GOLD Report I - UCLG

POSTFACE312 United Cities and Local Governments16. Franck Moderne(2006), “Lemunicipio commeentité politique dansl’organisationterritoriale fédéraledu Brésil”, pp.347-363 in: Mélanges enl’honneur de Jean-Claude Douence. Laprofondeur du droitlocal, Paris, Dalloz.local government and of local selfgovernment,including the restoration oftraditional methods of local organization(not only Australia and New Zealand, butalso India, Pakistan, Malaysia) but othercountries refer rather to the wording“local autonomy” (Japan, Indonesia,Republic of Korea, Philippines).One can see however that these differencesin terminology and sometimes conceptualizationhave no impact on the realcontent of “autonomy” or “self-government”.There is nothing that allows us toassert that the reference to “local autonomy”corresponds to a degree of decentralizationgreater than the reference tothe principle of “self-government”, if onecompares institutions, powers and responsibilities.Municipalities in Germany orFrance do not benefit from less extensivedecentralization than municipalities inItaly or Portugal; decentralization is nomore advanced in the Republic of Koreathan in India. But decentralization isessential as a reference standard for localgovernment. This standard is being developedby the European Charter for LocalSelf-government and the UN Habitat Guidelinesfor Decentralization.This general tendency has however a fewnuances. In African countries, the conceptswhich the constitutions and nationallaws reflect follow those of the formercolonial power. However, this conceptionhas been dominated since independenceby the wish to ensure the unity of thestate, which has upheld a centralized systemand an essentially instrumental visionof decentralization. However, for anumber of years, the reforms undertakenin a certain number of states bring themcloser to the general trend by giving todecentralization a more substantial contentof local self-government (for example:South Africa, Uganda, Zambia,Burkina Faso, Niger, Senegal).Lastly, a few countries stand out, conversely,by the affirmation of a concept ofmunicipality which makes it a componentof the state or the framework of an expressionof sovereignty. Sweden is theonly European country whose constitutiondeclares that “self-management oflocal communities” contributes to therealization of “national sovereignty”(1:1). The constitution of the Ukraine alsostates that the people’s sovereignty isexercised by the organs of power of thestate and by the bodies of local selfgovernment(art.5), but this formula recallsthe former adherence of local bodiesto the state power. In Brazil, the 1988constitution, in principle, confers on themunicipalities (municipio) political selfgovernment:the municipios, as withfederated states, are part of the componentswhose “indissoluble unity” formsthe Federal Republic of Brazil (art.1), andthe federal constitution defines the basesof their organization and their powersand responsibilities (art.29 to 31). Thepractical scope of this concept seems,however, limited 16 . In Indonesia, the introductionof the reference to “autonomy”in the laws of 1999 and laterlaws, corresponds on the other hand to achange of concept, with the transfer ofwide-ranging powers, responsibilities andresources and the direct election of thelocal executive.Local self-government is a constituentelement of decentralization.The terms “local autonomy”, “libreadministration” and “self-government”do indeed correspond to oneand the same notion. It presupposesfreedom of action and organizationfor the local authority in the contextof the laws; this freedom may bemore or less extensive but this doesnot affect the notion itself.III. DemocracyThe classical notion of decentralizationdoes not necessarily imply democracy;an organization may be decentralized