Decentralization in Sierra Leone - Research for Development

Decentralization in Sierra LeoneAnnex 1 The Political Economy of Decentralization in Sierra Leone (FullVersion) 10The Wartime Origins of Decentralization PolicyDemocratic decentralization (i.e. the revival of elected local government) was a declaredpolicy of both military and civilian governments in Sierra Leone during the civil war of the1990s. An early rationale for this policy was set out in a consultancy study commissioned bythe NPRC junta in 1994 (Zwanikken et al, 1994). The consultants noted that administrative,political and economic power in Sierra Leone had become severely over-centralized duringthe recently ended era of one-party rule. The APC government of Siaka Stevens had deactivatedelected local councils in 1972, leaving local government in the provinces in thehands of a small field administration and chiefdom structures inherited from colonial“indirect rule”. District Officers were notionally responsible for coordinating the activities ofcentral government departments in the provinces, but the consultants observed thatdepartmental heads tended to deal directly with headquarters in Freetown. The prevailingrelationship between central government and the provinces, they noted, was that of the centreextracting resources (e.g. raw materials and taxes) with minimal return in the way of services.Such services as did exist were severely under-resourced and heavily dependent on thesupport of international NGOs.The consultants went on to note that the NPRC junta had failed to articulate a vision ofdecentralization beyond the re-activation of the original district and town councils. In aneffort to support the development of a new policy, they summarized the virtues ofdecentralization in a country like Sierra Leone: While over-centralization stultifies democratic institutions, diminishes governmentaccountability and encourages corruption, decentralization can enhance popularparticipation in the government process and thereby create institutional opportunitiesfor those outside the central state to make decisions concerning the organisation ofpublic goods and services. While an over-centralized bureaucracy soon becomes overburdened and inefficient,decentralization can promote organizational and managerial efficiency by enablingeach level of government to specialise in what it is most capable of doing. Moreover,it can bring government closer to the critical information it requires for deliveringservices effectively and help ensure that available resources are evenly distributed. Over-centralization alienates the populace from political and administrative systemsassociated with the formal state. Farmers may, for example, switch from cashcropping to subsistence production if rural infrastructure is neglected and the ruralpopulation as whole may withdraw to their “age-old tested primordial institutions inthe villages”. Decentralization, on the other hand, can improve governmentalaccountability by broadening opportunities for citizen feedback on services andimposing the discipline of the ballot box on service delivery. It can also enhance thelegitimacy of government institutions by enabling people representing differentgroups and interests to identify with, and have a stake in, the formal processes ofgovernment. Policies are thus more likely to be subjected to genuine debate, whichenables policy-makers to consider all possible options and thus produce better policy.Finally, decentralization can also provide training both to political leaders and citizenson the challenges and frustrations of democratic governance.10 The analysis in this section is based on a literature review but also draws upon the lead consultant’searlier research and consultancy work on local government reform and decentralization in SierraLeone.Fanthorpe Consultancy Ltd Page 50