Opinion / Columnist
Zimbabwe@36: time to decentralise
13 Apr 2016 at 06:36hrs | Views
NEXT Monday, Zimbabwe will celebrate its 36th Independence anniversary, three dozen years of ups and downs, a period during which the country left the British Commonwealth, made gigantic educational achievements, and experienced astonishingly high inflation, leading to the present multi - currency regime.
Many people who are this year as old as Zimbabwe are proud parents of four, five, and in some cases as many as six children.
The oldest of those children are probably in Grade Six or Seven. These children look to the future with a serious sense of hope for a prosperous, comfortable socio – economic life.
The country's economy has, meanwhile, taken a nose – dive, resulting in many people losing their jobs as many industrial and commercial enterprises close down.
Factors that cause such negative economic developments range from uncontrollable local weather vagaries, sterile political policies, to hostile international measures against the Zimbabwean government.
The State's major concern is currently the creation of employment in its various sectors. High unemployment rates have been a significant characteristic of Zimbabwe's socio – economic conditions since the country's attainment of independence in 1980.
Employment creation is an integral part of the poverty eradication process in that employment opportunities enable virtually everyone to become actual workers.
A good government endeavors to create an environment that is conducive to employment creation. The degree of success to create such an environment depends on the type of governance.
A decentralised government system is much more capable to generate employment opportunities than a centralised one in that its decisions are from the grassroots whereas the centralised system's decisions are from the top.
A socio – economic development process originating in either a village or a ward or district is much more likely to succeed and to benefit its particular area economically from the time it is a concept up to its operational stage more than one originating away from the community of its location.
Such development projects use a local labour force whose earnings benefit the village, ward or district, thus contributing towards poverty eradication.
Socio – economic development is much faster in a decentralised government system because decisions are taken and implemented much faster than in centralised governance where bureaucratic delays and other hitches are inevitable from the conception to the implementation stages.
Decentralised governance has two types of results, economic empowerment and political empowerment. It authorises local communities to identify and exploit their own natural resources, and to develop their local or regional infrastructure such as inter – district and inter – provincial roads, primary and secondary schools, local medical, sports and cultural facilities.
The identification and development of human resources are much more achieved in a decentralised governance system than in a centralised one.
Political empowerment of the masses is easier achieved in a decentralised than in a centralised governance framework in that in the former, people are given or delegated the authority to decide as well as to put their decisions into effect.
A sense of national belonging and loyalty (patriotism) is certainly much stronger in a decentralised than in a centralised situation.
Communities become more loyal to the state when they are given more responsibility in their respective areas, and responsibilities are, of course, much more easily carried out when people have both the political and legal authority to do so.
It is important to bear in mind that politics is basically all about space and power. Space refers to geographical areas of abode.
Those areas have both human and natural resources that have to be developed and exploited.
To do that effectively, communities have to be legally empowered.
The best way to do so is by devolving power to them so that they become masters of their own destiny.
We should understand that their centralisation and decentralisation are really not opposite governance tendencies, but are, in fact, the same governance tendencies that differ only in the method and degree of their respective dispersal of power and responsibilities to the people.
It is of historical interest to observe here that some of the world's most admired socio – economically successful nations have decentralised governance systems.
Among those nations we can mention Canada, Australia, the United States, India, and one or two South American states. Our southern neighbour, South Africa, is another nation with such a governance.
One of the world's emerging economic giants, China, has a decentralised governance albeit in the economic and fiscal sectors.
Switzerland is yet another wonderful example of a state run by a decentralised government system.
The author of this article has used the words "governance" and "government" more or less inter – changeably in this opinion piece.
To clear possible confusion the author wishes to define "governance" by quoting a 1997 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) statement on that topic: "….. governance can be defined as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels and comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences."
We should meet "our obligations" and mediate our differences by looking at possible solutions to our national socio – economic challenges in order to create an environment in which Zimbabweans who are presently at the height of their lives, that is to say at 36 years of age, can enjoy their lives optimally all round.
It would appear that decentralisation is the best way forward as stated by Chapter 14 of our national constitution.
Since a decentralisation governance places the authority to decide, and the responsibility to implement on local communities, the people would not blame anyone else other than themselves should their socio – economic projects fail.
Presently the blame is heaped on the centralised government for the myriad of socio – economic difficulties facing the 36 – year – old nation.
Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a retired, Bulawayo – based journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734 328 136 or through email. sgwakuba@gmail.com
Many people who are this year as old as Zimbabwe are proud parents of four, five, and in some cases as many as six children.
The oldest of those children are probably in Grade Six or Seven. These children look to the future with a serious sense of hope for a prosperous, comfortable socio – economic life.
The country's economy has, meanwhile, taken a nose – dive, resulting in many people losing their jobs as many industrial and commercial enterprises close down.
Factors that cause such negative economic developments range from uncontrollable local weather vagaries, sterile political policies, to hostile international measures against the Zimbabwean government.
The State's major concern is currently the creation of employment in its various sectors. High unemployment rates have been a significant characteristic of Zimbabwe's socio – economic conditions since the country's attainment of independence in 1980.
Employment creation is an integral part of the poverty eradication process in that employment opportunities enable virtually everyone to become actual workers.
A good government endeavors to create an environment that is conducive to employment creation. The degree of success to create such an environment depends on the type of governance.
A decentralised government system is much more capable to generate employment opportunities than a centralised one in that its decisions are from the grassroots whereas the centralised system's decisions are from the top.
A socio – economic development process originating in either a village or a ward or district is much more likely to succeed and to benefit its particular area economically from the time it is a concept up to its operational stage more than one originating away from the community of its location.
Such development projects use a local labour force whose earnings benefit the village, ward or district, thus contributing towards poverty eradication.
Socio – economic development is much faster in a decentralised government system because decisions are taken and implemented much faster than in centralised governance where bureaucratic delays and other hitches are inevitable from the conception to the implementation stages.
Decentralised governance has two types of results, economic empowerment and political empowerment. It authorises local communities to identify and exploit their own natural resources, and to develop their local or regional infrastructure such as inter – district and inter – provincial roads, primary and secondary schools, local medical, sports and cultural facilities.
The identification and development of human resources are much more achieved in a decentralised governance system than in a centralised one.
Political empowerment of the masses is easier achieved in a decentralised than in a centralised governance framework in that in the former, people are given or delegated the authority to decide as well as to put their decisions into effect.
A sense of national belonging and loyalty (patriotism) is certainly much stronger in a decentralised than in a centralised situation.
It is important to bear in mind that politics is basically all about space and power. Space refers to geographical areas of abode.
Those areas have both human and natural resources that have to be developed and exploited.
To do that effectively, communities have to be legally empowered.
The best way to do so is by devolving power to them so that they become masters of their own destiny.
We should understand that their centralisation and decentralisation are really not opposite governance tendencies, but are, in fact, the same governance tendencies that differ only in the method and degree of their respective dispersal of power and responsibilities to the people.
It is of historical interest to observe here that some of the world's most admired socio – economically successful nations have decentralised governance systems.
Among those nations we can mention Canada, Australia, the United States, India, and one or two South American states. Our southern neighbour, South Africa, is another nation with such a governance.
One of the world's emerging economic giants, China, has a decentralised governance albeit in the economic and fiscal sectors.
Switzerland is yet another wonderful example of a state run by a decentralised government system.
The author of this article has used the words "governance" and "government" more or less inter – changeably in this opinion piece.
To clear possible confusion the author wishes to define "governance" by quoting a 1997 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) statement on that topic: "….. governance can be defined as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels and comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences."
We should meet "our obligations" and mediate our differences by looking at possible solutions to our national socio – economic challenges in order to create an environment in which Zimbabweans who are presently at the height of their lives, that is to say at 36 years of age, can enjoy their lives optimally all round.
It would appear that decentralisation is the best way forward as stated by Chapter 14 of our national constitution.
Since a decentralisation governance places the authority to decide, and the responsibility to implement on local communities, the people would not blame anyone else other than themselves should their socio – economic projects fail.
Presently the blame is heaped on the centralised government for the myriad of socio – economic difficulties facing the 36 – year – old nation.
Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a retired, Bulawayo – based journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734 328 136 or through email. sgwakuba@gmail.com
Source - chronicle
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.
