Advantages Of Public Participation

suggested by UN-habitat (2001) include: the formation of city associations; number of people’s forums; direct election of mayor; voting turnout in local elections; direct election of city councils; petitions and lastly attendance at committee meetings. There are many advantages of public participation in decision making, namely, it improves project design and effectiveness, enhances the level of impact of a project and contributes to democratization and poverty reduction ultimately leading to good governance (Saibul, 2010). Nzimakwe and Reddy (2008) further note that public participation leads to democratic governance and citizen empowerment, enabling citizens to exercise their human rights and is essential in effective and accountable government.

Participatory governance under the cover of ‘grassroots democracy’ may enable groups with financial resources and organizational strength to pursue their interests whilst leading to the detriment of the urban marginalized (Raymond, 2002). Fraenkel (1974: 139) as cited by Geissel (2009) reveals that the “quality of democracy can be reduced by participatory governance, this occurs when elected elites responsible for representing the public are “led by irresponsible and uninformed stirrings of masses.” Participation is meant to be efficient whilst involving the weakest social sectors, these goals are contradictory as more participation implies more people are involved in decision making, this in turn reduces the chance of reaching an agreement, which undermines the efficiency of the process (Bryld, 2000). Chances of reaching an agreement are reduced because communities are heterogeneous with different set of shared values and unclear identities (Saibul, 2010). Participation of the poor in decision making will not necessary result in inclusion, because more often than not community representatives lack resources, power and technical knowledge to influence the decision making process (Saibul, 2010). Scholars in support of participatory governance assumed that public interest would be better served if citizens participated

It was named the third way approach, it considered the fundamentals of neo-liberalism however it also placed emphasis on community building, participation, inclusion, poverty alleviation and integration (Mohamed, 2009). In theory South Africa has adopted the third way approach to urban governance. However in reality cities favour techno-centric style that disregards public participation and focuses on efficiency and integration (Mohamed, 2009). Harrison (2006) has critiqued the third way approach, his critiques include: the contradicting collaborative governance and performance management, failure to achieve political and socio-economic inclusion of the urban poor. Buccus et al. (2007) further notes that public participation is usually in the form of consultation rather than empowerment of the society. Pierre (2005) reveals that the latest governance approach is concerned with performance and efficiency and neglects democracy and accountability. Neglect of democracy and accountability is a result of exclusive networks, non-transparent and selective participation (Buček, 2014). In the following section, I look at integrated urban governance as it has gained momentum as the new way to deal with complex challenges arising because of globalisation and associated liberalization, mobilisation of goods, information and labour (Schwedler, 2011). Integrated urban