As I see It
Welcome the belated decentralisation of Local Government

With the introduction of the fifth D - 'Delivery,' the current administration has apparently correctly identified Local Government as the critical arm that can deliver services more efficiently and more effectively to the people in the villages in particular; the telegraphic method of communication in the era of the SMS fast-track and  shorthand method is outdated. Centralisation unmonitored degenerates into over-bureaucratisation where there is no forward movement. You have to run to stay on the same spot.

Political will is absolutely essential in getting things done; in other words, it is the key to revving the engine of the political locomotive. In government you need to identify policy priorities and the financial wherewithal will follow; make up your mind what comes first: the military or the police services? Sporadic Ipelegeng programmes or full employment within a set timeline? Food security or food self-sufficiency? President's jaunty caravan or better public transport infrastructure? Education for all or education for the privileged few? At times it need not be either/or, the alternatives may be both or all vital; for example there is absolutely no reason why foreign investment must always be made to trump domestic investment as appears current government policy; such arrangement encourages a debilitating dependency syndrome.   We could take a leaf from a number of countries: Mauritius decided some years after her independence to attain full employment and she has now achieved that. (Full employment in economic terms implies three percent or less of unemployment; Kuwait didn't have to crack her head, the optimal use of her oil resources pointed the way, to the extent that Kuwait has to depend on imported labour because from her own market she cannot cope;  Costa Rica weighed perceived national security against education in her development and decided the military could be dispensed with, while she devoted her attention to human capital potential through education; reports are that the Latin American country is prospering as a result of her robust goodwill.

It is interesting that after decades of self-imprisonment by perceived financial constraints, we are embarking albeit tentatively on our long deferred journey of decentralisation, deconcentration or devolution, call it what you will, of local government; ironically we are undertaking this transformation journey in the midst of a global recession in which the 2010/2011 financial budget estimates have been cut drastically resulting in a record deficit of over P12 billion. The era of budget surpluses has come and gone and now that we do not know when it will return we have summoned pluck to do the right thing, deficit or no deficit.

The slight criticism about the belated renaissance is that in the manner of the current executive way of doing things, the introduction of autonomous sub-district councils is being done in a sneaky manner obviously of the now too familiar route of executive directives. Why did we learn about the scheme from Assistant Minister Honourable Botlogile Tshireletso in January, a month or two after Councillor Raditanka had mentioned it in November/December? Did the directive go first to the chairman of the Central District instead of the Minister and his Assistant? How much preparation preceded this welcome departure?

Evidence of the sneakiness of the introduction of the autonomy of sub-district councils is supported by the fact that there has been no white paper, a product of deliberations by the National Assembly or cabinet; we know of course of the 2001 Moitoi-Venson Report, but was it tabled in Parliament or Cabinet and why was the decision kept under wraps only coming up in the era of deniable directives? My gripe is that the transformation looks rather haphazard for a project of its magnitude and importance. We hear of the sub-district councils meeting at their venues for apparently administrative issues and at the original 'headquarters' for policy issues. What policy issues? Do they have the mandate and latitude to do all that?

Local Government though a recognised tier of government in Botswana, has no constitutional basis. Councils are regarded as executive instruments of central government not tiers of government in their own right. I think we need to correct this anomaly about local government concept by constitutional recognition of this tier in its own right. If we do that then we will give local government councils some autonomy in making policy decisions on how they wish their areas to be governed and developed. Local people will participate in word and deed in the development process of their own areas. Participatory democracy will become alive right where the people are, the cities, towns and villages.

 Of course such development will take place within the framework of central government policies of democracy and botho, in which the constitution will state for instance what services at council level will fall under central government funding and which areas of service councils can fend for themselves. For decentralisation to be workable and pertinent, councils must assume executive powers in which they recruit, train and deploy their own staff, take appropriate initiatives for the good of their communities and are given some latitude for raising revenue for their development programmes. I want to believe that decentralisation will do good to multi-party democracy if it comes as it should with executive mayors /council chairpersons. Incidentally it will then help to reconcile the ruling party and the opposition parties. Currently we know how the BDP can punish opposition-dominated councils by skimping them development funds under the excuse of shortage of funds or recession. Don't forget what the President said publicly during the election campaign in October 2009: 'Vote for BDP candidates for I will find it difficult to work with the opposition.'  Under genuine decentralisation framework, this sort of threat will fall flat on its face!