No need for a showdown

No need for a showdown
By Editor
Saturday March 03, 2007 [02:00]

Things don’t seem to be going well in the councils dominated by opposition Patriotic Front. It appears these councils have become a platform for a political contest between the Patriotic Front and the government. But there is a serious danger in this. If the Patriotic Front and those in government perceive councils as nothing more than a forum in which they can express their demands and execute their political agendas, then our councils won’t function effectively, efficiently and in an orderly manner.

There is need for all the players in our local government, and especially those in the opposition-dominated councils, to realise that there are serious limitations in our local government Act. Ours is not a decentralised local government system. A lot of power still resides in the Minister of Local Government and Housing.

The minister can single-handedly undo or frustrate what any council is trying to do. This is the way this Act was designed by Patriotic Front president Michael Sata in the early 1990s when he was Frederick Chiluba’s local government and housing minister. At that time Sata and his colleagues feared that if they gave a lot of autonomy to councils there would be anarchy.

They feared that mayors all over the country would behave like small presidents. So a lot of power was retained by the minister. And there is very little councillors can do without the support or consent of the Minister of Local Government and Housing. This is what the Patriotic Front should always bear in mind as it tries to engage the government in the councils it controls.

It is therefore not prudent for anyone to take an approach whose net effect will be to paralyse the activities of our councils and render them totally impotent and unable to address the many problems facing our neighbourhoods.

Without trying to blame anybody, our current local government Act makes it very difficult for opposition dominated councils to implement their own independent agendas. Those who designed this Act were definitely not interested in decentralisation. By saying this, we are not in any way trying to imply that decentralisation is a panacea. We know that there are limits to what it can achieve. And not all government functions can or should be decentralised. Decentralising weak states may compound problems.

An appropriate balance of centralisation and decentralisation is essential, and there needs to be complimentary attention to central government. Decentralisation requires a strong central entity to regulate, to provide an overall framework to manage the reallocation of responsibilities and resources in a predictable and transparent way.

And from what is happening, especially at the Lusaka City Council, the vulnerability of local governments to political capture warrant caution.

While we appreciate the government’s frustrations or irritations with the way the Patriotic Front is trying to do things, we don’t think it would be appropriate to make amendments to the current local government Act whose aim is simply to clip the wings of the Patriotic Front or the opposition in general where it dominates councils. The current Act is bad enough and there is no need to make it worse.

What is required are measures that will broaden decentralisation and not amendments that further curtail it. There are benefits in decentralisation. In the current era of state reform, everybody seems agreed that decentralisation of government is a good thing.

And the case for decentralisation can be argued on both political grounds - as strengthening democracy, accountability and participation by bringing government closer to its citizens - and economic grounds, those of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of public service provision. But we shouldn’t forget that decentralisation requires the reform of the state and systems of governance, altering the structure and institutions of governance. This will also require us to improve the political, financial and administrative capacities of our councils as a precondition for successful decentralisation.

But in all this we should not lose the aim of decentralisation - the transfer of authority and responsibility from central to local government - aims to address failures to foster development and reduce poverty, and to consolidate democracy. Decentralisation requires sustained political will as an essential. It also requires the development of a democratic civil culture where conflicts are managed within certain limits and result in compromises, consensus or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. If this is not possible, it will be very difficult to manage our councils under the current legislation. Yes, in the opposition-dominated councils, opposition leaders like Sata can try to dictate what they want. But the numbers of councillors does not give them the monopoly - which they think they have - in running the affairs of councils.

The Minister of Local Government seems to possess even more powers than all the councillors put together. If the minister does not agree with the decisions of the council, and a conflict or crisis arises, the minister can decide to dissolve the council and appoint an administrator. This can go on and on. But the question is who suffers, who is the most affected?

It is the people that the councillors and the minister were elected or appointed to serve. For this reason there is necessity for tolerance and consensus building. It will also not do for the government to exert excessive pressure on opposition-led councils. Even the worst of frustrations or irritations should not push the government to come up with amendments that are aimed at nothing but to further render elected council representatives totally irrelevant.

We accept the fact that laws should be continually updated to make them conform to the realities obtaining on the ground. But this should be done with broad-mindedness and without any irrationality.

A lot of care should be exercised before local government and housing minister Sylvia Masebo takes any Bill to Parliament aimed at paralysing, or clipping the wings of, Patriotic Front. Ernest Mwansa is very right when he warns that it is dangerous to make laws that are specifically targeted at particular individuals or political parties. There is need to look beyond Sata and the Patriotic Front in any legislation the government comes up with on local government.

We also repeat our advice to the Patriotic Front on the harassment of Lusaka mayor Susan Nakazwe. She has not done anything outside what the law requires of her. It will not be possible for her or any councillor for that matter to deliver anything without engaging those in government in a meaningful way. We say this because in this country we don’t have a fully decentralised or autonomous local government. Everything is still very much dependent on the central government. So there is need for the opposition councillors to work closely with those in government if they have to harbour any hope of delivering meaningful service to our people. What they are trying to do would be much easier to implement if our councils were fully decentralised.

And it will also not be good for those in government to deliberately frustrate the work and programmes of councils not under their control. Ours is a multi-party political setup and everyone should be given a chance to perform their duties under this system. It will no longer necessarily be a question of one party dominating all levels of government. It’s time we started learning how to live and work under such a reality. There will always be need for a partnership between opposition-dominated councils and the government.

This is not a bad thing. It is a good thing for our democracy and needs to be encouraged. Let’s try to address all the problems - legal, institutional or otherwise - that are frustrating such cooperation so that our councils can effectively and efficiently serve our people. There is no need for a sterile showdown.