Opinion / Columnist
Solidifying Decentralisation and Confronting Devolution
06 Jun 2011 at 11:27hrs | Views
In many ways smaller debate groups make a great difference in that they
are more engaging, genuine and the debate is more coherent. Typically I
took part in a small forum debate where I was challenged put more flesh
on the arguments that I made in my recent article, titled "The National
Consequences of Precarious Implementation of Devolution").
I was motivated by the debate to write an article publicly addressing the challenges and arguments that were levelled at me. In the article I will address five challenges under the following headings:
- Knowledge about devolution,
- The marginalisation of other tribes,
- Resource Distribution,
- The current unitary System and
- The United Kingdom devolution model.
Knowledge about devolution
I was challenged to explain why I thought proponents of devolution had mesmerised the public by jargon because everybody knows what devolution is. The challenge went on to argue that people living in Diaspora understood devolution because South Africa, United Kingdom and United States worked on the basis of devolved governments.
Every profession has its own jargon however when it comes to politicians they have to understand that they are not there to talk to other politicians and colleagues, the wider public needs to understand them. The term devolution has not been deciphered deliberately by Zimbabwean politicians in order to make it impenetrable and portray it as some glorious process. What's more is that evidence has shown that most politicians struggle whenever people question how this devolution is supposed to deliver. This means that some politicians do not understand the process of devolution.
It is not reasonable to assume that Zimbabweans in Diaspora would automatically understand devolution and its technicalities because it's used in South Africa, United Kingdom and United States. This assumption is less plausible for five reasons. Firstly, just because people live in places where power is devolved does not mean they understand devolution and what it involves. Secondly people may not even know whether the system is devolved or unitary. Thirdly people normally don't care about governance systems if they are delivering; they concentrate on personal and family issues. Lastly the accuracy of those who know devolution or claim to know it is determined by what informs their knowledge on devolution.
The marginalisation of other tribes
I was also challenged to explain why I discredited devolution which is believed to be a solution to the marginalisation of non Shona tribes from Zimbabwe's natural resources.
Devolution is a powerful tool when used to remedy the problems that it's meant to deal with meaning that it has its limitations. However politician and political activists have intelligently bounced and bended devolution in many circles. What's more is that they have overstretched its meaning and capacity. In the previous article I highlighted that the breadth and depth of the problems in Zimbabwe is beyond devolution. The problems are also cross cutting and they require a holistic approach of decentralisation tools (a mixture of devolution, delegation and deconcentration).
Devolution in Zimbabwe will surely marginalise people from benefiting from national resources more than the unitary system. A simple example is that if full powers, rights, assets and Local resources are transferred to different regions under devolution it means some regions without platinum cannot benefit from it. However under the unitary system wealth can be redistributed according to need. An important caution that I have to emphasise is that devolution is done in line with national laws which means the amount of powers devolved will always be limited.
Ndebele and Shona are the biggest tribes in Zimbabwe. It is difficult to find a non Shona or a non Ndebele region in Zimbabwe. However there are Ndebele and Shona dominated regions. The fact that devolution gives local government autonomy and allows local citizens to participate more in local decisions should not be misinterpreted to mean that it's a solution for tribal marginalisation.
Local citizens in different regions of Zimbabwe are a mixture of different tribes. Devolution does not deal with problems of corruption, nepotism and equal opportunities to smaller tribes. It is obvious that other tools and policy initiatives have to be cross fertilised with devolution to promote fairness, representation, equality and participation of smaller tribes and this is where we start moving into the realms of decentralisation.
Resource Distribution
The idea that devolution would worsen other areas because resources were disproportionately distributed was challenged by the argument that Zimbabwe is unique nation with resources in every region.
The logic of defending proportionate distribution of resources by pointing out that in Mashonaland there Platinum, in Manicaland there are Diamonds and in Matabeleland there is Coal is deceptive for four reasons. Firstly the fact that the resources are different means the value of the resources is different which takes us back to argument that some areas will emerge worse off. Secondly It would be reasonable to get the value of the tapped resources and those that have not been tapped because availability means anything from more that zero to abundance. The argument about resource distribution should be about the type of resources, their value and revenue.
Thirdly it is important to consider the demand of certain resources because some resources may be more marketable while others are less marketable. Fourthly it is important to consider eventualities rather than assuming that if resources are available there is a guaranteed and steady continuous revenue. Political, economical, social, technological, legal and environmental dynamics can change the demand and market. A good example will be that for many years Zimbabwe was known as an agrarian economy but at present tourism seems to be at the forefront. Under the current unitary system the impact of the slump of agriculture has been counterbalanced by tourism. If it was a devolved system agricultural regions would have taken massive hit.
The current unitary System
I was challenged to explain why I thought devolution would create a more expensive system than the current which has a large number of MPs, Senators and Governors.
Indeed the current system is bloated and expensive but this is not a result of the unitary system. It is because of abuse, greed and corruption. This is a problem that can be solved through downsizing government portfolios and cutting off bureaucracy. Devolution will be more expensive in that another governance tier will created above local government with five additional governance structures. The additional tier and its structures will also have administrative functions and expenses. What's more is that their functions are likely to overlap and duplicate the purpose of local government.
The United Kingdom devolution model
Lastly I was challenged to clarify what I meant when I mentioned that the UK devolution model had failed.
The developments in Scotland show that devolution has failed. If it had been successful Scotland would not be pushing for independence or more powers. What's more is that the developments confirm the evidence highlighted by the Policy Exchange in their report, titled "The Devolution Distraction". A research done by a diverse group of academics working with the Times confirmed this as well. More specifically both reports highlighted that devolution failed to produce the massive improvements that its proponents predicted. Although spending had increased, evidence showed that there was a decline in the health service, education system and the economy.
Before I conclude I thought it would be helpful to give a snap shot of the UK functions that were devolved and those that were not to Scotland.
Devolved Functions
Functions not devolved
Lastly I would like to reiterate an important point that devolution is done in line with national laws which means the amount of powers devolved will always be limited. With that in mind I will leave you to ponder with thoroughness and care the rationale behind the devolved functions and those that were not.
Farai Chikowore: is a Local Governance Reader who graduated in Strategic Public Management (MSc) and in Public Policy Government and Management (BA, Honours) at De Montfort University. He likes to evaluate the contribution of political discourse to understanding government policies. His main areas of interest are in Research in: Partnership Working, Local government, Local governance, Democratic renewal, Policy process and Strategic Management.He can be contacted at chikoworefarai@gmail.com
I was motivated by the debate to write an article publicly addressing the challenges and arguments that were levelled at me. In the article I will address five challenges under the following headings:
- Knowledge about devolution,
- The marginalisation of other tribes,
- Resource Distribution,
- The current unitary System and
- The United Kingdom devolution model.
Knowledge about devolution
I was challenged to explain why I thought proponents of devolution had mesmerised the public by jargon because everybody knows what devolution is. The challenge went on to argue that people living in Diaspora understood devolution because South Africa, United Kingdom and United States worked on the basis of devolved governments.
Every profession has its own jargon however when it comes to politicians they have to understand that they are not there to talk to other politicians and colleagues, the wider public needs to understand them. The term devolution has not been deciphered deliberately by Zimbabwean politicians in order to make it impenetrable and portray it as some glorious process. What's more is that evidence has shown that most politicians struggle whenever people question how this devolution is supposed to deliver. This means that some politicians do not understand the process of devolution.
It is not reasonable to assume that Zimbabweans in Diaspora would automatically understand devolution and its technicalities because it's used in South Africa, United Kingdom and United States. This assumption is less plausible for five reasons. Firstly, just because people live in places where power is devolved does not mean they understand devolution and what it involves. Secondly people may not even know whether the system is devolved or unitary. Thirdly people normally don't care about governance systems if they are delivering; they concentrate on personal and family issues. Lastly the accuracy of those who know devolution or claim to know it is determined by what informs their knowledge on devolution.
The marginalisation of other tribes
I was also challenged to explain why I discredited devolution which is believed to be a solution to the marginalisation of non Shona tribes from Zimbabwe's natural resources.
Devolution is a powerful tool when used to remedy the problems that it's meant to deal with meaning that it has its limitations. However politician and political activists have intelligently bounced and bended devolution in many circles. What's more is that they have overstretched its meaning and capacity. In the previous article I highlighted that the breadth and depth of the problems in Zimbabwe is beyond devolution. The problems are also cross cutting and they require a holistic approach of decentralisation tools (a mixture of devolution, delegation and deconcentration).
Devolution in Zimbabwe will surely marginalise people from benefiting from national resources more than the unitary system. A simple example is that if full powers, rights, assets and Local resources are transferred to different regions under devolution it means some regions without platinum cannot benefit from it. However under the unitary system wealth can be redistributed according to need. An important caution that I have to emphasise is that devolution is done in line with national laws which means the amount of powers devolved will always be limited.
Ndebele and Shona are the biggest tribes in Zimbabwe. It is difficult to find a non Shona or a non Ndebele region in Zimbabwe. However there are Ndebele and Shona dominated regions. The fact that devolution gives local government autonomy and allows local citizens to participate more in local decisions should not be misinterpreted to mean that it's a solution for tribal marginalisation.
Local citizens in different regions of Zimbabwe are a mixture of different tribes. Devolution does not deal with problems of corruption, nepotism and equal opportunities to smaller tribes. It is obvious that other tools and policy initiatives have to be cross fertilised with devolution to promote fairness, representation, equality and participation of smaller tribes and this is where we start moving into the realms of decentralisation.
The idea that devolution would worsen other areas because resources were disproportionately distributed was challenged by the argument that Zimbabwe is unique nation with resources in every region.
The logic of defending proportionate distribution of resources by pointing out that in Mashonaland there Platinum, in Manicaland there are Diamonds and in Matabeleland there is Coal is deceptive for four reasons. Firstly the fact that the resources are different means the value of the resources is different which takes us back to argument that some areas will emerge worse off. Secondly It would be reasonable to get the value of the tapped resources and those that have not been tapped because availability means anything from more that zero to abundance. The argument about resource distribution should be about the type of resources, their value and revenue.
Thirdly it is important to consider the demand of certain resources because some resources may be more marketable while others are less marketable. Fourthly it is important to consider eventualities rather than assuming that if resources are available there is a guaranteed and steady continuous revenue. Political, economical, social, technological, legal and environmental dynamics can change the demand and market. A good example will be that for many years Zimbabwe was known as an agrarian economy but at present tourism seems to be at the forefront. Under the current unitary system the impact of the slump of agriculture has been counterbalanced by tourism. If it was a devolved system agricultural regions would have taken massive hit.
The current unitary System
I was challenged to explain why I thought devolution would create a more expensive system than the current which has a large number of MPs, Senators and Governors.
Indeed the current system is bloated and expensive but this is not a result of the unitary system. It is because of abuse, greed and corruption. This is a problem that can be solved through downsizing government portfolios and cutting off bureaucracy. Devolution will be more expensive in that another governance tier will created above local government with five additional governance structures. The additional tier and its structures will also have administrative functions and expenses. What's more is that their functions are likely to overlap and duplicate the purpose of local government.
The United Kingdom devolution model
Lastly I was challenged to clarify what I meant when I mentioned that the UK devolution model had failed.
The developments in Scotland show that devolution has failed. If it had been successful Scotland would not be pushing for independence or more powers. What's more is that the developments confirm the evidence highlighted by the Policy Exchange in their report, titled "The Devolution Distraction". A research done by a diverse group of academics working with the Times confirmed this as well. More specifically both reports highlighted that devolution failed to produce the massive improvements that its proponents predicted. Although spending had increased, evidence showed that there was a decline in the health service, education system and the economy.
Before I conclude I thought it would be helpful to give a snap shot of the UK functions that were devolved and those that were not to Scotland.
Devolved Functions
- Education, training and health,
- Local governance,
- Local economic development,
- Fisheries, agriculture and forestry,
- Transport and environment.
Functions not devolved
- Constitution,
- Foreign Affairs,
- National security and Defence,
- Fiscal and monetary policy
Lastly I would like to reiterate an important point that devolution is done in line with national laws which means the amount of powers devolved will always be limited. With that in mind I will leave you to ponder with thoroughness and care the rationale behind the devolved functions and those that were not.
Farai Chikowore: is a Local Governance Reader who graduated in Strategic Public Management (MSc) and in Public Policy Government and Management (BA, Honours) at De Montfort University. He likes to evaluate the contribution of political discourse to understanding government policies. His main areas of interest are in Research in: Partnership Working, Local government, Local governance, Democratic renewal, Policy process and Strategic Management.He can be contacted at chikoworefarai@gmail.com
Source - Farai Chikowore
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
