Local govt reform revisited

I HAVE written the previous five columns primarily to engage those who have had a first-hand experience from a governmental as well as a representative perspective on the operation of the local government system and its problems.

They were also intended to engage the attention of those with a genuine interest in the subject at community level and to relate to the experience of constituents.

They were not intended for the acutely obtuse mind of Raymond Ramcharitar who sits with pompous sanctimoniousness on the sidelines spewing his interminable bile and derides everybody’s integrity as if he is some divinely appointed arbiter of integrity.

I have reiterated many times that local government reform, even in a minimal form, will not bring the desired results except the population, or a majority of it, buy into the idea. Writing in a column on 28/12/2003, I said: “… we have been nurtured to such an extent on centralised and autocratic decision-making that, even in a small country such as ours, governmental power to the average citizen seems distant, inaccessible and exclusive.

“This legacy has had a debilitating effect on the mentality of people who seem to think that they are impotent and devoid of power, that avenues for participation are limited or non-existent, that responsibility for their conditions of life is someone else’s obligation, not theirs, and their role in the governmental process is merely to exercise their franchise periodically.

“This pervasive inertia and irresponsibility so reflective of our political culture has to be addressed if local government reform has any chance of success.

People must want to participate and get involved. Without it, all proposals for reform are merely romantic speculation.” From 2003 to the present, interest in the subject appears to have declined as evidenced by the unprecedented low voter turnout in the 2016 local government election despite reform being touted as the major platform issue.

Much effort therefore involving new approaches and strategies has to be directed towards the education and motivation of the people to embrace those reforms. Merely passing legislation to satisfy a manifesto pledge which characterised local government reform as a major transformational issue will not suffice and will not induce the desired outcomes if the appropriate groundwork is not laid.

The series of public consultations on local government reform instituted by the Ministry of Rural Development and Local Government was flawed from the very beginning in that it was planned and managed by a ministry of government and chaired by a minister instead of an independent non-government committee.

The impression given was that the Government was merely engaged in a public relations exercise.

The discussions were not structured to focus on the critical issues pertinent to reform, to seek elucidation on the underlying problems and deficiencies of the existing system and the kind of reforms required to address them and the expanded functions and responsibilities that may be considered desirable and their effective implementation.

I attended a couple of these consultations where the majority of contributions constituted a litany of personal grievances, thus serving as a kind of catharsis for participating constituents.

Related to the issue of the lack of interest by constituents in participating in the local government process is the inability to attract a higher calibre of candidates to serve as local government representatives.

Initiatives to be taken to encourage more qualified and competent people to become councillors is thus a challenge for the political parties as well as the respective communities.

To recap, other pre-conditions for successful reform outcomes include (1) independence of control from central government, (2) certainty of functions, powers and responsibilities, (3) adequate, equitable and t ime l y f u n d - ing, and (4) clear systems of financial and political accountability.