Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leone2. Literature Review: The Political Economy of Decentralization in SierraLeone 1Summary Findings from the Literature ReviewWhy decentralization was fast-tracked in Sierra Leone Within international development, democratic decentralization has acquired a dualrationale: a) improving development planning and service delivery (poverty reductionand good governance); b) reincorporating alienated populations into national bodiespolitic (peacebuilding). This dual rationale was particularly pertinent to Sierra Leone. Several studies identifythe over-concentration of political, administrative and economic power in the capitalFreetown as a root cause of rural poverty and the chaotic civil war of the 1990s. An additional reason to decentralize was to reform/replace the archaic and conflictedsystem of governance in the provinces, inherited from colonial “indirect rule”.Chieftaincy, the backbone of this governance system, appeared to be undergoing aterminal crisis of popular legitimacy at the end of the war. Decentralization had been national policy in Sierra Leone for many years and thepolitical will for decentralization after the civil war seemed strong.Early successes of decentralization A new Local Government Act (LGA) was ratified in February 2004. Inaugural local council elections were held in May 2004. Donor support to decentralization was channelled through a PIU with a strong changemanagement team. By 2007, Sierra Leone had a fully functional tier of town and district councils, a newand well-regulated system of fiscal transfers from central to local government,increased investment in local services and regular production of participatorydevelopment plans. In 2008 a second round of local council elections was successfully completed.Emerging constraintsWhile appearing to share international donors’ rationale for decentralization, theGoSL was in fact returning to an old model of local government in which electeddistrict and town councils serve as development planning agencies and chiefdomsremain in place to maintain law and order at the grassroots.Donors accepted this division of functions, seeing it as an opportunity to putdecentralized structures in place quickly and ring-fence them from political capture bychiefs.The drawback of this policy compromise was that it left key governance functions,especially local revenue collection and land use management, in the hands ofchiefdom authorities. Local councils and the chiefdoms were left to compete forauthority and resources within the same political space.Oligarchy still has adherents in Sierra Leone. The line ministries have been slow torelease control over functions scheduled for devolution and the Ministry of LocalGovernment has tended to leave the championing of decentralization to its PIU whileguarding its historical prerogatives in the supervision of chieftaincy affairs.1 Annex 1 contains a fuller version of this review with bibliographic references.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 11