Municipalities and Councils - Australians for Palestine

Trustworthiness in Palestinian Local
Governance By Rasha Alyatim
Palestinian local authorities, a.k.a
municipalities and councils, are vital
social organisations. They are more
than service providers; they are builders
of society and keepers of development.
In our Palestinian context where higher
and national authorities are dependent
on unstable political whims, it is important
for local authorities to be reliable
organisations; competent and able to
withstand the tides of political turmoil
and deliver confidence and assurance
to their citizens.
Naturally, when discussing local
authorities we are discussing two
components and the working relation
between them: locals and authorities.
Authority exists because locals have
chosen its existence to manage collective
issues of concern. It exists to serve the
locals, to help them in meeting their
needs, to guarantee the rights and
interests of the group, and to manage
the scale between the rights and interests
of the group and the rights and interests
of the individual. On the other hand,
since locals are referees to the scope
and nature of the authority’s duties and
work, it is their responsibility to guide the
authority in its work and decision making
and facilitate its progress.
It is important to realise that the general
negative public perception of Palestinian
local authorities and their competency
does not reflect the reality.
Palestinians believe that their local
authorities are unfair, incompetent, and
lack the necessary skills and resources
to perform at acceptable standards.
Palestinians may also use some creative
and colourful language when describing and
talking about their local authorities, often
accompanied by real-life stories about family
members, neighbours, and acquaintances
who fell victim to the incompetency of their
local authority. Happily, I am pleased to say,
the reality is not like that at all.
8
The real picture paints a wonderful
image of sophistication and advancement
in any Palestinian local authority. In
spite of, or maybe because of, the
difficult circumstances that Palestinians
regularly encounter, local authorities have
managed to expertly navigate the tricky
route of local governance with as little
collateral damage as possible. Although
local authorities, much like their locals,
are not hesitant at all when talking about
the shortcomings of locals, namely,
their lack of loyalty, participation, and
good citizenship. Local authorities, too,
have a bag full of stories about citizens
throwing trash from a car or the third floor
of a building, and demanding access
to certain services that they refuse to
pay for.
Thus, it is apparent that a missing link
exists in this all-too-important relationship.
Both sides are of the opinion that the
other side has a private agenda and is
not acting to achieve common goals and
interests. This reality makes each side
work independently regardless of inputs
or recommendations from the other side.
Therefore, optimised cooperation may
be classified as non-existent between
the two sides.
This is all due to the missing link in this
relationship: trust. Neither side trusts
that the other side knows what it is doing
or that the intentions of the other side
are honourable. Local authorities don’t
trust citizens to behave in a responsible
manner by paying their dues or using
resources and services consciously; on
the other hand, citizens don’t trust local
authorities’ actions or competency.
This missing link of trust breeds an
environment of passiveness. Citizens are
not actively involved in the governance
of their locality, nor are local authorities
actively involving citizens in the
governance process. It might be the
case that some form of involvement
in governance takes place, but it’s
subjected to the terms and conditions
of internationally funded projects, not to
citizens’ needs and demands.
So, how to restore this trust?
Well, first it is important to realise that it
is an ongoing process of gaining trust and
keeping it. One single action or activity to
build trust is never enough, no matter how
big, but rather repeated and continuous
actions will decide the trustworthiness of
involved sides.
Road construction in Ramallah. Photo by Yousef Shakarne.
This is the second element to realise
when working to restore trust; each side
– citizens and local authorities – has to
prove its trustworthiness to the other side.
Since the relationship between locals and
their authority is a dynamic one, both
sides share the responsibility of making
this relationship, and, in turn, their locality,
prosper and thrive.
After understating these two elements
comes the actual process of restoring
trust. Good indicators of trustworthiness
9
are ethics, participation, and competency.
The ethics indicator refers to practicing and
applying values such as accountability,
transparency, integrity, fairness, and rule
of law. The participation indicator refers
to engaging citizens broadly and freely
in local governance decision making.
The competency indicator refers to the
level of skills and resources needed to
develop local governance. Bringing these
indicators together in practice by citizens
and locals should result in restoring trust.
One indicator I want to emphasise
here is transparency. The governing
process in Palestine is surrounded
by a mystic aura of secrecy; it is the
norm for things to be hidden and
confidential amongst a very small
number of people. The reasoning,
it is argued, is that there is no value
in making things publicly known,
as the very popular Palestinian
proverb goes, “Too many cooks
spoil the cooking.” This mentality