Did You Know This?

(Nharnet.com is pleased to continue presenting to its readers selected readings on issues opical in Eritrean politics. As noted before, the possible consideration of decentralized system of governance in Eritrea was presented as part of the ELF-RC proposal of January 2003. This principle is now part of the EDA charter that, no doubt, still requires further studies, clarifications and streamlining. With compliments to the Dutch writer, John van der Walle, this material was disseminated in 2002 as part of public service by Netherlands’ KIT Information and Library Services. We wish you good reading.)

***

What is decentralization? Decentralization is the gradual process of transferring power and resources from central government to the lower levels of government, such as the regions, provinces, districts and municipalities. At the same time this process should also create more opportunities for citizens in general to participate at the civil society level. Civil society covers a wide spectrum of individuals and groups, ranging from private sector bodies, trade unions and farmers' organizations, to churches, community organizations, organized pressure groups and the media. At a more advanced stage, the participation process becomes institutionalized when bodies such as municipal councils, for example, are created, for which citizens may elect their own representatives (mayors and councillors). In an ideal situation, these councils will be granted the powers and resources necessary to carry out their local governance tasks effectively. Such councils should be accountable to the citizens they represent in order to provide for proper checks and balances.

Historical perspective: Partly as a legacy of colonial rule, countries in both Africa and Asia initially opted for centrally managed state systems in order to speed up their development process. Likewise, in Latin America, particularly under the military regimes, nations were organized in such a way that the bulk of the power resided at the centre. Since the 1980s, a combination of factors such as a string of economic crises, a growing political awareness among citizens in developing countries and the fall of the Berlin Wall, have forced political leaders to gradually open up the way for some form of decentralization and democratization. Since the late 1970s, international agencies such as the World Bank promoted economic reforms that emphasized stabilization and structural adjustment so that markets could play a more significant role in the economies of developing countries. However, after more than a decade of economic reforms only scattered examples of renewed growth and optimism had been produced. Moreover, even in countries where growth had resumed, the continued weakness of institutions, marked by civil strife and the absence of political pluralism, brought the whole issue of the sustainability of the recovery into question. Increasingly in these circles, good governance has been identified as the missing ingredient in the reforms undertaken thus far. It is an admission that the nature of domestic institutions also has an impact on the outcomes of development, hence the need for decentralization.

Why decentralization? What are the expected outcomes of decentralization? Reaching out to civil society will broaden participation in political, economic and social activities that could strengthen the democratic process even further. Services will be provided more efficiently and effectively. The public sector will be forced to be accountable, increase the transparency of its work processes and become more responsive to citizens´ needs and desires. Particularly with regard to the issue of poverty reduction, marginalized regions and groups in society such as women, the urban and rural pour and ethnic minorities will be given a greater say in matters. Hopefully, this should give them greater access to the political decision-making process thereby ensuring a more equitable distribution of resources. Finally, political stability and national unity would also be created. Many donors have great confidence in the potential that decentralization offers in the design of national development programmes geared towards poverty reduction. The newly introduced Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers create the conditions for a broad level of participation by a variety of stakeholders, from central government officials to the rural poor, to influence the design and implementation of national development programmes.

Obstacles to implementation: Decentralization has had a poor track record so far with only a limited number of applications, despite the benefits it promises to bring, the political will shown by several political leaders and the support given by international donors. Although a lack of capacity and resources have been blamed, they are not the main culprits. As explained above, decentralization should go hand-in-hand with sharing power. However, some actors in the process feel threatened by the radical changes implied by democratic decentralization. For example, politicians may notice changes taking place in their political base and patronage systems. Civil servants may envisage losing control over resource-allocation and their decision-making powers. Reducing poverty might call for income redistribution measures which could damage the interests of richer groups. Consequently, good governance and decentralization cannot be achieved in a vacuum: it is the product of a bargaining process between the various interest groups within a country, and this in itself can be time-consuming and painful at times.

The Dutch experience: Although decentralization has received increasing attention in development co-operation in recent years, the issue is by no means restricted to developing countries. To take an example closer to home, the first steps towards decentralization in the Netherlands were taken centuries ago to combat the threat of water. Waterschappen (water councils) were created as a result of manufacturers, traders and farmers joining forces in order to manage water more efficiently, both for protection and production purposes. However, despite the longstanding track record that the Netherlands has with regard to decentralization, the situation is still by no means ideal as was highlighted only recently by the so-called bouwfraude [building fraud] scandal which rocked Dutch society. Major companies from the Dutch construction industry were accused of forming a cartel to excessively inflate the prices that they charged for building work carried out for the state. The construction firms were effectively using the state's coffers to line their own pockets. It has also been suggested that several high-ranking government officials may have been involved in this scam. However, Dutch democratic systems have been developed so that an independent parliamentary enquiry is currently able to examine this issue, thereby demonstrating that checks and balances are in place.

Dutch development co-operation: The Netherlands supports decentralization processes in the 22 countries with which it maintains long-term structural development co-operation. In some countries, such as Bolivia, India (Kerala State), Tanzania, Uganda and South Africa, local governance/decentralization is chosen as a sector. While in other countries local governance/decentralization is supported as part of the theme of `good governance´: Indonesia, Macedonia and Rwanda. In some instances, local governance/decentralization is viewed as a crosscutting theme as in the case of Burkina Faso, Mozambique and Yemen, whereas in Mali it is part of rural development.

(To be continued in a detailed form.)

Contact Us at: webmaster@nharnet.com