This cycle of moving from one governance approach to another will continue as bureaucrats and citizens become disenchanted with the existing system. As stated earlier, the choice of a governance system is determined by historical, social and political contexts, the size of the country and the resource and infrastructural base.
Except for the size of the country, these factors change with time, which in turn may affect the effectiveness of an operating governance system. As these changes are gradual and continuous, it makes sense that the shift from one governance system to the other is equally measured. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the process will be unidirectional. Therefore, governments and practitioners are right to push against the wholesale adoption of a prescribed governance system, and I believe that many pragmatists working in the field of service delivery concur with this view (see also, e.g., Therkildsen and Semboja 1995).
I also believe that models of local governance should evolve into a hybrid appropri-ate for 21st-century Africa. This hybrid, incorporating what is optimum on either side, has its roots in the common good and national goals, with the trunk consisting of local authorities empowered to fill a greater role than mere implementers. The crux of the matter is that governments must be pragmatic and that there must be provision to adapt systems of local governance as necessary.
Priorities for the nation’s socio-economic development must nonetheless be deter-mined at the national rather than the local level. As I noted earlier, local authorities have an inward-looking perspective, which often leads to competition for national resources. Politics and security are added elements which the national government must take into account. One solution is to centralise issues relating to the common goals, so that the uneven distribution of resources can be addressed and the rights, safety and unity of its citizens safeguarded. The definition of the common goals may differ from country to country, though it is likely to include climate change and environmental protection, external trade, health care and education. Once the cen-tral level has set in place the vision, policies and strategies relating to the common goals, it must actively encourage each local level to appreciate, interpret and imple-ment them.
Without doubt devolution at its strongest has its merits: local authorities must be recognised as equal partners and should be accorded discretion over the resources allocated to them. These local authorities should work within the framework of na-tional policies, but the local interpretation and implementation of policies should largely be determined at the local level as long as national policies are not contra-dicted. This would foster local engagement, as well as ensure the relevance of poli-cies and strategies.
The key will be to ensure a substantial component of pragmatism. The modus oper-andi would be devolution, but with a strong, proactive and effective central power which can intervene to balance and redistribute if needed. This pragmatic and adap-tive approach would be similar to how many multinational businesses are man-aged. Some departments of multinational businesses are managed at the local lev-el, while others are managed at the global head office. Thus for a nation there would be centralisation where there is a capacity shortfall and a need for a common goal.
This approach could be per sector, for example, the agriculture and water sectors, and it is possible that full devolution would work for particular services.
Such hybridisation would require an explicit delineation of roles and responsibilities, as well as a demonstrable enforcement of accountability. Proactive attention to two-way communication would be vital to promote strong coordination between central government and local authorities. This should foster prompt attention to address any shortfalls in local capacity, as well as timely reactions to the changes that will inevitably occur in this dynamic global and national environment. As stated earlier, developments in the governance system are gradual; they will invariably take time to be adopted and implemented. Furthermore, as the systems reach maturity, then the balance between the central and the local should be modified as
circum-stances demand or permit. Active commitment to learning from the successes and failures of implementation would improve the likelihood of a sustainable hybrid be-ing produced.
Conclusion
Governments in developing countries have preferred a hybrid system of local gov-ernance within the spectrum of centralisation and decentralisation, as I have shown for Tanzania. This hybrid adopts a flexible approach which maximises the merits of both systems, as well as adapting the methodology in order to minimise any weak-nesses which may arise as circumstances change. This ability to adapt is particu-larly important for the governments of developing countries as they face capacity problems and security issues, as well as evolving democratic and political systems.
However, experts in local governance such as advisors and researchers have tend-ed to prescribe one approach or the other, perhaps due to the complexities of mod-elling a hybrid system. These experts should learn to appreciate the hybrid system of local governance prescribed by national governments, rather than advocate a one-size-fits-all solution that does not take into account the local context. Pragma-tism should rule, with the country’s vision, size, geography and socio-economic and political status being taken into account.
References
Cheema, Shabbir G. & Dennis A. Rondinelli. 2007. Decentralizing Governance Emerging Concepts and Practices. Cambridge: Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innova-tion, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Kathyola, Janet & Oluwatoyin Job. 2011. Decentralisation in Commonwealth Africa:
Experiences from Botswana, Cameroon, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania. London:
Commonwealth Secretarial.
Olowu, Dele & James S. Wunsch. 2004. Local Governance in Africa: The Challenges of Democratic Decentralization. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner.
The United Republic of Tanzania. 2011. The President’s Office. ‘Politics, Leadership and Legal Framework. ‘ Report on the Fifty Years of Independence of Tanzania Mainland 1961-2011. Dar Es Salaam: President’s Offce.
Therkildsen, Ole & Joseph Semboja. 1995. Service Provision under Stress in East Africa:
The State, NGOs and People’s Organizations in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. London:
James Currey.