Decentralised UDC govt: Panacea for service delivery or recipe for tribalism?
Edward Mpoloka | Friday May 23, 2014 11:32
The coalition’s draft manifesto states that UDC will have, ‘A government and governance system that is decentralised and close to the people they serve’.
It further states that ‘Public services do not reach the ordinary people or are slow to reach them. Long lines are common in hospitals and clinics’. Writing about decentralisation in Africa, Stephen Ndengwa, academic and researcher finds that, “In nearly all African countries, structures of local administration exist but are often subordinated in their legal creation, mandate and operation to the central state, especially the executive”.
Ndengwa observes that, “In Zimbabwe, Botswana, Lesotho and Tanzania as elsewhere, decentralisation is facing challenges due to the inability of local structures to function without guidance from the centre and to make binding decisions”. Defending their position, the UDC policy director, Ndaba Gaolalthe told Mmegi that both our District Council Act and Township Act deny local authorities any meaningful powers. “You cannot get it right at the top if it is not right at the bottom. Our municipalities are mere talk shops,” he said.
Much as the whole of post-colonial Africa have local governments ostensibly for purposes of service delivery since they are closer to the end-users, the majority are, for all intents and purposes powerless extensions of the central governments especially the central state executive residing in the capital city. Deep decentralisation, envisaged by the UDC, entails a local authority constituted, through regular, free and fair elections, by an executive mayor or governor in the case of a city or region respectively. The mayor or governor runs the sub-national unit with a regional cabinet also duly elected in a democratic process. In this case, the local government has the administrative as well as revenue generating powers and authority to make political decisions. For example, the mayor or governor can hire and fire civil servants without deferring to the national government because they are accountable to the local authority. Unlike in the current set-up where the council secretary accounts to the minister, in a decentralised arrangement, they reports to the mayor. Decentralisation allows local authorities and their communities to be involved in development planning and implementation of the plans. Local communities as well as both national and local politicians from across the political divide have been clamouring for decentralisation for the past twenty years or so. Some governments have devolved powers to quell regional discontent from sections of the nation wanting greater autonomy on account of religious or tribal identity. All in all, researchers attribute the emergence of decentralisation as a principle of governance to, partly, western conditionalities in the 80’s demanding lean and efficient governments, among other things. There are those who say that decentralisation gained prominence in Africa as a rejection of the hitherto all-powerful inefficient and dictatorial governance systems on the continent.
Proponents of decentralisation see it as the most effective exit option from the myriad challenges of service delivery caused by an overly centralised government system. Allegedly, it brings services to hitherto neglected peripheral areas, is inclusive as it engenders popular participation in policy choices. In this regard, decentralisation is supposed to facilitate local diversity and innovation in public service.
It is argued that when a country is split into small administrative units, workload is broken up. The reduction of the line of command in the decision-making process resulting from the autonomy enjoyed by the local units also means that decisions are made much quicker. With less congestion and an administratively, politically and fiscally empowered local unit, theoretically, at least, service is easier to access. In an enhanced grassroots participation where the people can organise, plan and execute plans beneficial to their lives like in a decentralised set-up, decisions are expected to better reflect the interests of the majority. Decentralisation is allegedly democratic and pro-poor because of better suited policies and the enhanced citizen participation. Proponents of decentralisation claim that, increased citizen participation promotes better transparency and reduction in corruption. Ostensibly, this can be achieved through a more effective use of electoral power by the voter.
Not everybody is enthusiastic about decentralisation. Some insist that, there is no automatic relationship between decentralisation and development, and by extension, service delivery. In their view, a lot depends on the genuineness of the central government which determines on how much resources are invested in the project from the onset. Equality critical is the availability of clear guidelines defining the relationship between the national and local governments in terms to avoid situations where the central government may make whimsical decisions.
Recently, in Botswana, we have witnessed the centralisation of hitherto locally provided services such as health and education to the central government.
Admitting the attractiveness of the arguments in favour of decentralisation but contesting the evidence of its practicality, a large front of researchers dismisses pronouncements in support of decentralisation by politicians as a bandwagon effect, at best. In the first instance, even in the few success stories in Africa such as Ethiopia, South Africa and Uganda, it has been found that central governments are reluctant to cede power largely because the ministers do not want to lose their statures and associated perks. Instead, they intend local governments to be malleable instruments in the hands of central government. Besides, national governments do not trust sub nationals because they doubt the latter’s ability to deliver.
More dangerously, decentralisation is said to have the potential to encourage regional or sectarian interests as opposed to national ones. “This is because democratic elections at the regional level may catalyse the expression of divisive demands and exacerbates interregional and interethnic competition for central resources,” says researcher Georgio Brosio. It is not clear what criteria the UDC intends to use for the creation of boundaries for the intended regions. Will it be along tribal lines? Apparently, the problem of competition for resources becomes acute in large but poorly resourced jurisdictions. Many consider it as separatist with the potential to threaten national unity by re-enforcing narrow sectional interests. “Decentralised government institutionalises regional demands and makes them more vocal. At one extreme, it can foster secessionist trends and may, ultimately, tear countries apart,” he continues.