GOLD Report I - UCLG

POSTFACE310 United Cities and Local Governmentsties at municipal level for which there isnever a transfer of legislative powers.On the other hand, a clear distinction mustbe made between deconcentration anddecentralization and the former must not beassimilated to a restrictive application of theidea of decentralization as is proposed withina broad concept of decentralization. Deconcentrationis originally a French notion whichapplies to the relations between the centraladministration and their local-level officesthat depend on the delegation of powers tothe latter. Deconcentration is the oppositeof decentralization in that it governsthe relations within an administrativehierarchy, whereas decentralizationexcludes any hierarchical relations betweenthe state and local authorities.Deconcentration comprises two elements:i) the existence of territorially competent serviceswithin the state administration;ii) delegation of powers to these services.But the term delegation may also be usedto designate an intermediate situation:state powers and responsibilities are delegatedto a decentralized authority (i.e.,resulting from an election and not fromnomination by a higher authority) and areexercised on behalf of the state and forwhich the decentralized authority isaccountable to the state. This situation ismost often designated by the expression:“delegated powers and responsibilities”.Depending on the case, it may be thatelective legitimacy weakens the control ofthe higher authority or, on the contrary,that the weight of the delegated powersand responsibilities weakens decentralizationbecause of the control exercised bythe higher authority.These distinctions lead to a preference fora strict definition of decentralization whichmarks the difference from related notions.Decentralization is thus characterizedby the existence of locally electedauthorities, distinct from the state’sadministrative authorities, and exercising,in the framework of the law,their own powers and responsibilitiesfor which they have a degree of selfgovernment,under the control of thestate. As understood in this way,decentralization in its modern meaningis inseparable from the idea oflocal self-government and the democraticprinciple. But the volume of responsibilitiesexercised is not sufficient toassess the level of decentralization in agiven country; that depends also on theregime under which the responsibilities areto be found and the control effectivelyexercised by the state.In its broadest sense, decentralizationexists in almost all countries although ithas very different characteristics. Butstrictly defined, decentralization is lackingin very many countries. Hence, when article96 of the constitution of the China statesthat “local congresses of the people atdifferent levels are the organs of the state-’s power”, this is a form of decentralizationin its broadest, and not strictest, sense.This was the concept in the Soviet Union,abandoned today under article 12 of theconstitution of the Russian Federation. Butsome states, formerly part of the SovietUnion, still adhere more or less explicitly tothis concept (in general the states of CentralAsia and Belarus). In Cuba, althoughassemblies of people’s power are characterizedin the constitution as the “higher localbodies of state power”, it is however recognizedthat they fulfil specific functionsother than the assistance they provide inrealizing the ultimate goals of the state(art.102 and 103). Other political conceptsmay also lead to principles excludingdecentralization of the local administration.This is the case in Saudi Arabia, inOman and in Qatar; in other Arab countriesand in Islamic Republic of Iran somemoves have been made towards decentralizationin recent laws and constitutions.Yet the Iranian constitution, which sets uplocally elected councils, subjects them tothe principles of the Islamic regime and