GOLD Report I - UCLG

31aid. In some cases, central governmentsmade the adoption of decentralization policiesappear to be the result of donor conditions.In Mali and Niger, decentralizationwas a response to local demands, includingsome violent demonstrations and threatsof secession. In other countries, decentralizationprovided an opportunity to overcomeor even eliminate the stigma of aprevious political and administrative organization,as in the case of South Africanapartheid.In North Africa, changes in local governmentstructures seem to have come aboutmore slowly, and the reforms to have beenless thorough. In all countries in this region,the territorial administrative structureseems to be fixed, tied to the structureof the governorate (Wilaya in Algeria, Tunisiaand Morocco, Mouhafadha in Egypt),which is more a tier of administrative decentralization.Nevertheless, almost everywhere thedecentralization option is perceived as progressand is expected to:• Mobilize communities to work for sustainablelocal development and improvedliving conditions;• Help democracy to take root and spreadat the local level;• Reform the state and rebuild the legitimacyof public institutions from the bottomup;• Constitute the starting point for regionalintegration genuinely rooted in Africanrealities.To achieve this, local governments are beinggiven general notional authority over theterritory for which they are responsible.Some have exclusive powers as well aspowers they share with other levels of publicgovernance. In North Africa, the powers oflocal governments must compete with thecentral administration and various nationalpublic enterprises for service delivery (education,health, transport, sanitation, drinkingwater and electricity).The theory and content of decentralizationpolicies tends to be different in federal statesand unitary countries. The decentralizationconcept also varies in accordance with theadministrative tradition inherited from thecolonial period. In federal states, localgovernments come under the remit offederated states; these federated statesdefine the content of the local governmentsystem and its administration. This canlead to a wide range of methods of organizinglocal government –a circumstancewhich does not facilitate a comparativeinterpretation of local governance. In unitarystates, the organization of local governmentsis usually the same throughoutthe national territory. However, the actualpowers granted to local officials are, again,influenced by the administrative traditioninherited from the colonial era.In francophone countries, the organizationof local governments corresponds in principleto a division of powers between centraland local authorities, the latter being representedby an elected deliberative body andan elected or appointed executive body.Municipal terms of office are usually similarto those of national institutions (four or fiveyears) and re-election is allowed. In thesecountries, the municipal executive, mayoror top administrator typically has real decision-makingpower in local management,the powers of this office being defined bylaw. However, this nominal decision-makingpower is often restricted by the practice ofpooling funds; that is, all public resourcesare held in the Treasury under the controlof the Minister of Finance. Thus, the representativesof the Ministry of Finance, suchas the comptroller and municipal tax collector,have effective power over local governments.Many mayors consider such fiscalpower excessive because ministry representativescan block expenditure even if ithas been committed in accordance with alllaws and regulations. It is therefore a claimof national associations of local governmentsto relinquish or even suppress theprinciple of unified treasury. However inSenegal the law makes it possible to devia-