GOLD Report I - UCLG

271regions increasingly poses what Devas(2005) calls a tradeoff between “scale” and“voice” in governance. The larger the scaleof governance, the more difficult it is to provideeffectively for the participation of localunits, neighborhoods, civil societies or individualcitizens.Indeed, integrated metropolitan structureshave frequently been imposed by authoritariancentral governments. Alongside technocraticefficiency in urban management,non-democratic governments have usedmetropolitan administration to control politically“sensitive” urban regions; that is, thosesuspected of having potential to breed opposition.For example, in 1973 it was the Brazilianmilitary regime that created the ninemetropolitan regions of Belém, Fortaleza,Recife, Salvador, Belo Horizonte, Rio deJaneiro, Sao Paulo, Curitiba and Porto Alegre.Though initially supported and tightlycontrolled by the government, only vestigesof this system remained at the start of the1990s. By then, a new democratization anddecentralization process was well underway.Similarly, the Metropolitan Manila Commissionwas created by the Marcos dictatorshipin 1975, its leadership entrusted to ImeldaMarcos.Association with authoritarian regimes mayexplain why metropolitan governance has toa certain extent been neglected in somecountries. In metropolitan governance systemsthat are based on the functions of specializedagencies, management is mainlycarried out by technicians or bureaucrats.This necessarily reduces democratic control,and with it, legitimacy. Appointed by the Presidentof the Philippines, the MMDA executiveis often politically impotent in the presence ofthe 17 directly elected mayors of the towns inthe metropolitan area. These mayors providefinancial contributions to the metropolitanauthority’s budget.Direct election of a metropolitan executive,as in Tokyo, Bangkok and Jakarta Raya, canenhance the legitimacy of metropolitan politicalinstitutions. South African metropolitantowns are run either by mayors (Johannesburg,Ekurhuleni, Tshwane, and Nelson Mandela)or by executive colleges (Cape Townand Ethekwini). Although the latter are notdirectly elected by the people, they areappointed by the parties according to theirelectoral score. In some cases, only some ofthe representatives are elected by the people.The council of Bombay’s GBMC, forinstance, is elected, but its executive isappointed by the state of Maharashtra.Democracy can be organized on an infra-metropolitanscale. Sub-municipal electedgovernments play an especially importantrole when the municipal government is large.Thus, South African legislation allows provincialauthorities to create either sub-councilsor ward committees. The sub-councils, madeup of municipal councilors and councilorsfrom adjacent wards, perform a consultativerole for the municipal council, which candelegate specific powers to them. Ward committees,made up of the ward municipalcouncilor and representatives of the people,function as instruments of participativedemocracy. Sixteen, then 20 sub-councilshave been created in Cape Town. Ward committeeshave been set up in Johannesburg,Ekurhuleni, Tshwane and Nelson Mandela. Asin many such instances of sub-municipal participation,municipal authorities have generallybeen hesitant to transfer power to thesebodies. Initial assessments of their operationshow only modest participation by local people(Cameron 2005).In the case of the Tokyo TMG, arrangementsfor sub-metropolitan democracy have recentlyprovided greater democratic depth.The mayors of the TMG districts have since1974 been elected directly by the people.Since then, the districts have been transformedfrom administrative entities into specialurban governments that carry out a portionof metropolitan government services. A reformto devolve financial functions and skillsto the districts was adopted in 1998 and tookeffect in 2000. The metropolitan authorityremains responsible for fire-fighting servicesas well as water and sanitation.Electoralinstitutions aloneare rarelysufficient to ensureresponsiveness ordemocracy, recentlocal electoralreforms in manycountries havebeen intendedto extendopportunitiesfor electoralparticipation