Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra Leone4. Findings from Focus Group DiscussionsSummary Findings from Focus Group DiscussionsPerceived Insufficiencies in Public ServicesFGD participants were appreciative of recent improvements in local services broughtabout by decentralization. But they also emphasized that these services remaininsufficient to satisfy local needs and claimed that they are often subject tomismanagement. A common complaint was that poor people often have to pay forservices that are supposed to be free (e.g. primary education) and that many amenitiesare either incomplete (e.g. no furniture in new schools) or prone to resource shortages(e.g.no drugs in PHUs).There remain many remote communities in rural Sierra Leone whose access to publicservices of any kind is minimal.Self-Help and PatronageMany services and amenities are organized locally on a self-help basis, especiallyeducation.There is an entrenched assumption in rural areas that welfare and services are as likelyto come from benevolent patrons as from public institutions.Criticisms of Local Councillors Because the resources local councils currently deliver are insufficient to satisfyperceived needs, and because local councillors do not have the means to operate aspatrons, FGD participants’ views on councillors tend to be negative.The Political Geography of Chieftaincy Local views on chiefs tend to vary according to livelihood and geographical location.Remote rural communities rely on chiefs for social protection and for authorization ofproperty rights. Consequently, they tend to be strong supporters of the status quowhere chiefs’ powers and responsibilities are concerned. Smallholder farmers alsolook to chiefs for governance in peri-urban settings although better educated wageworkers tend to put more trust in local councils. Deference towards chieftaincydeclines sharply in urban areas where economic opportunities are greater and selforganizedassociational life stronger. Kono District represents an exception to this pattern due to the wealth and decisionmakingpower chiefs accumulated during the peak years of diamond mining.Support for Decentralization in PrincipleIn spite of the criticisms levelled at local councillors, FGD participants were verymuch in favour of decentralization in principle. In their view, the main benefit ofdecentralization is that it makes government aware of local needs and “gives voice tothe voiceless.”Even in Kono District, local councils rather than chiefs were FGD participants’preferred agencies for delivering services. A fear expressed in Kono was that withoutlocal councils, taxes, market dues and shop licences will increase.4.1 Perceived Insufficiencies in Public ServicesFGD participants in all districts were appreciative of recent improvements in local servicesbrought about by decentralization. But they also emphasized that these services remaininsufficient to satisfy local needs and claimed that they are often subject to mismanagement.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 25