2.7.1 Decentralisation in colonial Africa
There have been multiple attempts at government decentralisation in Africa both before and after the onset of decolonisation in the early 1960s. In some countries, such as Nigeria and Tanganyika (now Tanzania) for example, decentralisation was introduced a decade before independence whilst others adopted decentralisation shortly after independence (Rondinelli, McCullog, & Johnson Donald, 1989; Therkildsen, 1993; Mamdani, 1996a, 1996b; Ribot, 2002, p. 4; Awortwi, 2010). Commencing in the 1930s the British colonial administration introduced a decentralized system of government in their colonies in Africa, as a form of ‘indirect rule’ through traditional authorities. In a similar manner, the French colonial administration adopted decentralisation in what they termed ‘association. However, the type of decentralised administration deployed by the colonial powers typically served as a means to penetrate peripheral rural areas and to manage Africans under their control and had little to do with the empowerment of local populations (Ribot, 2002; Mamdani, 1996a). The justification for the systems of indirect rule and association advanced by colonial ideologues has been discussed extensively in the literature as has been the claim that they served as instruments for local empowerment and community development (Buell, 1928; Alexandre, 1970; Perham, 1968). However, as many have argued, the indirect rule and association policies segregated the majority of Africans under the doctrine of differentiation and created native institutions which were different from those established for Europeans (Mamdani, 1996, p. 7; Ribot, 2002). Furthermore, the native institutions (traditional authorities, customary laws etc.) which were supported were primarily used to rule and control colonial subjects. Nevertheless, over time, the attempts by the colonial rulers to establish the boundaries of districts and to develop urban areas did lay foundations for decentralisation in some post-independence African states (Kasfir, 1993, p. 25). In the closing phases of colonial rule, in particular, departing colonial administrations in colonies like Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana and Tanganyika, left behind some form of democratic institution at the local level in their attempt to prepare these countries for independence (Kasfir, 1993, p. 28). The following
27
section will expand on what happened to these local government institutions after independence.
2.7.2 Decentralisation in independent African states
Upon attaining independence, African states inherited the local government systems formerly adopted by the colonial administrations (Ribot, 2002) and, in the first few years, most simply reproduced the institutions and systems which had been left behind (Mawhood & Davey, 1980; Olowu & Smoke, 1992; Mamdani, 1996; Ribot, 2002, p. 4; Mawhood, 1993). However, the independence constitutions prepared by the colonial rulers prior to their departure assigned various rights to local government which, in the aftermath of independence, came to be seen as undermining the importance of central government and as diminishing its ability to govern effectively (Kasfir, 1993, p.28). As a consequence, from the mid-1960s onwards African governments felt they could no longer continue with the administrative structures left by the colonial regimes and many embarked on reform programmes intended to strengthen the role of central government. According to Mamdani (1996, p. 8), after half a decade of independence ‘no nationalist government was content to reproduce the colonial legacy uncritically’. In countries like Tanzania and Uganda, governments attempted to depoliticise the role of local governments by taking away the policy and decision making roles of democratically elected councils and assigning them to de-concentrated central ministry field offices (Ribot, 2002, p. 5; Oyugi, 2000, p. 16; Hydén, 1980; Mawhood, 1993). The reforms of the early decades of independence, as Oyugi (2000, p. 13) observes, placed considerable emphasis on the need for ‘development’ and considered ‘centralization’ as the best strategy to achieving this goal (see also Ribot 2002, p. 5). Local governments were consequently turned into administrative units and their primary functions, such as education, health care, road construction and local taxation, were taken over by central government (Ribot 2002; Olowu and Smoke 1992). In some African countries, governments went as far as abolishing local elections and local representative councils on their entirety. The one-party states and socialist governments which came to power in the first and second decades of independence in Africa, in particular, saw no need for democratic local government (Ribot 2002). However, as numerous authors have pointed out, the abolition of local elections and local governments severely undermined popular participation in African countries and this, as shall be discussed, was a factor contributing
28
to latter reform programmes (Mamdani, 1996; Oyugi 2000; Olowu, 2003; Olowu & Wunsch, 2004; Cheema & Rondinelli, 2007). The major focus of Kenya’s decentralisation efforts from 1960s to 1970s, for example, was towards increased efficiency of central government administration in taking over many of the responsibilities of local authorities (Ribot 2002; Conyers 1993, p. 28). In the same vein, Zambia’s decentralisation efforts of the late-1960s to 1970s under one-party rule served to strengthen party political dominance over district administration (Therkildsen, 1993). Other countries like Zimbabwe, Mali and Senegal, also adopted de-concentration during the 1960s and 1970s (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Ribot & Oyono, 2005; Conyers, 1983, 2007).
However, following the introduction of a package of fiscal and administrative reforms in the 1980s discussed above, across Africa governments began to opt for forms of democratic decentralisation, primarily in response to the conditionalities imposed by donors but also partly in response to the demands of their own citizenry. Thus Nigeria, having introduced local government elections in 1976, proceeded in 1983 to devolve major functions to municipalities including responsibility for health care, water and housing, roads maintenance, agricultural and rural development, and law enforcement (Ribot 2002; Rondinelli et al., 1989). In 1987 Ghana similarly institutionalised elected district assemblies (Chazan, 1992; Rothchild, 1994; Ribot, 2002). However, Kenya’s decentralisation reforms in 1983, labelled ‘district focus’, maintained de-concentration and sought to increase central government administration efficiency (Oyugi, 1990; Smoke, 1993 Conyers, Cassels, Janovsky, & Cohen, 1993, p. 28). Other one-party states, like Zimbabwe and Zambia, continued with de-concentration and strove to strengthen party political dominance over district administrations (Therkildsen 1993; Ribot 1999, 2002).
Significant democratic decentralisation reforms began to take pace in the 1990s onwards (Crook & Manor, 1995). The international development agencies, donors and academics invested substantial efforts in promoting the idea of democratic decentralisation (political devolution) calling for the institutionalisation of democratic and autonomous local governments as a strategy towards democratic governance and efficient public service delivery (World Bank 2000; Oyugi 2000; Ribot 2002). In Zimbabwe, for example, the government in 1993 officially decentralized new mandates to elected rural district councils although line ministries continued to wield significant power over them
29
(Conyers, 2002, p. 2). Questions nevertheless remain about the extent to which recent decentralisation reforms in Africa created meaningful local government systems capable of promoting citizen participation and improving the delivery of public services to their constituents. Linked to these recent decentralisation reforms in Africa are the new forms of administrative decentralisation, the social funds model, that will be described in the following section.