Critically discuss decentralisation in Uganda, South Africa and Rwanda (3 pages).
Discuss whether these countries were successful in promoting participation and decision
making at grass roots level (2 pages)
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………3
Definition of decentralisation……………………………………………………..3
Decentralisation in South Africa………………………………………………….3
Decentralisation in Rwanda ……………………………………………………..4
Decentralisation in Uganda………………………………………………………5
Extent of grass root participation in South Africa, Rwanda &
Uganda ……………………………………………………………………………5-6
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….6.
References………………………………………………………………………..7
2|Page
Decentralisation means the transferring of authority or power from central government to local
governments.
It is done to ensure proper and effective service delivery, empower the
communities to chart their own future. Decentralization enables effective participation from
the communities to solve their own problems without referring them to the central government.
Rondinelli (1987:31) defines decentralization as “the transfer of planning, decision making or
management functions from the central government and its agencies to field organizations,
subordinate units of government, semi-autonomous public corporations, area-wide or regional
development organizations, specialized functional authorities or non-governmental
organizations.”
It is said that these 3 counties implemented decentralization so as to deal with problems and
conflicts in their economies. The problems encountered by these 3 countries ranged from
apartheid, genocide, dictatorship. In South Africa, decentralisation was used to bring equality
amongst the populace since it had a history of apartheid, thus it was a way of rebuilding the
communities by correcting the injustices of the past. In Rwanda, decentralization was aimed
at eradicating of poverty and to “enhance the spirit of reconciliation through empowerment of
local populations following the genocide of the 1994.” (John-Mary Kauzya: 479. Whilst in
Uganda (John-Mary Kauzya : 479) says that “it was a democratic form seeking to transfer
political and administrative, financial & planning authority from central government to local
government and to promote popular participation by empowering locals to make decisions and
enhance accountability and responsibility following the Idi Amin regime in the 1970s and the
Obote II regime in the 1980s.” In some way, it was striving to bring sanity to the oppressed
populace and enable them to be responsible and accountable.
Decentralisation in South Africa was a way of showing that some functions could be done
efficiently and effectively at some lower levels of government and that there was need to ease
the workload and pressure on the national government on minor administrative responsibilities.
However, in South Africa, it is said that democratic decentralization continues to be
complicated because of the existence of traditional leaders who continue to wield power in
rural areas. This has however created conflicts between the traditional leaders and the local
councillors. Decentralisation has opened up opportunities for voices to be heard especially in
the delivery of services to the populace. The decentralisation in South Africa was demanded
from the grass root black communities as a way of getting rid of apartheid. The consultations
made were about the structure it would take and to solicit cooperation from the white
3|Page
communities in decision-making and implementation. (John-May Kauzya : 483) “It was a
deal reached between the aspirations of the black local communities and the status quo of white
supremacy and segregation to implement the agenda of doing away with apartheid for the
benefit of everyone.” It is said that the Local forums and the National Local Government
Negotiating Forum affronted the negotiations. Thus the current decentralised governance
system is a result of what came out of the negotiated national constitution which “ mandated
local governments to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities,
ensure provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner, promote social and
economic development, promote a safe and healthy environment and encourage the
involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.”
(John-May Kauzya : 483)
In Rwanda, after the genocide of 1994, the leadership sought to decentralise governance and
let people have a say in determining their destiny. These powers of the leadership were said
to have been drawn from the Arusha Declaration which had committed government to create
a governance system that would pass the power to the people. The power sharing in Rwanda
is evident in the executive levels and the decentralisation policy will ensure that the Rwanda
people are “ empowered to shape their own destiny.” (John-Mary Kauzya :483)
This
proposal for decentralisation had emanated from the top and the government had a hard task of
convincing the traumatised population which was used to be told by central government what
to do in almost everything. (John-Mary Kauzya:483) This was seen as normal because trust
was once lost, thus it was hard to win it back again. Rwanda`s decentralisation was from
above since it was done by government with assistance of consultants. John-Mary Kauzya goes
on to say that “this aspect is unique in that it was done as part of the overall governance program
and strategy of the country which was formulated through consultations with all governments
institutions.”
The decentralisation policy in Rwanda was built on the promotion of participatory democracy
and empowering grass roots communities for development and reconciliation….. whilst this
was a noble cause, the population needs to be sensitised, persuaded and enabled to embrace
them.
Seminars, field tours,
study visits to other countries
that had implemented
decentralisation successfully were undertaken and thus the population came to understand and
accept decentralisation as a mode of governance to be applied in the country.(John-Mary
Kauzya :484)
4|Page
According to (John-Mary-Kauzya :481) Uganda had been pursuing a major decentralization
programme since the late 1980s. It had been a highly centralised state which gradually turned
to a decentralised one following the transfer of power functions and services from central
government to local councils. Decentralization in Uganda was aimed to restore democracy and
power to the people and
in the Constitution, it was said to be a main feature. For
decentralization to take place in Uganda, the first thing which they vowed to do was to restore
good governance and democracy. This is also reinforced by Y.K.Museveni`s speech during
his address of January 29, 1986, which says “the first point in our programme is the restoration
of democracy. The people of Africa –the people of Uganda are entitled to democratic
government…..” (Adapted from paper presented on the first conference of regional
assemblies of Africa & Europe organised by the Regional Assembly of Tuscany under the
patronage of the Italian Presidency September 17-18 2004, Florence Italy) This clearly
shows that the country was after democracy and good governance to empower its people and
gear for meaningful development through decentralization.
Thus, resistance councils were established in the villages right up to the districts. The
decentralization policy and implementation was gradual and in phases and consultations,
enquiries were carried out. The idea of active participation of citizens was guided by the
Ugandan constitution. When Uganda adopted the devolution, they wanted to put power into
the hands of the local councils to enable them to respond better to the needs of the people. Thus
a process of democratic control and participation in decision-making was done. Still on
participation, the local councils and local governments were given wide-ranging powers to
make development plans based on locally determined priorities like raising revenue. A feature
for Uganda`s decentralisation is the responsibility taken by local councils for the delivery of
the majority of public functions and services, thus most service delivery indicators show a
positive improvement. (Adapted from paper presented on the first conference of regional
assemblies of Africa & Europe organised by the Regional Assembly of Tuscany under the
patronage of the Italian Presidency September 17-18 2004, Florence Italy)
Uganda and Rwanda implemented direct participation in decision making at the lowest levels
of local government systems. The lowest levels of participatory in both countries is said to
have been 18 years and above. Legislation was crafted to make representation mandatory of
women and the youth in local government councils. In Rwanda at least ½ of the local
government council must be women whilst in Uganda a 1/3 must be women.(John-Mary
Kauzya:485)
5|Page
(John-Mary Kauzya:485) says it was also good to set up mechanisms reassuring the
participation of the population especially in a country like Rwanda where community
development is rather sceptical because of failure to participate in development in the past.
The Integrated Development Plan of South Africa and Rwanda`s Development Committees are
said to be good examples of institutionalising participatory development planning in local
governments. The IDP was aimed at correcting the past injustices caused by apartheid. Thus it
required a concerted effort of municipalities to come up with long term plans and vision for the
development of the cities. This therefore led to the strengthening of participatory democracy.
The Community Development Committees in Rwanda enabled the community members to
analyse their environment , define their needs and problems and implement plans using
community resources . It encouraged the population to craft its own destiny.
Conclusion
Decentralisation and participatory in decision making by the 3 countries` populace was
successful in that it brought about empowerment, equality and enabled the crafting of own
destiny.
6|Page
References
Du Plessis, IMM (Dr) 2011-2014. Reader for DVA3702. Pretoria: University of South Africa
Cornwell L, (Prof) 2011-2014. Only study guide for DVA3702.Pretoria:University of South
Africa
SLSA Team (2003) http:// scholar.google.co.za/Decentralization in Practice in Southern Africa
Paper presented on the first conference of regional assemblies of Africa & Europe organised
by the Regional Assembly of Tuscany under the patronage of the Italian Presidency September
17-18 2004, Florence Italy)
7|Page