Designing, Deciding, and Defending, Decentralization Policies: Challenges Issues and strategies Presentation for the Ministerial Conference on Leadership Capacity Development for Decentralized Governance and Poverty Reduction in Africa on the theme From Policy to Implementation: Challenges and Strategies for Effective Implementation of Decentralized Governance in Africa Palais des Congrès, Yaoundé, Cameroun, 28-30 mai 2008 By Dr. John-Mary Kauzya (PhD) Chief of Governance and Public Administration Branch United nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, (UNDESA) New York 1
Designing, Deciding, and Defending, Decentralization Policies: Challenges Issues and strategies: (Presentation for the Ministerial Conference on Leadership Capacity Development for Decentralized Governance and Poverty Reduction in Africa on the theme From Policy to Implementation: Challenges and Strategies for Effective Implementation of Decentralized Governance in Africa ): By John-Mary Kauzya (PhD) Introduction: This presentation suggests that some of the challenges and difficulties that countries confront in implementing decentralized governance get created during the process of designing and deciding decentralization policies. In this presentation we will explore and discuss the various challenges that are confronted in the process of designing and deciding decentralization as well as in defending its implementation. We will also discuss some of the strategies (conceptual as well as practical) that can be adopted to address such challenges in order to pave a smoother path for implementing decentralized governance. Challenges can be traced to the mode or mix of modes of decentralization that is adopted, the mutual trust or distrust that is cultivated between leadership and the people, the way the design of decentralized governance takes into account the existing /traditional leadership structures, the multiethnic nature of the society in question, how consensus is engineered on decentralization policies, how issues related to capacity or lack of it are addressed and how financing of decentralized governance is approached. These will be the focal point in the discussion of this paper. Which mode of decentralization: Generally decentralization is understood as a generic term which carries many connotations including devolution, deconcentration, delegation and delocalization 1. One 1 Decentralization is a generic term which covers a number of modes such as the following: (i) deconcentration which refers to the process of administrative decentralization whereby the central government designs a structure that enables its agents to work close to the local people in field units / agencies of central government, (ii) delegation which is the transfer of responsibilities from central government to semi-autonomous bodies that are directly accountable to the central government, (iii) devolution which is the process of transferring decision-making and implementation powers, functions, responsibilities and resources to legally constituted local governments, (iv) delocalization which is the spatial distribution of central government socio-economic development facilities and activities such as schools, hospitals, etc in peripheral regions. Discussion on these terms can be found in: Gay Braibant: Institutions Administratives Comparees: Les Controles (Fondation nationals des Sciences politiques, Services de Polycopies, Paris, 1985-1986 2
of the challenges to be resolved in designing and deciding decentralization concerns which of the many modes of decentralization to apply. Many decentralization policies in Africa (in fact in the world) are designed in a mix of them all. In cases where there is disagreement on the mode of decentralization such agreement should not be taken lightly or as superficial. For examples, Central government s Public Servants may prefer deconcentration believing that it guarantees their bureaucratic power and control over resources. Central government political leadership may prefer deconcentration for the same reason especially depending on the trust shared between the people and central government political leaders. Local communities may prefer devolution believing that it guarantees their empowerment in terms of decision making for choice of local leaders and social economic development. However, some may be doubtful of decentralization, especially devolution, suspecting it to be an excuse for central government to shun its responsibility to develop local level. Therefore, one critical means of striking an agreement on which modes or which mix to apply there is need for all actors especially central government and local communities to put on the table the sincere reasons why they favor which model so that the technical design of decentralization policies takes into account all interests. This is one of the reasons why extensive consultations and sensitization should be done to ensure that decentralized governance and the various modes of decentralization are widely understood and the implications of applying them internalized. The challenge of cultivating mutual trust between leadership and the people At the base of successful decentralized governance lies a sizeable amount of trust between the mutual trust between the people and political as well as technical leadership. Promoting and encouraging people s participation (empowerment through their influence and control of the decision-making process) would require a leadership that trusts the people and a people that trusts leadership especially in government at local and national levels. How this critically needed mutual trust can be cultivated is not a small challenge. pages 89 93) and in Jacques Chevallier, Science Administrative (Presse universitaire de France, Paris, 1986, pages 372-386). See also Charles Debbasch, Science Administrative 5th edition (Dalloz, Paris, 1989, pages 221-237). 3
Indeed most often inadequate trust is behind many of the failures of decentralization policies. The challenge of designing a decentralized governance system that builds on and takes into consideration existing local leadership institutions. We need, in designing decentralization policies and strategies, to realize that even when we have not yet decentralized, there is some form of local community leadership. For example, in some communities there are traditional leaders. We need to design decentralized governance systems which build on the leadership institutions and structures that already exist in the communities, especially if such institutions are positive. This is going to require deeper research to understand the social structure of the communities at local level so that we get to know what type of leadership best engineers such communities into positive developmental action. Challenges related to the multiethnic nature of African societies. Designing decentralized governance includes among other things creating spatial entities with geographical boundaries around which local governments by what ever nature called solidify. Unfortunately in many African countries, there are many ethnic groups often concentrated in given geographic specific areas and demanding that each ethnic group be accorded a local government status. In this context sometimes how to avoid creating a multiplicity of economically unviable local governments becomes a real challenge. Which ethnic group should be accorded a local government status and which ones should not be accorded the status? Which ethnic groups should be within one local government boundaries? Challenge of engineering consensus: First one needs to analyze and understand the stakeholders and actors plus the interests they represent in the process of decentralization. The stakeholders and actors are several and their interests are rarely the same. First the political wing of central government must 4
have the political will to engage in shared exercise of power and authority. Without political will decentralization cannot succeed. Second the bureaucracy of central government (the Civil servants) must be ready and willing to facilitate the process of transferring power, authority, functions, responsibilities and the requisite resources. Without bureaucratic will, there will be many stumbling blocks in the way of decentralization. Third, the society at the grass-roots especially community leadership, however organized, must be capable and willing to receive and utilize the power and authority responsibly for the socio-economic development of the people. Without civic will and capability, the functions transferred through decentralization will not be carried out effectively and the resources transferred will be wasted. In addition, local leadership is likely to behave as local dictators and jeopardize the participatory or even representative democracy that decentralization is intended to achieve. Lastly, since we are dealing with relatively poor countries mostly dependant on donor funds for implementation of decentralization, there has to be willingness on the part of donors and development partners to support decentralization. Donor support for decentralization is not always a given. Challenges related to capacity There is often a debate on whether decentralized governance policies should wait for local capacity to be adequate before they are put in place. This debate is not necessarily misplaced but it often misses the point of answering the question as to who are the actors in local governance and therefore whose and which capacities should be developed. The argument commonly presented is that local people do not have the requisite capacity for managing local governments and therefore functions, responsibilities and resources should not be devolved to them. In most cases such an argument stands in the way of decentralization. Admittedly, it is true that most poor countries, African countries in particular, present peculiar conditions of multiple weaknesses in capacity where their public sector, civil society, and private sector are weak. However, within the argument of capacity building for local governance, this argument carries undertones of colonialism. Since the process of development is a process of capacity building, a country cannot 5
afford to wait for Local Governance Capacity to develop. During the 1950s when Africa started clamoring for political emancipation, the colonial powers at the time were quick to respond that Africans had no capacity to govern themselves. The response from Africa was unanimous. Capacity or no capacity they had a right to determine their destiny. By what God given right are you the British empowered to decide the fitness or otherwise of we Africans to govern ourselves? One of the characters in that famous Novel A Wreath for Udomo by Peter Abrahams 2 asked. It should not be the same African leaders to reject decentralized local governance telling their compatriots that they lack capacity to govern themselves. This would be local colonialism. Development is a process of progressive and qualitative movement from inability to ability, from incapacity to capacity. Therefore it is conceptually normal to start from a point of weak local governance capacity and work towards strong local governance capacity. Without this pre-disposition decentralized governance in most poor countries may never be embarked on. We could use an analogy of building the capacity of a soccer team. It is impossible to build the capacity of a team if the team is not constituted in the first place. It is not possible ever to build the capacity of local governments if local governance structures are not put in place within a clear policy that provides for, among other things, building local governance capacity. How would the capacity of a local council, a local executive committee, a local community development Non Governmental Organization, a local development planning committee etc, develop if such structures were not constituted in the first place? Developing local socio-politico-economic and leadership capacity starts by putting in place local governance institutional arranges that provide rational and ground for local capacity development programs. In addressing issues related to capacity building for local governance the tendency is to focus on local government structures such as local government Councils, Civil servants, Local Government Executive Committees etc. However, local governance includes many more players than these. The appropriate way to approach addressing issues and problems of capacity building for local governance is to first conduct stakeholders and 2 See Peter Abrahams: A wreath for Udomo, (African Writers Series) 6
key players identification and analysis. This would enable us first to know who they are, and second to understand what capacity they possess as well as the capacity they lack. We would propose a stakeholders analysis model that departs from a simple question. Who are the stakeholders and key players in local governance? When it comes to local governance there are many stakeholders and players. They are in the Public sector, in the private sector, in civil society, among donors and development partners, at local community, national, regional and international levels. The capacity or lack of it, for local governance cannot and should not be pinned only on the local community in question. The appropriate pre-disposition for capacity building for local governance is to assess each players capacity vis avis their roles so that each one s capacity is strengthened to play that role effectively. For examples, (i) while in many countries central government authorities hesitate to embark on decentralized governance policies for reasons related to inadequate capacity at local level, it has been discovered that the same central governments do not possess adequate capacity to analyze, formulate, and effectively manage decentralized governance policies. (ii) While many Donors and Development partners have a tendency of blaming local governments of having no capacities to implement local level development projects, it is often the case that the same Donors and Development partners do not have the requisite capacity in terms of understanding and working within local community cultural and social environments to promote community sensitive development. The real situation on the ground in many poor countries is that inadequate capacity is a problem found among almost all players involved in decentralized governance. The difference is in extent and degree to which the capacity is lacking. In the context of an increasingly globalising world, challenges and requirements of capacity building for local governance should always be analyzed and diagnosed taking into account the full range of stakeholders and actors analysis at community, local, national, regional and international level. Capacity building activities including awareness creation for decentralized governance should always include all state holders and players. 7
Challenges related to financing decentralized governance Ability to finance decentralized governance in all its aspects including decentralized delivery of services (such as health, education, agricultural extension, feeder roads, water and sanitation, etc, is indeed part of capacity. However, we have chosen to discuss financing separately to highlight the complex issues it raises. When it comes to financing the production and provision of services the poor countries find themselves in a situation of difficulties where issues of revenue generation, revenue collection and administration, as well as foreign aid management for local level economic development get mingled. The very first challenge for poor countries, given their situation of extremely low incomes, is that of how to encourage the poor to participate in financing the services they need. Most poor populations are quick to agitate for participation but when it reaches the level of participating in the financing they still want some donor or central government to foot the whole bill. Central government on its part gets money from taxes paid by the people. But however efficient and effective a tax system is, if it is taxing a poor population, it will yield poor revenues. There is a limit beyond which a hungry person can not milk a hungry cow. The fundamental problem with most African societies is that they suffer from double weakness. Their central and local governments are weak while at the same time their private and civil society sectors are also weak. This double weakness is not only in terms of resources, human, material and financial, it is also in terms of institutions, systems, information, networking, etc. Conceptually all countries could be placed in four categories as follows: (i)the strong ones where the central and local governments as well as the civil society and the private sector are all strong, (ii)the partly strong ones where the central and local governments are strong but with relatively weak civil society and private sector. (iii)the partly weak ones where central and local governments are weak but civil society and private sector are relatively strong, and (iv)the weak ones where central and local governments are weak as well as civil society and the private sector. Most sub-saharan countries are in this fourth category. Their financial difficulties stem from this fundamental double weakness. 8
But also the financial weakness is aggravated by the way decentralized governance is viewed. If decentralization (local governments) is viewed from an expenditure point of view as a drain on the central government budget, then it will seem a very expensive and often unjustifiable undertaking given the low revenues of poor countries. However, if decentralized governance is designed as strategy for empowering local communities to get out of poverty, then it becomes a revenue generation and resource mobilization strategy for development and not a drain on the central government budget. 9