Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leone In a period of extensive post-war reconstruction, the resources controlled by localcouncils have been tiny compared to the international development assistance fasttrackedthrough line ministries and NGOs. This has lessened the political impact ofdecentralization.Recent Political and Policy DevelopmentsSuccessful post-war reconstruction has seen the revival of electoral competitionbetween regionally and ethnically aligned political parties, which has also led to therevival of the old political strategy of using chiefs as vote banks.Party political issues have also begun to affect relations between central and localgovernment, prompting the current government to revive the colonially-wrought postof District Officer to “bring local councils to heel.”Recent GOSL policy on local government has diluted some of the powers granted tolocal councils under the LGA of 2004 and focussed on building institutional capacityin the chiefdoms.Some commentators fear that decentralization could now be reversed while othersargue that current GoSL policy represents a belated reaction to the fact that the“genie” of decentralized democracy is out of the bottle. It is more likely, however, thatrecent policy developments represents an attempt by the GoSL to accommodatecompeting political interests rather than a concerted political strategy to return to themodalities of “indirect rule”. It is extremely doubtful that any government of SierraLeone could now abolish elected local government and survive politically.The policy literature on decentralization in Sierra Leone identifies the over-concentration ofpolitical, administrative and economic power in Freetown as the root cause of the civil war ofthe 1990s. The argument here is that the Sierra Leonean state became increasingly localizedand self-serving in the pre-war era, leaving the rural poor to fend for themselves. The warbegan in an environment of collapsing social trust and escalated chaotically as large numbersof marginalized youths were drawn in. For international donors supporting post-warreconstruction in Sierra Leone, decentralization always included the explicit peacebuildingaim of redressing the impoverishment, exclusion and alienation of the rural masses.Three further factors clinched donor support for a fast-track decentralization programmewhen the civil war ended:1. Decentralization had been a declared policy of both military and civilian governmentsof Sierra Leone during the civil war years. National political will for decentralizationtherefore seemed strong.2. Local government in Sierra Leone prior to the war had changed remarkably littlesince the days of colonial “indirect rule”. It comprised of a system of fieldadministration, coordinated by District Officers, and chieftaincy structures at thelocal level. The conservation of these structures in the post-colonial era helped tokeep the formal state small and thus amenable to oligarchic control. It also enabledchiefs to accumulate considerable power as political brokers and thus served as asuppressant to mass political mobilization. Widespread protest against chiefs’governance in NGO-led forums at the end of the war convinced developmentagencies that chieftaincy was deeply implicated in the governance failings that hadled to the war, that it was undergoing a terminal crisis of popular legitimacy and thata modern and democratic system of local government was urgently needed to securepeace and stability in Sierra Leone.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 12