Local govt reform revisited

NOW THAT the date for the 2016 local government election has been announced and the campaign is afoot, perhaps it is an opportune time to revisit the issue of local government reform. I revert to this subject simply to emphasise the indecision, lack of urgency and time-consuming nature of reform, whether political, constitutional or administrative.

With respect to local government reform, one of the dilemmas faced by the current People’s National Movement (PNM) administration, as with all other previous administrations, is the question of how much centralised power, ie, the power of ministers and senior bureaucrats, should be ceded to local government bodies while at the same time retaining effective control and oversight at the centre.

This must be viewed in the context of the historical legacy of the centralisation of power.

I have had some experience of the operations of local government from the perspective of a parliamentary representative as well as that of an ordinary citizen making representations to local government bodies with all its frustrations and lack of response.

In the House of Representatives I participated in many a debate on local government issues.

Since leaving office I have written on many occasions on the subject with some of my views apparently finding acceptance by the PNM.

I have made advocacy in the past few years for a reform of the system of local government to include an expansion of the powers and responsibilities conferred on local government authorities but with certain preconditions before such an enterprise is embarked upon without which the benefits contemplated will not materialise. Such necessary groundwork for reform will be discussed later.

In a column on December 28, 2003 (13 years ago), I referred to the rationale and desirability of such reform: “We all agree that decentralisation and devolution of power is desirable.

It facilitates quicker and more acceptable decisions. It encourages citizen participation. It empowers people and deepens the democratic process. It allows for greater accountability.” With regard to recommendations for empowerment and expansion of responsibilities, I stated the following which is reiterated in itemised form: “1. Constitutional provision should be made for the entrenchment of the functions, powers and responsibilities of local government bodies and for their funding and staffing which could not be easily amended or revoked by a governing party.

“2. Their functions should be expanded to include responsibility for the activities currently being carried out by the Ministries of Social Development and Community Development.

“3. Local government bodies should be empowered by acquiring adequate resources to engage in regional planning and establishing priorities to be incorporated in national planning.

“4. It should have the wherewithal to influence the environment for the enhancement of the local economy and, in particular, the infrastructure to promote small and medium enterprises.” Ten years later in a column dated 19/05/2013, I elaborated on some of my recommendations of 2003, recommended a longer-term perspective with the proposed reform be attempted in stages. I noted that relevant political reform was required.

In addition to the above-listed recommendations, I proposed as follows: “1. Party candidates should be selected through a system of primaries by the membership of the party after they present themselves and their plans and programmes to the membership and are subject to questions.

“2. Constitutional provision should be made for the duration of the life of the corporations and a fixed date for elections.

“3. Constitutional provisions should also be made for the entrenchment of the method of funding of local government bodies.

They should be directly funded by the Treasury via a formula which takes into account population, geographical area, state of existing infrastructure and facilities etc.”