GOLD Report I - UCLG

AFRICA30 United Cities and Local Governmentszed by France, Belgium and Portugal.Direct rule meant administrative oversightof colonial territory organized into “cercles,”subdivisions and cantons under theresponsibility of the colonial administrators.Local authorities played only a consultativerole.In fact, changes in administrative structure went hand-in-handwith moves towards decentralization, which formed the coreof all endeavors to modernize the State and with it publicpolicy in Africa, supposedly leading to "local democracy" asa key pillar of the entire territorial administrative organizationIndirect rule, established primarily in Britishcolonies, allowed local people somefreedom to manage their own affairs, suchas the administration of justice or thecollection of taxes –to be shared with thecolonial government. Indigenous customsand authority were more or less ignored aslong as local leaders protected the interestsof the colonial power. This systemsowed the seeds of future decentralizationin these countries.In North Africa, the colonial administrativeprocess was more complex. In this region,18th and 19th century colonial powersencountered many established state structures.For the most part, colonial municipaladministration under European nationsrested on old, indigenous structures, albeitheavily influenced by the recent, Europeanoccupying power. Both the British in Egyptand Sudan, and the French in Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia sought such accommodation.When African countries achieved independence,the new governments chose toretain the structure inherited from thecolonial power, rather than move immediatelytoward decentralization. From theoutset, the old systems were seen as instrumentsfor extending central powerover local communities. It was not untilthe 1980s and the ensuing wave ofdemocratization in the 1990s that a newdirection gained momentum. CentralizedAfrican governments showed renewedinterest in decentralization. Gradually,local governments began taking chargeof more local matters. In fact, changes inadministrative structure went hand-inhandwith moves toward decentralizationin all endeavors to modernize the state.This widespread change in public policy inAfrica was expected to lead to acceptanceof "local democracy" as a key pillar ofterritorial administrative organizations.Since the mid-1980s, several factorshave pushed African governments towardeconomic liberalization and adjustmentpolicies. These factors include: budgetdifficulties generated by shrinking resources,challenges to interventionistpublic administration systems, the resurgenceof liberal ideas advocating therehabilitation of market mechanisms, thedisengagement of the state, and thechanging roles of the public sector andprivate initiative. These new considerationsimplied taking part in globalizationand international competition requiredgenuine policies of reform and restructuring,and this rationale affected all subsequentreforms relating to local governmentand urban policy.However, not all African countries chosethe same route in adopting and implementingdecentralization policies. In the majorityof countries, decentralization policieswere adopted following citizens’ demandsfor increased participation. This wasstrongly expressed by local communities inpro-democracy movements during the1990s. Because of the connection betweendemocratization and decentralization,some people saw the adoption of decentralizationreforms as a corollary to the democratizationand liberalization that somefinancial partners of African governmentswere imposing as a condition for providing