GOLD Report I - UCLG

AFRICA26 United Cities and Local GovernmentsIn practice, decentralization in Africahas most often been conceived andimplemented as an administrativetechniqueThe view of decentralization in Africangovernments seems to fluctuate betweenregarding it as a technique of administrativeorganization and –more rarely– as a genuinelong-term policy. If decentralization is apolicy, it can help to change the operationof existing political systems. If, on theother hand, it is thought of primarily as anadministrative technique, it is likely to leadonly to rationalization of administrativestructures and their effectiveness.In practice, decentralization in Africa hasmost often been conceived and implementedas an administrativetechnique. Indeed, whencolonial powers controlledmost of Africa,they often sought todisrupt traditional tiesin order to consolidatetheir centralized power.In some cases acolonial power did try to preserve an existingadministrative model, but this approachtoo was adopted primarily tostrengthen colonial power, rather than fosterself-governance. Predictably, local populationsperceived the few decentralizedstructures set up by colonizers as tools forreinforcing the colonial presence. In allcountries in the region, this colonial legacyof an ad hoc and often contradictory combinationof centralization and decentralizationformed the foundation of post-colonialterritorial administration. Following independence,embryonic national administrationsrelied on the familiar centralizedmodel as they confronted urgent problemsof resources, administrative managementand the establishment of state structures.The continuation of centralized power wasseen as expedient not only to control dataand policy orientation, but also to deal withthe shortcomings and failures of newgovernments struggling to establish nationalauthority.This explains why, particularly in francophoneAfrican countries, the centralizingmodel inherited from the colonial powerwas adopted. For internal territorial administration,however, the preferred approachtended more toward decentralization,though not to an extent that could underminean overarching philosophy of centralization.Decentralization was still fearedand deliberately avoided if it threatened tomove beyond administrative techniquetoward political substance and any democraticcontent. The concern of the newgoverning elites was to consolidate theirpower. From this perspective, the quest fornational unity –seen as a way of combatingpotentially damaging tribal, local orregional affinities– was given a high profile.Modernization, economic developmentand national unity became the favouredslogans.In African countries, the concepts of politicaland administrative decentralizationdeveloped along the lines of the Frenchdéconcentration –state representativesat the local level rather than locally electedbodies. From the outset they werestrategic instruments intended primarilyto ensure uniform administration of theterritory by the central government. Theideal of centralization predominated for along time, relegating the more democraticmodel of decentralization to the backburner.The constraints on putting decentralizationinto practice have been apparent fora long time, though such restrictions haveoccasionally undergone nominal modificationsto disarm critics. For the mostpart, such superficial alterations, howeverhighly approved or formally enshrinedin the legal system, amounted tolittle more than cosmetic palliatives.Today, the legal status of decentralizationpolicies in most African countries is stipulatedin one of two ways: explicitly in aconstitution, or by lower-level laws andregulations. To date, less than 40% ofAfrican constitutions mention localgovernments as a specific level of governance.In countries where decentralization