapter summarise what has already been discussed in ones’ field, both to demonstrate limitations of the IDP. The chapter also highlight knowledge gaps, problems or shortcomings in existing research to show the original contribution present research. This includes the definition of IDP, South African legislative frameworks that underpin IDP, importance of public participation in IDP process and the literature will also review suitability of Integrated Development Plan in fostering service delivery. Chapter three (Methodology), presents the research, the research design, study setting, target population, sampling frame, and sample size, sampling techniques. The chapter also covers, data collection instruments, data analysis and trustworthiness. The limitations of the study, data analysis and ethical consideration. The theoretical framework in which the study was founded will be explained in this chapter. Chapter four (Findings and Presentation): This chapter focuses on data processing, analyses and presentation of the findings. Chapter five (Conclusion and Recommendations): The findings of the study, the conclusions and recommendations are presented in this chapter. 1.8 Chapter summary This chapter provided the overview and rational of the study. The chapter presented the introduction and background of this study, the problem statement, and purpose of the study, the research question and sub-research questions of the research. The significance of the research and its contribution are discussed, overview of the research report and chapter summary. The following chapter focuses on literature review of relevant previous studies. 7 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews both the theoretical and empirical literature. The present study focuses on the evaluation of IDP as a service delivery tool in the municipality under investigation, drawing upon relevant literature. This chapter critically assesses the significance of the IDP in enhancing service delivery and examines the challenges encountered by municipalities in the IDP process, thereby highlighting the limitations of the IDP. The literature review encompasses the definition of the IDP as well as the legislative frameworks within South Africa that serve as the foundation for the IDP, importance of public participation in IDP process and the suitability of Integrated Development Plan in fostering service delivery. The chapter also highlight knowledge gaps, problems or shortcomings in existing research. 2.2 Overview of the Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality The Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality (Dr KKDM), which includes the local municipalities of Matlosana, JB Marks, and Maquassi Hills, is located in the southern region of the North West Province. Both the Free State and Gauteng Provinces share a border with this district municipality. The demographics are listed after the region that the District Municipality encompasses on the map below (Figure 2.1). The statistical data is a compilation of data from the 2011 Census, the 2016 Community Survey by Stats SA and the IHS Markit Regional Explorer, the 2011 Dr Kenneth Kaunda DM Spatial Development Framework (SA, Community Survey, 2016). The Municipal Demarcation Board (MDB) of the Republic of South Africa provided the demarcation borders as of 2016 on which the analyses were based. Dr KKDM is a region with a rich and diverse natural and cultural heritage, with the potential for sustained economic growth. The region is home to some of the most prominent gold mines in the world and one of the oldest meteor impact sites in the world. 8 Figure 2.1 Map of Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality According to Statistics South Africa (Community Survey 2016), the population of the Dr. Kenneth Kaunda District (based on 2016 municipal boundaries) is 742 822, increased from 695 934 in 2011. The population is unevenly distributed among the three (3) Local Municipalities and the average annual growth rate of the district is 1.07% which dropped from 1.16% between 2001 and 2011 (Mmamodikwe, 2022). 2.3 The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) In response to the Reconstructive and Development Programme (RDP), the Integrated Development Plan was introduced in 1996. The RDP was implemented but did not fully address the social and geographic disparities linked to the government that existed prior to 1994. As such, the IDP was introduced as a local government 9 mechanism to achieve a much more responsive government in addressing the social and geographic disparities caused by the apartheid system. The Integrated Development Plan is a strategic plan with a duration of five years that was mandated by the national government to facilitate and promote local-level development (Mmamodikwe, 2022). Municipalities were tasked with the responsibility to formulate and implement the IDP. The IDP is written with a five-year tenure in mind. Every year, the document must be reviewed with the input of all pertinent parties, without the council. It serves as the foundation for the municipal ongoing budget, departmental performance management, and annual project spending. The review aims to balance the local development priorities regarding socioeconomic, environmental, and political requirements in order to reflect on goals and accomplishments. As per the Municipal Structures Amendment Act 20 of 2002 and the Municipal Financial Management Act 56 of 2003, IDP is designed to ensure sustainability in terms of the organization’s capacity to implement and integrate activities across sectors and government agencies. According to Section 35(1) of the Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000, once the IDP is approved by the municipal council, it becomes the fundamental planning document that guides and informs planning and development processes, facilitating coordinated decision- making within the municipality. Upon approval, the IDP plays a crucial role in governing the actions and obligations of the executive authority in accordance with federal or provincial laws. In this situation, all responsibilities and executive obligations are governed and overseen by the laws protecting citizens' rights and ensuring the regular provision of services to locals. According to Asha & Makalela (2020), integrated development planning is the strategic and inclusive process of creating an all-encompassing strategy. Similarly, Meiklejohn and Coetzee (2003) assert that IDP it is a procedure by which municipalities create their Integrated Development Plan. The planning process, which directs all developmental efforts in a municipality, results in the IDP. According to Mathye (2012), the IDP is the primary strategic planning instrument that directs and educates all municipal preparing a budget, management, and effective decision-making. One of IDP’s chief objective include raising the standard of living for the residents of a certain 10 municipality and make sure that democratic rights and individual liberties are protected there. Additionally, it must support social initiatives and address the socioeconomic issues that local governments in South Africa are confronting (Subban & Theron, 2012; Mautjana & Mtapuri, 2014; Penderis, 2010). The IDP which the council adopts and reviews annually, serves as a planned and functioning design guideline and remains relevant at the end of the council's elected term. Taking into account the resources at its disposal, the Municipality's main strategic plan prioritizes the most important developmental demands of the municipal territory. The Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 and the Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1997 both allow municipalities, the IDP structure enables the local authority to fulfil their development responsibilities towards the community. Tornberg (2012), IDP serves as a strategic tool for municipalities to effectively manage their roles and functions, uphold the mandates of the Constitution and other relevant laws concerning residents, and foster an integrated framework for planning, operation, and service delivery. Dlamini and Reddy (2018) highlight that the IDP process aids in decision-making regarding land management and municipal budget priorities. Consequently, in order to engage various stakeholders such as regional businesses, government agencies, and local communities in meaningful and strategic consultations, the IDP should promote social and economic development as well as institutional transformation. The IDP plan represents the long-term development objectives of the municipal council, with a focus on addressing the most pressing needs (Maake, 2016). This document should include the sector planning as well as the goals for internal transformation and local economic development. The key performance indicators and performance goals must line up with the plans developed through community participation in a local municipality. The IDP is recognized as one of the key components of the municipality’s primary developmental requirements within the five-year planning budget (Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998). IDP plays a vital strategic role in enabling municipalities to effectively manage their tasks and responsibilities, adhere to the mandates of the Constitution and other applicable laws pertaining to residents, and foster an integrated framework for planning, operation, and service delivery. The IDP process serves the purpose of facilitating decision-making regarding municipal budget priorities and land management. It must support institutional transformation along with social and economic development if it is to involve all of its stakeholders - including local 11 communities, government organizations, and regional businesses - in constructive and strategic consultation. 2.4 South African legislative frameworks that underpin IDP The basic human rights enshrined in Chapter 7, sections 152 and 153 of the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, as well as Chapter 2 sections 26, 27, 29, 30, and 32, form the foundation for the IDP and other statutory legislation governing public participation and consultation. South Africa has established a robust framework of rules and regulations that provide municipalities with comprehensive guidelines for developing integrated development plans. 2.4.1 South African Constitution Nothing in South Africa replaces the Constitution as the supreme law. As a result, all acts, rules, and regulations must be consistent with it and not in conflict with any of its contained rules (Pilane 2022). The Republic of South Africa's 1996 Constitution provides guidelines for public engagement and consultation in the IDP and other statutory laws. Municipalities can better accomplish local government objectives by utilizing the resources at their disposal with the assistance of Section 152 (2). A municipality must, however, carry out this task within the constraints of its own financial, political, and administrative resources. The "Objectives of local government" are outlined in Section 152 of the Constitution as follows: In order to:  Ensure a democratic and accountable government;  Ensure that the Local community receives basic services;  Sustainable uplift of social and economic aspects;  Creating a safe and healthy environment, as well as;  Promoting active citizen participation in local affairs. A collaborative local government structure was intended to provide democratic and responsible local governance, according to the Republic of South Africa's Constitution (Act 106 of 1996). Policies for promoting sustainable social and economic development are included in the legislation. Municipalities are encouraged to strive 12 towards achieving the objectives outlined in Section 152 of the South African Constitution, to the extent of their administrative and financial capabilities, paragraph (1). Dyum (2020) states that municipalities are governed by the law and must adhere to its restrictions in order to supply fundamental services and manage them in a systematic way. Involving citizens in the process is a requirement for local governments’ institutions to such that decisions are clearly provided. This is consistent with literature by Reddy (2018) the Republic of South Africa's constitution encourages local government to be developmental and to allow public engagement in all of its operations in order to foster a safe and healthy environment for everyone. Communities have transformed IDP public participation procedures into service delivery-related engagement sessions over time, emphasizing the accountability of municipalities to their constituents (Reddy 2018). 2.4.2 Municipal System Act (MSA) 32 of 2000 According to the Municipal System Act (MSA) of 2000, access to power, water, sanitary facilities, and roads, along with any other needs pertaining to local priority issues, are considered fundamental requirements. In summary, municipalities can improve their service delivery by utilizing the IDP as a tool (SALGA, 2011). The South African Constitution grants municipalities the power to keep an eye on how the government is run (Zwane, 2020). The strategy outlined in Chapter 7, Section 152 of the South African Constitution, Act No. 108 of 1996, reflects the constitutional commitment to establishing a democratic and participatory society where government is based on the will of the people. The preamble of the South African Constitution affirms the objective of laying the foundations for an open and democratic society. Act No. 108 of 1996 emphasizes the National Assembly (NA) as the cornerstone of South Africa's democracy, entrusted with the responsibility to represent the people and ensure governance in accordance with the Constitution. Grant (2018) asserted that greater goals and objectives can be achieved by public involvement (Act 108 of 1996, Section 42(3)). As per Chapter 5, Section 23 of the Municipal Systems Act (MSA), municipalities are mandated to undertake development planning in accordance with the requirements outlined in Section 26, which specifies the essential components of the IDP. This implies that it is 13 mandatory for municipalities to verify that the goals and current initiatives in this domain are consistent with their long-range development plans. The municipality must set up a system of participatory leadership to support formal representative government and encourage community involvement in municipal affairs, such as organizing, submitting, and evaluating IDPs, according to MSA (2000) Section 16. MSA Section 19 states that "When performing its functions and exercising its authority, the municipal council shall create processes for consulting local groups and organizations. Zwane (2020) claims that the IDP aims to effectively coordinate the efforts of local and other governmental sectors in order to raise the living standards of the populace. It ought to take into account the situation as it is now, the difficulties, and the resources available for development. According to Section 16 of the Municipal Systems Act (MSA) of 2000, the municipality is required to establish a system of participatory leadership that supports formal representative government and encourages community involvement in municipal affairs, including the formulation, submission, and appraisal of IDP process. Additionally, Section 19 of the MSA states that the municipal council must establish processes for consulting with local groups and organizations when performing its functions and exercising its authority. Similarly, Zwane (2020) asserts that the primary objective of the IDP is to effectively coordinate the efforts of local and other government sectors in order to improve the living standards of the population. The IDP should take into account the current situation, challenges, and available resources for development. 2.4.3 Amended Municipal Structures Act, Act 117 of 1998 The amended Municipal Structures Act, originally enacted as statute 117 of 1998 and amended in 2021, is a legislation designed to... “…provide for the establishment of municipalities in accordance with the requirements relating to categories and types of municipalities and to further regulate the internal systems, structures and office- bearers of municipalities”. This includes the stipulation that municipalities must implement a participation system with a sub council or ward participatory system, according to the same Act. Additionally, it states that the mayor's duty is to provide an annual report regarding community involvement in municipal matters. Section 19(2)(c) 14 of the Act additionally stipulates that a municipal council has the right to assess its procedures, with regard to community involvement, once a year. The Municipal Structures Act outlines the mechanisms put in place at the local level to guarantee efficient governance. These mechanisms include ward council members, council committee members, mayoral committee members, and other structures that make sure community needs are met. The Madibeng local municipality should set up its structures under the Municipal Structures Act (1998) in order to encourage public participation by integrating its larger settlements into the municipal system. 2.4.4 The White Paper on Local Government The fulfilment of fundamental needs is essential for both economic development and a higher standard of living. Regardless of whether or not people have jobs, the community can access these services. According to The White Paper of 1998, access to adequate basic services is not only a constitutional requirement but also essential for individuals to support their families, secure employment opportunities, enhance their skills, and establish small businesses. Thus, it is the primary responsibility of municipal governments to ensure that citizens' rights to equality and freedom are respected. As an increasing number of individuals perceive local government as a source of hope in addressing community concerns, it becomes crucial to ensure the fulfilment of its mandate. The paper places a strong emphasis on community engagement as a means of promoting social and economic progress. It does, however, caution that everyone involved in the job will need to put in a great deal of effort and perseverance to make this happen. The 1998 white paper on local government emphasizes the importance of IDP in facilitating prioritization and enabling the integration of municipal development plans through enhanced collaboration between public agencies and key stakeholders in decision-making processes (Cash & Swatuk, 2010). It outlines the establishment of an internal performance management system by the municipality, which would be assessed and evaluated within the framework of social and economic development goals. The achievement of the goals outlined in Section 152 of the Constitution by local government is facilitated through the establishment of municipal IDPs. One instrument utilized by local governments to carry out their development responsibilities is the IDP 15 Municipal plans known as integrated development plans are designed to manage a jurisdictional region's rights and obligations in an integrated manner (Craythorne, 2006; Adonis & van der Walt, 2017). Municipalities may ensure that they are providing effective and efficient services to their citizens by using the IDP as a tool. The White Paper (1998) recommends that towns have a wide enough range of service delivery options to meet their needs in terms of coverage, cost, quality, and socioeconomic considerations, including the objectives of the municipality. Individuals who pay for services, particularly residents in urban areas, have expectations of receiving the necessary assistance they require. Local governments can use an IDP as a tool to implement regional and national goals locally (Madumo & Koma, 2019). It is imperative that the Integrated Development Plan be implemented accurately and impartially. IDPs need to be considerate of the needs and developmental challenges of the general public. Therefore, extensive research suggests that the municipality is constitutionally obligated to deliver long-term, high-quality services to the individuals residing within its jurisdiction. 2.5 Importance of public participation in IDP process Various works of literature have been produced regarding the function of public involvement in the governance of municipalities. A study conducted by Mathebula (2018), found that the formulation of IDPs lacks a people-driven approach, leading to inefficiencies in carrying out and delivering services as envisioned by the law, particularly in terms of including the public. Yet, Rowe and Frewer (2017), public participation is the engagement, communication, and decision-making input of citizens within different democratic state institutions and structures, particularly at the local level. This also extends to members of civil society. It entails bringing the public into the decision-making, agenda-setting, and policy-development procedures employed by institutions or organizations tasked with policy creation. This is in line with Southall's (2020) argument that public involvement implies that individuals should participate in decision-making processes because they understand their own needs and because they generally think that decisions made on their behalf will be superior to those made on behalf of others. 16 To comprehend the importance of issues and make a meaningful contribution, people need to be able to participate in those that directly affect their lives. In addition to serving as a means to an end in and of itself, public involvement also fosters the growth and development of an individual's ability to actively disrupt or affect service delivery processes. This is consistent with Mandiyanike (2017) who discussed that public participation plays a significant role in shaping the funding, resource allocation, and spending transparency of local governments. The Constitution mandates a high level of transparency, public access, and public involvement in legislative processes, which includes specific provisions that further enhance the functions, public engagement, and representative nature of the legislatures. Dyum (2020) argued that this type of involvement (public participation) promotes cooperation among non-profit organizations, community structures, and civil organizations and activists. The alliance created by sharing a same objective can help government institutions advance any planning projects and is effective for transforming any community. Additionally, Smith (2003) emphasizes the importance of forging community coalitions in order to prevent conflict between members of the community or local government organizations. The principles and ideals of public participation, as outlined by Ben-Zeev (2017), emphasize the importance of ensuring that public input has an impact on decision-making, consulting and including those affected by decisions, and promoting sustainable decision-making by addressing the needs and interests of all stakeholders, including decision-makers. Dyum (2020) suggests that encouraging public involvement in local government planning can enhance overall public engagement and foster collaboration for the benefit of all parties involved. This approach fosters collective decision-making within a legal framework. However, it is crucial to implement public involvement practices effectively to avoid empowering only certain individuals or reinforcing the ideologies of a privileged few. Marais (2017), highlighted that preserving and safeguarding the process of public involvement, is essential for fulfilling its original purpose, as it allows citizens to influence progress. It is expected of citizens to participate in public participation processes in order to exercise their democratic right. According to Marais (2017), public participation is an approach that needs to be carefully maintained if effective IDP formulation is to be carried out because it allows citizens to have an impact on development. This is in line with the findings of Erftemeijer & Bualuang (2002), who suggested that participation 17 of the community in decision-making raises the possibility of successful local initiatives and services. Dlamini & Reddy (2018) argue that rather than being dictated by delivery institutions or departmental bureaucracies, service delivery should be structured around the demands of end users. Further, municipalities, the private sector, and local governments are responsible for ensuring that services are rendered at a high degree. The Constitution mandates that the municipality offer the residents living under its jurisdiction trustworthy, superior services. Studies conducted by Adonis & van der Walt (2017), Mathebula (2018), and Asha & Makalela (2020) have found that South African local authorities often encounter challenges and difficulties in implementing effective public participation processes and the lack of accountability shown by officials when they occasionally fail to carry out their legally mandated duties in violation of democratic principles. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the IDPs effectiveness as a tool in light of this literature. Public participation in local government planning is anticipated to serve as a potent tool, significantly enhancing public involvement and promoting cooperation among stakeholders for the good of all parties involved (Wüst 2022). It will guarantee that harmony reigns and that choices are made jointly and are legally binding. This body of work aligns with the findings of Dyum (2020) who conducted an analysis of mandatory legislative processes and public opinion to examine the nature and extent of public participation in the development of the IDP document. As a result, research suggests that stakeholders involved in the IDP process should effectively and collaboratively engage with residents, ensure inclusivity, and address any barriers to facilitate a smooth transition during these interactions. Smith (2003) asserts that public participation can enhance policy effectiveness and facilitate the exchange of relevant information, thereby addressing legitimate concerns. It is crucial to involve residents in the planning process, as they possess valuable local expertise and are directly affected by efforts to improve and transform their current circumstances. Brinkerhoff et al. (2011) corroborate this perspective, highlighting how the IDP consultation and compilation process fosters support, legitimacy, transparency, and responsiveness by prioritizing citizen participation and 18 influence in decision-making. Building upon this literature, the present study recognizes the crucial role of public participation in the IDP process. The formulation of the IDP is regarded as a transformative tool that promotes public involvement in decision-making (Dinbabo, 2014; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Ile and Dinbabo, 2015). Increased citizen participation is justified by highlighting the benefits and quality of the IDP process. The consultation and compilation of the IDP prioritize support, legitimacy, transparency, and responsiveness, with a strong emphasis on citizen engagement and influence in decision-making (Brinkerhoff et al., 2011; Molaba, 2016). Upholding democratic processes and ethical governance is crucial, although challenges may arise even with the anticipated benefits. The objective of public participation is to foster an equitable and just relationship between individuals, society, and the government. This is particularly emphasized in democratic societies that prioritize wealth distribution and equal opportunities as the foundations of society. Such societies strive for a fair and equitable approach to public engagement on matters that affect them. Social justice is a universal concept but holds particular significance at the local level, within municipalities, in addressing issues related to resource distribution and combating unfair treatment based on factors such as ethnicity, culture, language, sexual orientation, religion, and political affiliation. 2.5.1 Municipalities and developmental service delivery In accordance with Section 153 of the Constitution (1996), a municipality must structure and manage its administration, budgeting, and planning processes to give priority to the basic needs of the Community and promote both social and economic development of community, which supersedes all laws in South Africa. Water, sanitation, power, roads, and any other necessities pertinent to local priority issues are listed as basic needs in the MSA of 2000 (Tshikovha, 2006). Providing users with the services they requested or needed is known as service delivery (Dlulisa 2013; Majikijela 2007). The IDP serves as a crucial tool to ensure the effective and efficient provision of services by municipalities to their communities. After all, municipalities use the IDP as a tool to enhance their service delivery (SALGA, 2011). Therefore, the IDPs created by local municipalities should be used as a tool to support the sustainable development of both urban and rural areas by addressing service delivery backlogs 19 as well as high unemployment and poverty rates. The fulfilment of fundamental needs is essential for both economic development and a higher standard of living. In order to enhance service delivery, the White Paper (1998) emphasizes the importance of towns adopting a suitable combination of service delivery options that take into account factors such as coverage, cost, quality, and socioeconomic considerations aligned with the municipality's goals. Regardless of whether or not people have jobs, the community can access these services. In addition to being a constitutional requirement, access to adequate basic services is essential for individuals to support their families, secure employment, enhance their skills, or establish small businesses (The White Paper, 1998). However, South Africa faces significant challenges with regards to service delivery, resulting in a considerable backlog (Mahlaku, 2007). According to Dlamini & Reddy (2018), local municipalities are required to give their communities services that are a priority, well- informed by a collaborative process, and sustainable. This is supported by Clark, (2011) service delivery protests have been common in South African towns for the past few years. Communities have voiced complaints about towns' poor performance in providing basic services. Therefore, there is still no solution to the problem of poor service delivery. The Integrated Development Plan is one of the strategic instruments set up to help local authorities speed up service delivery. Improvement and expedited delivery of municipal basic services are the primary goals of IDP (Maake, 2016; Mathebula, 2018). Asha & Makalela (2020) support the notion that local government plays a crucial role in ensuring effective delivery of services and essential infrastructure. They argue that the successful fulfilment of the developmental responsibilities entrusted to local government requires the implementation of robust strategic tools and sufficient administrative capacity. According to recent research by Asha & Makalela (2020), South African local municipalities have been using IDP to improve the delivery of essential services in their areas of authority. However, practically all South African municipalities continue to struggle with the problem of service delivery (Dikotla, Mahlatji, & Makgahlela 2014). This is because many towns in South Africa have a history of providing inadequate essential household services, such as water, power, sanitation, and garbage removal (Beyers 2015). Residents have expressed their anger and displeasure in many sections of the nation through intermittent violent service delivery protests, which have 20 caused social upheaval and political difficulties. Therefore, literature has recommended that municipalities should emphasize their involvement in development with a view to overcome the apartheid era's centralized and fragmented planning procedures. 2.6 Suitability of Integrated Development Plan in fostering service delivery Regarding the suitability of IDP in promoting service delivery, the research offers contrasting results. The White Paper on Local Government (1998) states that the IDP is regarded as one of the primary tools available to local government in addressing its newfound developmental responsibilities. In order to sustainably ensure that services are provided to communities, the IDP compels local governments to proactively plan local development. This is consistent with Mmamodikwe (2022) who outlined that the primary objective of the Integrated Development Plan is to expedite service delivery and promote sustainable local development, thus contributing to the peace-building process. Furthermore, it encompasses a five-year financial, implementation, and action plan and it serves as a valuable point of reference for municipal management when making decisions pertaining to planning and development processes. Sinxadi & Campbell (2015) contend that the IDP plays a crucial role in enhancing municipal service delivery by establishing key developmental goals that are translated into initiatives and programs aimed at addressing the underlying causes and visible manifestations of service delivery accumulations and postponements. This agrees with and Asha & Makalela (2020) who found that in South Africa IDP is highly important for the municipality as it serves as a tool for eradicating service delivery backlogs because it directs an order in terms of the municipal planning. This literature points that IDP addresses the intended needs of the communities and that is through the community-based planning. Dlamini and Reddy (2018) highlight that the IDP, in accordance with the Constitution (1996) and the Municipal Systems Act (2000), places the responsibility on South African municipalities to provide essential services such as sanitation, healthcare, electricity, and well-maintained roads. These services are vital for maintaining an acceptable standard of living, protecting the environment, and ensuring public health. Wüst (2022) also argues that municipalities have a broad range of duties beyond 21 service delivery, and the IDP plays a role in fulfilling these responsibilities. On the other hand, Harrison (2006) argues that IDPs are inadequate in addressing the pressing issues faced by South African cities characterized by division and inequality. Furthermore, due to issues such as poor resource management, inadequate monitoring and evaluation of IDP projects and programs, and limited stakeholder participation, including the community, the effectiveness of the IDP in South African municipalities has been questioned (Dlamini & Reddy, 2018; Nwafor, 2019; Mathebula, 2018). However, Raga et al. (2012) emphasize the significance of the IDP in helping municipalities prioritize the most critical needs of the local community and effectively utilize available resources. The IDP serves as a tool for identifying underserved areas and attracting funding from public institutions and private investors. They also argue that active participation from key stakeholders in the decision-making process enhances democracy. Despite these arguments, there have been complaints regarding the IDP's failure to improve service delivery (Tsheola & Mokgokong, 2012). The general population expresses increasing dissatisfaction with the quality of services, and poor service delivery continues to persist in many local municipalities. This supports Kanyane's (2019) assertion that the IDP has failed to achieve its intended goals, potentially obstructing service delivery and leading to protests in the region (Chauke & Mathebula, 2019). Maphunye & Mafunisa (2008) conducted a study examining the relationship between the IDP and public participation process in South Africa's new democracy, specifically focusing on the role of public participation in IDP processes. The study identified challenges such as ineffective and limited public participation in the IDP process. Similarly, Asha & Makalela (2020) found various problems with the suitability of the IDP, including inadequate funding, incomplete projects, lack of community involvement, political interference, and capacity limitations. This aligns with Mathebula's (2018) argument that the IDP, constrained by the five-year tenure of MPs, often fails to achieve long-term objectives due to short-term decision-making driven by political ambitions. It suggests that the primary motivation behind the IDP may be political rather than serving the community's original objectives. Mathebula (2018) and Makalela (2020) further contend that the input from the public is not effectively utilized during the IDP process, and consultations with the community are often merely done 22 to meet the requirements of the Municipal Systems Act (2000). Consequently, communities may be misinformed during public participation, leading to flaws in the IDP process and the failure to create an inclusive society (Connelly, 2010; Aylett, 2011). This literature is consistent with Moletsane (2012), who highlights that while the IDP has been identified as a mechanism to expedite service delivery in South Africa, its effectiveness has been met with mixed responses due to various limitations in its formulation. These studies collectively point to the ineffectiveness of the IDP as a tool, which sets the background for the present study that aims to assess the effectiveness of the IDP using the case of Dr KKDM. A recent study conducted by Asha & Makalela (2020) focused on the challenges faced by the Lepelle-Nkumphi Municipality in implementing the Integrated Development Plan and delivering services in the Limpopo province of South Africa. The study aimed to investigate the difficulties encountered by the municipality in implementing the IDP and providing services. The researchers used a purposive sampling technique to select participants, and qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data. The participants included 15 municipal representatives, the IDP steering committee, ward council members, and committees. The collected data were analyzed using qualitative thematic content analysis. The study revealed that the improvement of service delivery and essential infrastructure is dependent on effective adoption and implementation of the IDP. However, the municipality faced various administrative and management challenges during the implementation process. The study concluded that the inefficient implementation of the IDP has posed significant disruptions to service delivery in the municipality. Key challenges identified in the study included resource constraints, unfinished projects, limited community involvement, political interference, and capacity limitations. Consequently, the municipality's implementation strategy and service delivery have not been fully achieved. Considering the aforementioned difficulties, it is recommended that the municipality prioritize increasing community involvement in the planning and implementation process. Additionally, the municipality should focus on enhancing its organizational capacity to optimize resource utilization and improve implementation and service delivery outcomes. 23 In their study, Maphunye & Mafunisa (2008) examined the role of public participation in the IDP procedures and explored the relationship between the IDP and the public participation process in South Africa's new democracy. The study found absence of meaningful and effective public participation in the IDP process is a problem with their conclusions in this research. According to Ababio (2004), there is a concern regarding the level of community participation in municipal matters, especially in long-term planning, as many South Africans do not actively engage in government issues. The authors highlighted the existing reality where officials or experts are appointed to create IDPs without ensuring meaningful community involvement in the process. Therefore, lack of community participation is not necessarily due to government laws or requirements but rather stems from a lack of personal motivation or perceived need among individuals. A study conducted by Murombo (2008) in South Africa focussed on factors other than the institutional and legal framework also influence public involvement, such as the socio-economic standing of the country's population and interest groups. The aforementioned variable and the invited spaces both influence the level of public participation (Murombo, 2008). During tense situations, issues that require public opinion are often directed through bureaucratic channels in order to mitigate potential public reactions. However, the governance of this process, including the various entities involved, does not adhere to legal standards for public engagement (Ababio, 2004). Many communities lack sufficient information to actively participate in the IDP process, leading to limited contributions from their side. Consequently, local government officials may disregard community opinions, which often leads to service protests and demonstrations. This lack of trust in the government, exacerbated by increasing corruption and declining political influence in society, necessitates the exploration of new forms of public engagement, such as process dialogues, to address these challenges. In a recent study by Maseng (2021), the factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of the Integrated Development Plan in the Mahikeng local municipality were investigated. The study aimed to identify the reasons behind the numerous illegal protests against poor service delivery in the municipality. The study found that while demonstrating against poor service delivery, some residents continue to perish. Therefore, given that it has an impact on the majority of towns nationwide, this is a pressing issue that 24 requires immediate attention. Since Mahikeng is the provincial capital of North West, enhancing the quality of life there will have an impact both locally and nationally as well as provincial. 2.6.1 Lack of capacity within municipalities The IDP is recognized as a strategy that promotes an integrated and participatory approach, requiring legal consultations with all relevant sectors and stakeholders who may be affected (Cash & Swatuk, 2010). Stewart (2016) explains IDPs as an advantage for a society where the general public is enabled to engage with the state's institutions critically and participate in immediate decision-making on matters that directly impact them. However, Akinboade, et al. (2013) and Makalela (2016) found that municipalities still struggle to deliver services despite efforts made by the provincial and federal government spheres to strengthen local planning capacity by implementing the IDP process. Recent literature (Asha & Makalela, 2020; Dlamini & Reddy, 2018; Nwafor, 2019; Mathebula, 2018) has raised concerns about the incapacity of municipalities to effectively enhance service delivery through the implementation of IDPs in local municipalities. Dlamini, & Reddy (2018) discussed although the municipality is required by law to ensure that public engagement processes and mechanisms are used to take into account the needs of the communities, particularly the impoverished and marginalized, when designing its IDP. It appears that community consultations are not properly and substantively carried out in the development of IDPs and have insufficient influence over official policy and service delivery goals. Everatt, Marais & Dube (2010) reaffirm this point, arguing that due to limited capacity by municipalities public input occurs only infrequently during the eight to ten months that the IDP process takes. This literature shows incapacity of the municipality to facilitate public participation in IDP processes. Thus, there is need for national and provincial governments acting decisively to address capacity and skills for the local implementation process in light of the capacity problems local authorities are facing. 25 2.7 Shortcomings of the IDP Motingoe (2011) highlighted a limitation of the IDP, stating that instead of being a comprehensive and long-term plan for growth within the municipality's jurisdiction, the IDP lacks sustainability and continuity as pointed out by the Ministerial Advisory Committee. On another hand, Reddy (2018), discussed that during the implementation phase of the IDP, there seems to be a lack of consultation between municipalities and communities. This lack of consultation hampers the proper prioritization of projects and the customization of budgets, resulting in difficulties in delivering services in line with the approved projects outlined in the previous IDP. According to Maseng (2021), the effectiveness of the IDP is hindered by its association with politicians' five-year terms, which prioritize short-term decision-making driven by political ambitions rather than the original goal of serving the community. This leads to a deviation from the long-term objectives of the IDP. Furthermore, Maseng (2021) argues that community input is not effectively utilized throughout the IDP process, and consultations with communities are often conducted merely to meet the requirements of the Municipal Systems Act (2000). This results in a defective IDP process that fails to achieve its goal of fostering an equitable society. In some cases, communities are misled during public consultation processes, indicating that the methods employed in the formulation of the IDP undermine the purpose of public participation. Consequently, the IDP process and its outcomes fall short of fulfilling the intended purpose of promoting development-oriented planning (Connelly, 2010; Aylett, 2011). According to Mojapelo (2007), there is a lack of specification regarding the desired level of community participation in the actual development process of the IDP. It seems that partial involvement was prioritized over fully participating. This agrees with Phago (2009) who discussed that many issues have arisen as a result of inadequate stakeholder involvement in the preparation of the IDP, including inadequate local participation and political interference in the IDP's formation. It is crucial that local communities take control of local development The introduction of council committees, which must serve as a direct conduit between the municipality and communities, it was intended to improve communication strategies between the two groups. However, given the level of expressed dissatisfaction, it is unclear whether this improvement is actually occurring (Mbuyisa, 26 2013). Despite the explicit provisions for community involvement in the IDP process, there is still a prevalence of protest actions that define the interactions between communities and municipalities, as seen in the case of the Dr. KKDM. The frequent occurrence of protests raises concerns about the connection between the priorities identified by communities in their IDP engagements and the subsequent service delivery, or lack thereof, which they challenge through protests. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the community participation procedure in the IDP processes, where service delivery needs are meant to be addressed through collaborative engagement between the target communities and the municipality. (Booysen 2007; Alexander 2010 & Von Holdt, & Kirsten, 2011). 2.8 Challenges that hinder public participation in IDP process Dyum (2020) asserts that there may be challenges that demoralize office holders or practitioners. Both officials and citizens may not understand the modalities of participation, which could cause the consultation's aims to change. The frustrated public often perceives local government as a quick solution to numerous social problems. However, they frequently find themselves subjected to plans imposed by political forces or a select few elites, leading to a sense of opportunism within underdeveloped and disadvantaged communities (Wittes, 2016). This opportunism takes advantage of the vulnerable state of these communities, who are primarily seeking immediate benefits. In such situations, exploitation becomes rampant, with individuals in positions of authority prioritizing their self-interests over the well-being of the communities they serve. In general, government and legislative efforts to engage the public often fall short of widely recognized best practices for participation (Buccus, 2021). This aligns with Hopolang’s (2017) explanation that the challenges faced by South Africa in implementing its public policies are rooted in systematic problems related to the lack of consultation and participation in policy choices across all levels of government (national, provincial, and local). This observation supports the aforementioned argument. 27 2.8.1 Time constraints A study conducted by Brynard et al. (2019), public participation in decision-making processes poses challenges as it requires significant time and effort to satisfy all parties involved, including key stakeholders, politicians, and the general public. Doyle's (2017) study on citizen engagement in the IDP process identified a lack of time as one of the main barriers to effectively involving citizens. Waterhouse (2019) further emphasized that the geographical aspect and timing present significant challenges in establishing efficient public participation. The location of local government offices, vast rural areas in the country, and associated costs and travel time often limit people's ability to physically engage with local government. Thus, review of literature has indicated that municipalities are having challenge of time constraints with regards to facilitating IDP processes (Maake, 2016). The limited time in which the IDP out to be developed and length of the development process also limits effective participation. As Reddy & Dlamini (2018) point out, the IDP development process entails a number of steps because municipalities are required to conduct a situational study of the current setting in their area of jurisdiction as the first step of the IDP implementation process. Mathebula (2018) discussed that the process of public participation is time consuming which include, establishment of a shared vision and objectives for the short-, mid-, and long-term among various stakeholders is emphasized in the second step of the implementation process. The selection and approval of the IDP projects and the evaluation of whether the IDP complies with the requirements of the legal framework is the final step in the implementation of the IDP process. This long process has been a challenge in the participation of public because time resource seems to a limited in the formulation of IDP framework. 2.8.2 Inadequate funds to facilitate public participation Doyle (2017) discovered that a significant challenge related to the lack of funding, resources, and capacity is that only those with sufficient financial means, resources, and capacity are able to participate in public engagement forums. Adequate funding is crucial for facilitating effective public engagement and promoting dialogue among the various societal elites about the lives of all citizens. However, this dialogue often 28 neglects the most critical individuals in South Africa—the ones living in poverty and deprivation. This corresponds with Hopolang's (2017) assertion that local government institutions face resource limitations when attempting to ensure the participation of underrepresented groups in legislative processes. This shows that the municipality lacks the resources to meet the severe needs of the communities, which is primarily due to the communities' failure to pay for certain municipal services (revenue collection), such as garbage collection, property taxes, and water. Valeta & Walton (2008) argued that a municipality's inadequate allocation of funds to a range of development projects and programs under an IDP has an adverse impact on how successfully it plans. This means that municipality’s ability to effectively design and implement the IDP to carry out its responsibilities depends in large part on its capacity to allocate public resources in a way that promotes development and sustainability (Phago, 2009). The literature shows that the municipality encountered financial challenges during the processes of IDP. 2.8.3 Poor communication and lack of information flow about IDP Friedberg et al. (2018) emphasized the significance of communication as the lifeblood of accountability and a crucial factor in facilitating public participation. Effective communication plays a vital role in enabling transparent and informed engagement between municipalities and the public. Ogentaal (2007) similarly argued that the lack of effective communication is a primary reason why many municipalities struggle to operate effectively. This means that poor communication has been due to language used in public meetings presents another difficulty considering the diversity of official languages spoken during public address. This makes the difficulty in communicating opinions, this reality raises questions concerning how communication is handled in meetings. This obstacle makes it difficult to reach consensus during meetings and could endanger business. Dyum (2020) recently found that most community members may decide not to attend similar public meetings in the future if they are unhappy with the proceedings or they may interrupt the meeting by claiming that the officials are staging it and already know what they want. Buccus (2021) supports this literature by highlighting that in the majority of government bills, departmental reports, and draft policies, which form the basis of many participation processes, the information is 29 predominantly available in English. There is a limited availability of these documents in local languages, and they are rarely accompanied by "plain language" explanations that simplify the often complex legal and technical content. Sachikonye (2018) highlights that language barriers are often cited as a significant obstacle to public participation, particularly in the context of Zimbabwe. This obstacle hinders individuals from actively participating in meetings and discussions due to a lack of understanding of the language used. Additionally, Mandiyanike et al. (2017) note that the majority of people only engage in local government decisions that directly affect them, such as when there are increases in rates and taxes. Moreover, the limited number of individuals who choose to participate, regardless of direct impact, often fail to represent the broader public because citizen participation tends to be dominated by a select few local and elite individuals (Mandiyanike et al., 2017). This is consistent with Mmamodikwe (2022) who found that problems with transportation to meeting locations, lack of professionals to translate papers for the communities (i.e., language translation), particularly in rural regions, are some of the key causes of decreased public participation. Mbuyisa (2013) also confirmed the prevalence of poor communication flow from the authorities, arguing that, information-sharing instruments such as newsletters, yearly general meetings, information hubs or support centres, and strategic partnerships with various community stakeholders seem to be given more importance by municipalities. 2.8.4 Tension between stakeholders Dyum (2020) argued that when public meetings for IDP process are called, there are tension as the struggle for power will loom large because there are frequently conflicts in the community between lobby organizations. As a result, their security can never be guaranteed, endangering all citizens, but notably the elderly. Therefore, regardless of the significance of a meeting, community members may decide not to attend any meetings. As a result, unresolved community conflicts are likely to postpone public consultation meetings intended to incorporate public opinions into the IDP document. According to Tsatsire et al. (2010), effective intergovernmental interactions are essential to the effectiveness of local governments' implementation of the IDPs. According to anecdotal evidence, municipalities must first position themselves to 30 achieve complete integration and coordination of sector-specific plans in the IDPs before beginning to implement IDPs (Beyers, 2015). However, according to Mojapelo (2007), sector plans are typically created as autonomous, stand-alone plans, which leads to fragmented initiatives and programs that do not entirely advance the municipality's vision. As a result of individuals in many poor neighbourhoods feeling discouraged by the one-sidedness of IDP processes (Kersting, 2013). Myers (2017) argued that IDP process is strongly influenced by partisanship and political influence. Politicians frequently alter the procedures that are required by law to avoid upsetting the crowd (Myers, 2017). Available literature shows that South Africa has seen a pushback against 'protocol' involvement politics in developmental channels that is quickly expanding. Furthermore, Mlambo and Kapingura (2019) discovered that a significant portion of the public lacks awareness and knowledge regarding the overall function and purpose of the IDP, as well as the organizational structure and operational procedures associated with it. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding about the framework for public engagement in the IDP process. Mlambo and Kapingura (2019), discussed that the success and effectiveness of the Integrated Development Plan as a government instrument are closely tied to its ability to garner support and acceptance from stakeholders. The capacity of the IDP to fulfill its mandate is particularly crucial in the politically charged environment in which this oversight function is carried out. The independence of local governments to respond to public input are severely impacted by political environment, especially when those inputs conflict with the prevailing political perspective on a given subject. This observation aligns with the findings of Matsilele (2020), who recognized that politicians often find themselves caught in conflicts between elected political authorities and administrative authorities within the legislature. As a result, it becomes challenging for individuals to engage effectively in public participation processes. Additionally, Thoose (2017) emphasized that individuals who are seen as supporting the government's viewpoint on a particular issue are targeted with information and sometimes provided with financial or practical support to participate. This practice has raised concerns among citizens regarding the fairness and impartiality of the engagement process. The effect is that services are supplied where they are not supposed to be, which delays their delivery. Beyers (2016) discussed that in order to address the aforementioned planning and implementation issues, municipalities must review and 31 genuinely produce credible IDPs that take into account the real concerns of the people while keeping clear distance from various office holders of the municipality. A thorough review of recent literature indicates that political interfering and tension becomes the problems that the municipality struggled with during the process of IDP. 2.9 Chapter summary The reviewed literature demonstrates that the IDP serves as a legislative framework that enables the establishment of democratic and accountable local governance. The Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998, as amended, and the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, provide strong support for this transition. These acts play a crucial role in shaping the implementation of the IDP and facilitating the development of transparent and participatory local administration. These Acts emphasize community involvement while defining the rights and obligations of regional municipalities. The South African legislature emphasize the importance of including residents in the planning of events in the municipality they live in, particularly when it comes to service delivery and performance management. This chapter has provided a comprehensive review of relevant literature from both global and local sources regarding public participation. Through the examination of multiple perspectives from various authors concerning citizen involvement in the delivery of local government services, it becomes evident that citizen engagement is crucial. It serves as a means to uphold the principles of democracy, ensuring that the voices and interests of the public are taken into account in decision-making processes and the delivery of services. The chapter reviews both the theoretical and empirical literature. The chapter summarise what has already been discussed in ones’ field, both to demonstrate limitations of the IDP. The chapter also highlight knowledge gaps, problems or shortcomings in existing research to show the original contribution present research. The definition of IDP was reviewed, South African legislative frameworks that underpin IDP, importance of public participation in IDP process and the literature will also review suitability of Integrated Development Plan in fostering service delivery. The research methodology is presented in the following chapter. 32 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology 3.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to explicate the chosen theoretical framework for this study and also detail the research methodology adopted for this study. In terms of the theoretical framework discussion, this is a key component as it indicates the theoretical framework which the study utilises to guide its data collection and ultimately of analyse the data collected. The applicability of the chosen theoretical framework to this study is also discussed in detail in this chapter. As such, the justification of why this particular theoretical framework was adopted for this study and the implications of using this theory to position the study to be responsive to the research question and the subsequent research sub-questions are explicated. The chapter also details the research methodology used in this study. Along with the research methodology, this chapter also discusses the research approach. Furthermore, this chapter presents the research design, target population, sampling frame and techniques, and sample size. The data collection instruments, data analysis techniques, trustworthiness of the study, the limitations of the study and ethical considerations are also deliberated upon in this chapter. 3.2 Theoretical framework A theoretical framework is a structure for understanding, organizing, and interpreting a research problem or phenomenon (Yin, 2018). It consists of established theories, concepts, and principles that serve as the foundation for the study. 3.2.1 People Centred Development theory This study aligns with the People-Centered Development Theory, as proposed by Korten (1984), which aims to elucidate the participation and engagement of all stakeholders involved. The theory emphasizes the importance of fostering local 33 communities' autonomy, promoting social justice, and facilitating their participation in decision-making processes related to development. Additionally, it emphasizes the need to identify roles, responsibilities, accountability, and procedures among community members (Dinbabo, 2014). The People-Centered Development Theory recognizes that sustainable social and economic growth cannot be achieved without active community participation. It is concerned with overseeing the management of local resources, the implementation of plans, mediation whenever there are contentious ideologies surrounding the provision of services, the planning of infrastructure, the development routes, and ensures that the public-state relationship is efficiently adjusted to ensure mutual benefit (Adeniyi & Dinbabo, 2016; Fakir, 2007). Given that this study focuses on the limitation of a mechanism intended to facilitate developmentally-oriented planning i.e., the IDP, that is anchored in legislation (the Municipal Systems Act of 2000) that makes it a legal requirement for its development to include the input of manifold stakeholders, the chosen theoretical framework becomes applicable. The theoretical framework is applicable because the policy expectation is for local government to be developmental in its posture and ensure the provision of services to ultimately achieve socioeconomic development of communities – service provision that must rectify the historical imbalances and inequalties. As such, through this theoretical framework, deficiencies in the current processes can be assessed based on the assumptions of this theory. 3.2.2 Assumptions of the theory People Centred Development (PCD) theory is based on several key assumptions that shape its approach to development. The following are some of the major assumptions commonly associated with the theory;  PCD assumes that individuals and communities have the capacity and right to actively participate in and shape their own development. It emphasizes the empowerment of people to make decisions, exercise their voice, and take collective action to improve their well-being.  PCD recognizes the significance of socio-cultural contexts in shaping development processes. It acknowledges that development is not a one-size- 34 fits-all approach and that cultural values, traditions, and local knowledge should be respected and integrated into development interventions.  PCD emphasizes the importance of holistic well-being beyond economic indicators. It recognizes that development should encompass social, cultural, political, and environmental dimensions, aiming for improvements in the quality of life, social justice, and sustainable practices.  PCD assumes that participatory processes and inclusive decision-making are essential for sustainable development. It emphasizes the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including marginalized groups, in shaping development agendas, policies, and implementation.  PCD assumes that development efforts should prioritize equity, social justice, and the reduction of inequalities. It seeks to address power