Back to Index

This article participates on the following special index pages:

Moving the centre & unpacking devolution: The ticklish subject
Brilliant Mhlanga
May 29, 2009

I have followed Sam Siphepha's views over the years. I also happen to be one of those who engaged him in 2006 on the same issue, although at the time it was slightly put as 'Provincialisation'. I enjoyed his discussion then, which I happen to have to this day. But I did engage him on it with a view to flesh the skeletal policy projections he was pursuing and seeking to understand what the concept he was proposing meant to the people of Matebeleland and Zimbabwe as a whole.

Today, I notice a change of name in his discussion. Semantics aside; I also do not know whether the Honourable Minister knows what he is discussing and what it means in this constitutional discourse. However, before I seek to unpack the concept of devolution which forms much of today-s currency in many public spheres, it is my wish to acknowledge that I sense some level of consistency in whatever Sam Siphepha Nkomo might be referring to in his postulations. But what I do not know is whether this is surely party policy or Sam Siphepha-s position as an individual. What I gather from some colleagues is that this is not party policy so far. The main reason being that there is not even a tinge of it reflected in the 'Kariba constitutional- draft, for if it is surely MDC policy this position should be coming not only from Siphepha but clearly reflected in that document and also echoed by the likes of Honourable Eric Matinenga, Douglas Mwonzora etc. Possibly, this stands as a sign of hopes and aspirations on his part. Further, I do not know whether Honourable Siphepha is singing in sync with most subaltern voices or whether his is merely a lone voice echoing a hymn from a script that is engraved in the tablet of time.

Having discussed these inadequacies in terms of policy shifts within the MDC and my wish to understand Honourable Siphepha-s locus of enunciation, I contend that it might be necessary for us to attempt to unpack this concept of 'devolution- as a form of 'administrative decentralisation.- It might also be worth mentioning that various other countries have done it. It helps in situations like ours where people claim that a unitary system is working when it is common knowledge that not every one is benefiting, except for those who are closer to the centre and playing politics of mimicry.

Before we engage the concept of 'devolution- of power, it is necessary for us to first seek to understand that this term is part of the discourse on 'decentralisation.- Decentralisation as a concept informs the 'devolution- system, which is but one of the tiers in a continuum. Further, there are various schools of thought on this discourse; notable among them are the French and English scholars. My contribution will be informed by the English scholars for obvious reasons. I also argue that 'decentralisation- does not mean 'devolution-, but the latter may be a form of it. Further, I will differentiate between 'deconcentration- and 'delegation.- However, I am mindful of the fact that these are part of the continuum of 'administrative decentralisation- which is made of; 'deconcentration-, 'delegation- and 'devolution.- Administrative decentralisation forms part of our pre-occupation as social scientists and public administrators. There are other types of decentralisation, such as 'political decentralisation,- 'spatial decentralisation- and 'market (fiscal) decentralisation.- These are not the subject of my discussion.

Decentralisation as already stated above transcends various schools of thought and periods in academic circles; the most common one being the on-going process which emerged in the early 1990s. It was purveyed by most social actionists, politicians from the left who had a soft spot for the subalternised, the civil society and in some cases the reactionary right. The main concern in most cases has been derivation of authority with regards to resources and revenue generated from these resources. However, emphasis has to be made that power, its usage, and distance, in terms of proximity and ultimately decision making has always influenced the call for these forms of decentralisation. The school of thought that influenced this discourse since the 1990s focused primarily on political aspects of decentralisation. Their interests have always been to understand whether decentralisation of any form or type can stimulate the emergence of good governance, constrain national ethnic cleavages, promote democratic practices, and facilitate the growth of civil society and increase privatisation of public sector tasks. Such concepts with their varied meanings do not necessarily present problems, rather they require great care to avoid generating too many meanings (over-simplifications) or too few (under-specification). It is also very necessary for people to seek to understand causal relational factors that give impetus to this kind of discourse and which groups are at the forefront. It might be necessary to understand those opposing it too.

Attempts to define decentralisation as a concept have always caused so much of problems for academics and have produced serious conceptual muddling. It is not my intention to be too theoretical here, but to explain and unpack this concept as a way of illuminating this discussion given the current constitutional making process. Hoping the 'Kariba draft constitution- will never find its day. Even researchers have multiplied the problem of deciphering an agreed definition of what this concept means. What is worse is how they have imbued it with positive normative value; conflated it with other concepts thereby adding to the already existing commotion and finally ignored that decentralisation as a concept is indeed multi-dimensional. In essence decentralisation evolves from a variety of intellectual traditions and disciplinary differences and is quite complex. It has worked in some cases and also failed in some. And so, by way of contrast decentralisation-s antonym, centralisation, has a much more precise and accepted usage which means concentration of power, resources and authority (power) in a single head or centre

Conflating decentralisation as a concept with normative positive values also leads to evaluative concepts which I am not going to discuss here. But it might be good for some of us to seek to understand how it is linked with the current discourse of constitution making, democracy and the general ideation of market reforms. However, seeking to understand the link between decentralisation and the former tenets becomes a matter of causality and can only be understood when people provide evidence on the ground, which I believe the purveyors of it are able to produce. In Zimbabwe, the case of regional differences in terms of stages of development and the failure of the central government to ascertain indices in resource allocation. In the case of Zimbabwe derivation as an index has failed. Further, our attempt to conceptualise decentralisation must be informed by our understanding of how the related state institutions receive power and resources; that is, in terms of the degree to which power and resources are taken away from central government. All forms of decentralisation, regardless of the recipient, involve shifting power and resources away from the central government. In addition, it is necessary for people to seek to understand concepts such as 'fiscal federalism- and 'public administration.-

In this piece, I will not discuss 'fiscal federalism,- but will engage 'public administration- in a bid to locate the concept of 'administrative decentralisation.- Further, in seeking to find the nexus upon which all these policies function, it is necessary to locate them within Max Weber-s views on modern bureaucracy which are often placed within the spectacles of whether they are efficient, effective or rational. Of course, I am also alive to the debate that these attributes either operate in tandem or are mere trade offs. However, it is my contention that contextual factors do influence individual cases. Generally, decentralisation in the ambit of 'public administration- focuses on administrative effects of granting local jurisdictions autonomy from central control. Autonomy in this case is further constituted by the general policy making authority, personnel control and control over public finances.

Decentralisation as stated above has different types namely; 'Political-, 'Spatial-, 'Administrative- and 'Market decentralisation.- In brief, 'political decentralisation- entails a situation where groups at different levels of government; central, sub-national (meso) and local are empowered to make decisions related to what affects them. Political forms of decentralisation are usually engaged by political scientists interested in democratisation and civil society seeking to identify transfer of decision-making power to lower levels of governmental units or their elected representatives. 'Spatial decentralisation- is a term used mainly by planners and geographers seeking to formulate policies and programs aimed at reducing excessive urban concentration in large cities by promoting regional growth poles that have the potential to become centres of manufacturing etc. 'Market decentralisation- is generally used by economists to analyse and promote action that facilitates the creation of conditions allowing goods and services to be produced and provided by market mechanisms sensitive to the revealed preferences of individuals. It gained momentum during the era of economic liberalisation (the 80s-90s), privatisation and the demise of command economies. Under this type of decentralisation public goods are usually provided by small and large firms, community groups, cooperatives, voluntary associations and NGOs.

'Administrative decentralisation- provides a continuum across systems ranging from low to a high degree of autonomy. The following forms of administrative decentralisation form the continuum; 'deconcentration-, 'delegation- and 'devolution.-

'Deconcentration- refers to the dispersing of responsibilities by a central government, for example, a policy directed to field officers. In essence this form of transfer leads to spatial changes and geographical distribution of authority, but does not significantly change autonomy of the entity receiving the authority. What matters most is that in this form of arrangement the central government retains authority and continues to exercise that authority through the hierarchical channels of central government bureaucracy. This is the least extensive type of administrative decentralisation and commonly found in most developing economies.

'Delegation- entails the transfer of policy responsibility to local governments or semi-autonomous organisations that are not controlled by the central government but remain accountable to it. This implies transfer of government decision-making and administrative authority and responsibilities for carefully spelt out tasks, for example, in the case of all state Universities in Zimbabwe. Vice Chancellors have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. They are not their own men and women. The main difference between 'deconcentration- and 'delegation- is that the central government continues to exercise its control by way of a contractual arrangement which ensures accountability of local government. In essence 'delegation- occupies a higher level of administrative autonomy in this decentralisation continuum for local entities than under 'deconcentration.-

Then finally, the concept of 'devolution' as part of a continuum and a subject of engagement mainly within the currency of Zimbabwe-s constitutional discourse deserves special attention. Devolution occurs when authority is transferred by central governments to local-level governmental units holding corporate status granted under state legislation. Federal states are by definition devolved, although the extent of legally defined and shared powers devolved by the federal government to lower level governmental units can be quite limited. Furthermore, devolution of established regional authorities is always discouraged in most countries, largely because most states are characterised by weak central governments and so central governments are weary of losing political control. This concept is likely to be met with so much of resistance because most people are worried that if the central government devolves power regions might wake up someday claiming secession or some kind of autonomy. This kind of fear is unfounded. The other reason why most people might be against this form of administrative decentralisation is ignorance, particularly on what it entails.

An attempt to institutionalise 'devolution- of power to regions and localities must first find its basis within the state constitution creating a federal system of governance or a lesser version of it. Thus seeking to shift power from the centre to the regions; South Africa and Ethiopia provide a case in point.

However, there is an assortment of preconditions for a successful decentralisation and an efficient federal system. Further, the initiative for such a policy must not be a product of elite reasoning. If it grows out of the elite and their allies in the regions without taking into cognisance broader assessments of the likely benefits and risks contained in such a policy, then doom and policy failure can be ascertained. It must be emphasized that in some cases this policy is notoriously difficult to implement and might even be disastrous. However, it requires diligence, commitment and political will on the part of political elite and the ordinary masses. Again sudden shifts to the regions of income, and welfare maintenance functions can lead to massive social and economic dislocation which is likely to leave sub-regional governments with the task of maintaining social safety nets and dealing with the plight of a population hit by a severe policy backlash. For such an eventuality to be avoided, regional administrators must work in tandem with all the political actors and not act like shock absorbers protecting local populations against tough indiscriminate measures of the central government.

Emphasis must be made that a weak federal government in such a situation remains with little choice but to spend its increasingly limited fiscal and political resources to buy the loyalty of regional administrators. Zimbabweans must guard against this. Generally, a federal govt tends to fail to perform its job as a provider of national public goods, including such fundamentals as overall law and order, social safety nets, protection of property rights and sound regulation of markets. In this discussion, since it is my contention that it remains to be seen whether the concept of devolution is MDC policy; it can be further argued that, if it is indeed possible that the MDC is pushing this decentralisation envelope there is a clear likelihood that party loyalty is being scouted.

Devolution can work if some preconditions could be satisfied; first, by ensuring that the central government is responsible for national public goods, guaranteeing a free market, property rights and contract enforcements. Second, if the centre ensures unhampered inter-regional mobility of capital and resources, enabling flows in response to the incentives created by fiscal policies, regulatory regimes and social and economic infrastructure set in the regions. Third, if there is strong political will and commitment on the part of political leaders at a central government level. Fourth, if those calling for it are not taken for granted and are capable of fighting for their cause in a concerted effort and committed to this as a noble cause. However, mention has to be made that these conditions are defined from a capitalist perspective, but they do provide a telling impact of what needs to be done for the policy of devolution to work. In addition, I am mindful of the fact that these conditions comprise what has come to be known as 'market preserving federalism-. In conclusion this policy must be by all means a bottom-up approach and can work in concert with all the other forms of decentralisation.

*Brilliant Mhlanga is a human rights activist and an academic from the University of Westminster, in London.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP