Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leone3.1. The Challenges of Institutionalizing Change ManagementA point emerging repeatedly from interviews with key informants at both the national anddistrict level was that fast-tracking decentralization under the management of a discreteproject implementation unit (PIU) has disadvantages as well as advantages in respect of goodgovernance outcomes, especially in a small country like Sierra Leone where state agencieshave often been used as instruments of patronage.On the positive side, the legacy of the change management culture of the IRCBP, highlightedin the World Bank literature (see Annex 1), is very much alive in the Local GovernmentFinance Department (LGFD), a former sub-unit of the IRCBP now mainstreamed into theMinistry of Finance (MOFED). A point emphasized by LGFD staff was that every transfer ofresources to local councils and every item of local council expenditure is fully accounted for.They also emphasized that everyone in government benefits from fiscal decentralization,including the line ministries, and could not see any way of reversing the process withoutcausing chaos. They went on to argue that administrative and fiscal decentralization is theonly programme likely to satisfy the new service and accountability demanding “politicalclass” that has emerged in Sierra Leone since the civil war.On the negative side, highly qualified and motivated change management staff may onlyremain in post for as long as donors are prepared to fund their contracts. The LGFD, andcontract staff elsewhere in MOFED, are in a strong position due to Sierra Leone’sdependence on external budget support. DecSec has been less fortunate. DecSec staff wereinterviewed shortly before the closure of the IRCBP and while some were already guaranteedfurther employment within the DSDP, others were facing an uncertain future. A MLG insiderreported that there “no great enthusiasm” in the ministry for mainstreaming DecSec. TheMinster’s stated view was that he was waiting to hear from donors as to whether there will befurther technical support to the MLG for decentralization.Senior DecSec staff expressed considerable frustration over their dealings with theircolleagues in the MLG. Everyone in government from the President downwards is talkingabout change and reform, noted one interviewee, but the mainstream civil service lacksinnovative thinking and is often “on a different planet”. Another interviewee characterized theMLG as a secretive organization that keeps formal channels of communication to otherMDAs to a minimum.A related issue raised by interviewees was that decentralization currently lacks a powerful“champion” in government. An SLPP council leader observed that the drawback of having anexecutive presidency is that decisions are always made at the top and that everyone elsefights to get the president’s attention. He had recently heard President Koroma refer todecentralization as an “experiment”, and for him that remark illustrated one of the maindrawbacks of managing decentralization through a donor PIU. Local councils, he pointed out,have yet to enjoy the same constitutional protections as paramount chieftaincy. He feared thatthe decentralization process was vulnerable to reversal.DecSec interviewees made the same point when noting that the potentially pivotal role ofdecentralization in delivering the service improvements set out in President Koroma’sheadline policy, the Agenda for Change, is rarely mentioned in government communiqués.The Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on decentralization should be pushing thedecentralization programme forward, they argued, but it is chaired by the Vice-President andpeople who want to influence policy tend to go directly to the President. In their view, theFanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 17