UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA
EXAMINING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE DECENTRALIZATION
PROCESS IN GHANA: A CASE STUDY OF THE HO MUNICIPALITY OF THE
VOLTA REGION.
PAUL EKPEH
JUNE, 2012
1
EXAMINING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN THE
DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS IN GHANA: A CASE STUDY OF
THE HO MUNICIPALITY IN THE VOLTA REGION.
PAUL EKPEH
A Thesis in the Department of Social Studies Education, Faculty of Social Science,
submitted to the School of Graduate Studies, University of Education, Winneba in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Master of Philosophy (Social
Studies) degree.
JUNE, 2012
2
Acknowledgements
Many people have provided me with invaluable support in producing this M.Phil
thesis. I would especially want to acknowledge my supervisor, Prof., Gilbert Bluwey,
who has been very supportive throughout the research process. He has been a constant
source of encouragement and offered effective feedback.
Thanks also goes to the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Prof. A.Y
Quashigah, the HOD of the Social Studies Department, Dr. Bekoe, Dr.E.D. Ananga,
Madam Lucy and all course mates for their assistance. I would also like to thank all those
I met in the towns I visited for the interviews and the administration of the
questionnaires, I am very grateful.
Further thanks to the personnel of the Ho Municipal Assembly for their kindness
and help in the myriad of finishing-off tasks
I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to you all!
i
DECLARATION
STUDENT’S DECLARATION
I, PAUL EKPEH, declare that this Thesis with the exception of quotations and
references contained in published works which have all been identified and duly
acknowledged, is my own original work, and has not been submitted either in part or
whole, for another degree elsewhere.
SIGNATURE………………………….
DATE………………………………….
SUPERVISOR’S DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of this work was supervised in
accordance with the guidelines for supervision of Thesis as laid down by the University
of Education, Winneba.
NAME OF SUPERVISOR……………………………………....
SIGNATURE…………………………………………………….
DATE…………………………………………………………….
ii
Dedication
To my wife ,Lovelace Ankomah, and my son, Edem K.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
LIST OF TABLES
viii
ABSTRACT
ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………………..
1
1.0 Background to the Problem …………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem and Scope of the Research……………………….. 3
1.2 Purpose of the Research ……………………………………………………… 4
1.3 Research Objectives…………………………………………………………… 4
1.4 Research Questions…………………………………………………………… 4
1.5 Significance of the Research…………………………………………………. 5
1.6 Limitations of the Research………………………………………………….. 6
1.7 Delimitations of the Research………………………………………………..
6
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms…………………………………………….
6
1.9 Summary and Organization of Chapters…………………………………….
7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………
8
2.0 Defining Decentralization…………………………………………………
8
2.0.1 Reasons for Decentralization……………………………………………
10
2.0.2 Types of Decentralization…………………………………………
11
2.0.3 Dimensions of Decentralization……………………………………
12
iv
2.1 Historical Background of Decentralization in Ghana……………
14
2.1.1 The 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the Decentralization Programme
2.2
[Legal Framework]…………………………………………………
16
Decentralization and Citizen Participation…………………………
21
2.2.1 Meaning of Citizen Participation……………………………………
21
2.2.2 Citizen Participation and Decentralization…………………………
22
2.3 Methods of Citizen Participation and Involvement in
Decision- Making………………………………………………
27
2.4 Factors Affecting Citizen Participation in the Decentralization
Process ……………………………………………………………
30
2.5 Summary ……………………………………………………………
31
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………
32
3.0 Research Design……………………………………………………
32
3.1 The Study Population………………………………………………
33
3.2 Sample and Sampling Techniques…………………………………
34
3.3 Research Instruments………………………………………………
34
3.4 Date Collection Procedure…………………………………………
36
3.5 Reliability and Validity of Instruments……………………………
37
3.6 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………
37
3.7 Summary………………………………………………………………..
38
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS…………… …
39
4.0 Introduction………………………………………………………….
39
4.1 Background of Interviewees……………………………………………
41
v
4.2 Citizens View about the Decentralization Process
in the Ho Municipality ………………………………………
43
4.2.1 Citizens Perspective on the Decentralization Process………
43
4.2.2 The Unit Committee Members and the Decentralization
Process……………………………………………….
47
4.2.3 Assembly Members and the Decentralization Process………
49
4.2.4 Citizen Participation in the Decentralization Process………
52
4.2.5 Relevance of Issues / Maters at Community Meetings………
57
4.2.6 Decentralization and Stakeholders……………………………
58
4.2.7 Factors that Affects the Decentralization Process
in the Ho Municipality………………………………
59
4.2.8 Summary ……………………………………………………
67
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS…………………
68
5.0 Introduction……………………………………………………
68
5.1 Citizens’ Views and Understandings of the Decentralization
Process…………………………………………………
5.2 Citizens Participation in the Decentralization Process…………
68
73
5.3 Factors Affecting Citizens Participation in the
Decentralization Process in the Ho Municipal Assembly………
76
5.4 Summary…………………………………………………………….
81
vi
CHAPTER SIX: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………
82
6.0 Introductions …………………………………………………
82
6.1 Summary of Findings…………………………………………
82
6.2 Conclusions…………………………………………………………
85
6.3 Recommendations………………………………………………
86
REFERENCES
88
APPENDICES
94
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page
1
Distribution of Responses by Community………..
39
2
Distribution of Respondents by Age………………
40
3
Distribution of Respondents by Sex………………
40
4
Distribution of Respondents by Occupation……..
41
5
Distribution of Respondents by Office……………
42
6
Distribution of Respondents by Duration of Office
42
7
Citizens’ Perspective on the Decentralization Process
44
8
Views on the functionality of Unit Committee Members
48
9
The Assembly Member and Decentralization Process
50
10
Citizens’ Participation in the Decentralization Process
53
11
Issues / Matters at Community Meetings
57
12
Decentralization and Stakeholders
59
13
Factors that Affects the Decentralization Process
in the Ho Municipality
14
60
Other Factors Respondents Observed to Affect the
Decentralization process
15
64
Suggested Solutions to Factors that Affect the
Decentralization Process
66
viii
Abstract
Contemporary debates about development confer a greater role on citizen
participation in the decentralization process. This thesis was to discover the extent of
citizen awareness of power to influence policies at the Municipal Assembly’s
substructure, the grassroots, and how official respond to the demands of people at the
grass root level.
The thesis applies a case study research design. It combines questionnaires and
interview sessions in the gathering of data and generating tables to analyze the data in the
Ho Municipality
Decentralization is essentially about public administration that is based on local
governance. Ghana has been practising decentralization since 1988 and it has been
embraced generally by the citizenry.
Even though there are structural defects, financial constraints, among others,
decentralization and citizen participation has been promoted in the Ho Municipality of
the Volta Region in Ghana. The findings revealed that there is a fair understanding of the
process of decentralization only during District Assembly elections. Citizens have not
been effectively involved in the process. These issues have been related to factors such
as selection and accountability of some of the stakeholders, which include Municipal
Chief Executives, lack of funds for development in the Municipality, and ineffectiveness
of Unit Committees.
ix
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background of the Problem Statement
The last decades of the 20th century saw the emergence of decentralization as the
major public administration strategy in Ghana. Decentralization became a significant
policy objective during the 1980s and 1990s in Ghana. The decentralization process was
intended to make local government more efficient, accessible, participatory and
beneficial to the individual. It is an arrangement which brings governance closer to the
folks at the grassroots level of society thereby enabling them to participate in the
administration of their locality (World Bank, n.d.).
At the core of any decentralization process is citizen participation either as a
“token involvement of people” or “autonomous decision making” (Meldon, Walsh &
Kenny, 2000). Whatever, the conception, decentralization is not alien to Ghana. Ghana’s
decentralization process started with the introduction of Native Authorities by the
Colonial government in 1878 (Institute of Local Government Studies (ILGS), 2006).
Between 1957 and 1988, efforts were made by successive Ghanaian governments to
decentralize authority to the local level. These took the form of regional devolution and
district-focused public administration with some form of the citizen participation and
involvement in the decentralized structures.
The current decentralization process in Ghana started in 1988 with the
Provisional National Defense Council (PNDC Law 207). This law established the
District Assemblies substructures beginning with Unit Committees at the lowest level to
the Assembly at the apex. In furtherance of achieving the goal and objectives of the
decentralization process, the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (Articles 240-
1
256) made ample provision for the administrative decentralization of the country
(Decentralization Policies and Practices, 2003). Since the implementation of the first set
of laws in the decentralization of Ghana in line with the provisions of the 1992
Constitution, several writers and practitioners have called for more decentralization. But,
perhaps, the core of the decentralization is citizen participation.
Beyond offering one’s self for election and taking part in the election of
members to the Assembly and its structures, citizen support for system is important.
Citizens and officials must interact more frequently and citizens must provide ideas for
the formulation of policy. Not much seems to have been done in the Ho Municipality in
this regard. The study was to provide guide to active and fruitful citizen participation to
ensure success in the decentralized process in the Ho Municipality.
1.1 Statement the of Problem and Scope of the Research
An informed, concerned and participatory citizenry is the foundation on which
democracy thrives. Ghana’s political history since her independence in 1957 reflects an
alternation between civilian governments and military regimes. These governments
practised various forms of Public Administration: de-concentration, devolution,
delegation, and decentralization, over the past half a century of Ghana’s nationhood as a
state. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides in Article 240 (1) (d) and (e) that (d):
As far as practicable, persons in the service of local government shall
be subject to the effective control of local authorities and (e) to ensure the
accountability of local government authorities people in particular local
government areas shall, as far as practicable, be afforded the opportunity to
participate effectively in their governance.
The Local Government structure with Urban, Zonal and Town Councils and Unit
Committees established by Legislative Instrument 1589 of 1994 provides under the Fifth
Schedule (9) that unit committees were to “provide a focal point for the discussion of
2
local problems and take remedial action where necessary or make recommendations to
the assembly where appropriate, through the relevant Urban, Zonal or Town Council”.
One other specific objective of Ghana’s decentralization process is to promote and
sustain community participation including decision-making for development benefit.
These provisions have made the individual a major player in the decentralization
process. However, the question of the individual’s participation in the decentralization
process needs to be examined together with the lack of awareness of the citizens of their
roles and responsibilities in the decentralization process.
There have been calls to empower the citizens at the local levels to be more
participatory in the decentralization process (Ghanaweb, 2009). Despite the fact that the
individuals are aware that they are to vote during elections in selecting representatives to
various levels of the local government system, the seeming ignorance of citizens about
their ownership of those institutions suggest that they have little knowledge about their
roles as stakeholders in the implementation of the decentralization process. After
elections, most citizens play very little role in the decentralization process.
It is also becoming clear that a number of Ghanaians (individuals) do not really
understand the policy frameworks of governments, the decentralization process
notwithstanding (Akosah-Sarpong, 2011). Considering the sensitive nature of our young
democracy, the researcher took a critical look at the citizens’ views/opinions on the
decentralization process in connection with the citizens’ (individuals’) participation in
the decentralization process to consider how this potentially powerful tool can be utilized
for the benefit of all.
3
1.2 Purpose of the Research
The purpose of the study was to explore citizen’s views on Ghana’s decentralization
process, how citizens are involved in the decentralization process and examine factors that
affect the implementation of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality.
1.3 Research Objectives
The following objectives guided the study:
i.
To unearth the views of citizens about the decentralization process in the
Ho Municipality.
ii.
To assess the level of citizen participation in the decentralization process
in the Ho Municipality.
iii.
To identify factors affecting the decentralization process in the Ho
Municipality.
iv.
To make recommendations for effective citizen participation in the
decentralized structures.
1.4 Research Question
The study was guided by the following research questions:
i.
What are the views of citizens on decentralization in the Ho
Municipality?
ii.
To what extent are the citizens in the Ho Municipality
participating in the decentralized structures?
iii.
What are the factors impeding citizen participation in the
decentralized structures in the Ho Municipality
4
1.5 Significance of the Research
This micro level study sought to provide insights that would be useful to political
administrators, civil society and theorists on ways to enhance the decentralization process.
The study highlighted views from the field about the citizens’ experiences with the
decentralization process. It therefore produced knowledge that is useful for future
planning and any future reorganization of the decentralization process. It sought to
generate knowledge at a micro level that provides a basis for large-scale studies to unearth
challenges that underlie the decentralization process. The study headlined challenges
faced by citizens as they attempt to perform their roles under the 1992 Constitution and
how they are negotiating such challenges.
The results may serve useful information that might be the basis for national policy
options on citizens’ participation in the decentralization process. Therefore, the Ministers
responsible for Local Government and Rural Development and related departments will
find the results useful. The research documented key factors affecting the decentralization
process and highlighted electoral issues, which might attract the interest of the Electoral
Commission, and other groups that are interested in enhancing electoral process. The
entire research product provides useful information that adds to the store of knowledge on
the Ho Municipality. It is useful as a working manual in enhancing citizens’ participation
in local governance.
1.6 Limitations of the Research
The constraint of easy accessibility to some of the selected respondents was because
of the vast nature of the Municipality and socio-economic activities of the people.
Access to respondents such as Members of Parliament (MPs), Municipal Chief
5
Executive (MCE), Municipal Finance Officers (MFOs), Head of decentralized
departments (HODDs), and Past and Present Presiding Members (PMs) and Assembly
Members was particularly difficult. The study was limited in scope, since it did not cover
the whole country so as to generalize the findings.
1.7 Delimitation of the Research
The research was confined to the Ho Municipal Assembly of Volta Region of
Ghana. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized. As a case study, it did not draw on a
large sample of the population. The study was exploratory and draws very much on local
knowledge and experiences. The findings are largely contextual and specific to Ho
Municipality based on the experiences of the participants.
1.8 Operational Definition of Terms
The following terms have been defined to facilitate understanding of the work:
Citizen: It refers to any adult individual of sound mind, 18 years and above, who is
obliged by the laws of Ghana to engage in social, economic, political and cultural life of
Ghanaian community.
Participation: This is a process of voluntary/mandatory involvement, engagement and
partaking through which stakeholders influence and share control over development
initiatives, decisions, and resources which affect them.
Stakeholders: This may include citizens (C), traditional authorities (TA), unit
committee members (UCM), assembly members (AM), members of parliament (MP)
and government officials of Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
(MLGRD) and the Municipal Assembly Staffs (MAS).
6
1.9 Summary and Organization of Chapters
This chapter has discussed the background of the problem by focusing on the
issues related to the study. It has also considered the statement of the problem, purpose
of the study, the objectives of the study as well as the research question for the study.
The chapter has also considered the significance of the study, limitations and
delimitations of the study and the operational definitions of terms of the study.
Apart from the introduction, which forms the first chapter, five other chapters have been
dealt with in the study. The review of related literature on citizen participation in the
decentralization process in Ghana is covered in chapter two. The third chapter focuses on
the methodology adopted to collect and analyze data. Chapter four presents the data for
the study while the chapter five was devoted to the discussions of the findings of the data
gathered. The last chapter gives the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the
study.
7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Defining Decentralization
The last decades of the 20th century saw the emergence of decentralization as the
major public administration system in most Third World Countries (Gibson, Lacy &
Dougherty, 2004). From the Latin American states through the Asian countries to the
African states. As a result, one of the challenges in the new millennium was to find
successful ways to engage the public (citizens) in shaping the communities for the future.
Decentralization became an important policy objective during the 1970s and 1980s in
developing countries.
As Crook (2003) noted, decentralization is a complex political and institutional
process. There are varied definitions of decentralization as assigned by the experts.
Smith (1985:1) observes the concept of decentralization means, “reversing the
concentration of administration at a single centre and conferring powers on local
government”. Rondinelli (1981) states that decentralization is the “transfer of authority
to plan, make decisions, and manage public functions from a higher level of government
to any individual, organization or any agency at a lower level”. Ahwoi (2006) looks at it
as a tool of public administration reform that involves the transfer of functions, powers,
means, resources, skills, and competence to lower levels of governance, normally,
structures of local government. In its most basic definition, decentralization is the
transfer of part of the powers of the central government to regional, district or local
authorities. A more comprehensive definition of decentralization as a concept is the
general view held by experts, as the transfer of responsibility (authority), resources
8
(human and financial), and accountability from central government to the local selfgoverning entity.
Scholars generally identified three forms of decentralization (Rondinelli, 1981;
Rondinelli, et al., 1989; Prud’homme, 1995). To them this involves a long process of
political, fiscal and administrative decentralization. When only responsibility or authority
is transferred but not resources-, there is deconcentration. When responsibility and
resources are transferred, there is delegation. When there is the transfer of responsibility,
resources and accountability (partially or completely) there is the devolution or
democratic decentralization (Rondinelli, 1981; Rondinelli, et al., 1989; Prud’homme,
1995; Conyers, 1985; Smith.1985; Mawhood, 1993) (Cited by Ayee, 2002).
Others further explain that decentralization is a means to local democratization
through bringing government closer to the people, with increased political participation
and more accountable and responsive local government (Crawford, 2009; Crook, 2003;
Ahwoi, 2006; Boateng, 1996). Ahwoi (2000) alleges that the academic and other writers
on decentralization very often confuse the term decentralization with other concepts that
look like decentralization but could at best be described as variants of administrative
decentralization. He maintains that deconcentration, devolution, delegation are
alternatives to decentralization.
However, decentralization is upheld to be a local knowledge and interest brought
to bear more freely upon local administration, which aim at bringing governance closer
to the people and making them more participatory in the administration of the locality. It
enhances local democracy and leads to government that is more responsive. Therefore,
decentralization processes are partly or complete efforts and actions that are directed to
involve the local people in administering their locality.
9
2.0.1 Reasons for Decentralization
Different governments have different political purposes and motives for
introducing decentralization in their countries. These intentions are embodied in the
structures and form of decentralization or more subtly are revealed in how the system
function after it is introduced.
Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team (LEAT, 2009) reported in Uganda
decentralization has been a device for consolidating central power by enabling the
President to manipulate and fragment rival ethnic claims and head off demands for multiparty system.
Meanwhile, the Center for Democracy and Governance (2000) observes the prime
motivations behind countries opting for decentralization reforms vary. To the center,
some countries are emerging from dictatorships seeking to disperse power among
smaller governmental units. Others are reducing the size of central government as part of
a transition to a more efficient market economy. Many others seek to increase public
involvement and accountability in government decision-making.
Crook (2003) is of the opinion that decentralization enhances political and fiscal
autonomy of territorial sub-units and for poverty reduction. He further states that
decentralization reforms could have diametrically opposed purposes according to
whether they aim to reinforce vested `interest in existing patterns of patronage and
central-local linkages, or involve challenges to local elites from groups using
decentralized institutions to ‘draw down’ central resources to bolster local power
struggles.
The World Bank Reports (2000) advanced the following reasons for states shifting
from centralized system of public administration to decentralized system of governance:
10

The gradual appearing of a new distribution of responsibilities among the
national, regional and local levels of government through the process of
deconcentration (an initial and limited form of decentralization);

The disengagement of the state and economic liberalization, which
favoured a new wave of decentralization through devolution;

Increased involvement of local jurisdictions and civil society in the
management of their affairs, with new forms of participation,
consultation, and partnerships.
In the case of Ghana, the decentralization process is to democratize the public
administration system among others. The decentralization process (local government
system) was and is to make the local government more efficient, accessible, beneficial
and participatory to the citizens.
2.0.2 Types of Decentralization
The Center for Democracy and Governance: United States Agency for International
Development
(USAID,
2000)
and
Ayee,
(2003)
recognize
three
types
of
decentralization: devolution, deconcentration, and delegation. Devolution is the creation
or increased reliance upon sub national levels of government, with some degrees of
political autonomy, that are substantially outside direct central government control yet
subject to general policies and laws, such as those regarding civil rights and rule of law.
Deconcentration is the transfer of power to an administrative unit of the central
government, usually a field or regional office and Delegation is the transfer of
managerial responsibility for a specific defined function outside the usual central
government structure.
11
Also Deconcentration is a form of network of central power and sub-state institutions
comprising the elites of those constituencies. As Assibey (2000) puts it deconcentration
is a power sharing strategy where power is transferred from central operating agencies to
regional ones. The central government under such a concept uses the local governments
to improve efficiency and effectiveness of delivering services (Cheema & Rondinelli,
1983). Rondenlli (1981) argues that deconcentration takes place as long as the central
government disperses certain responsibilities of services to the regional and local
governments. On delegation, Ayee (2000) states it is the transfer of services and
responsibilities from the central government agencies to specialized organizations with
some degree of operating autonomy.
Devolution is the transfer of power and authority to a subnational level of public
authority that is autonomous and independent from the devolving authority. This is the
strongest form of decentralization as it implies to transfer of authority for decision –
making, finance and management responsibility (Robertson, 2002; Olowu, 2001).
However, Ahwoi (2003:9) contends this position stating “rather, those concepts,
Devolution, Deconcentration and Delegation are alternative attempts at achieving an
efficient and effective public administration system; they are not forms/types of
decentralization”, he concluded.
2.0.3 Dimensions of Decentralization
A number of authors have pointed out that there are three main dimensions of
decentralization. Center for Democracy and Governance, (2000); Ahwoi, (2006); Falleti,
(2005) assert that decentralization has three dimensions: political, financial, and
administrative. These three dimensions, in essence, represent the primary components of
power. The political dimension (often referred to as political decentralization) implies
12
the creation of autonomous governmental entities with sufficient decision-making
powers, within specific geographical limits. Through political decentralization, citizens
or their elected representative has more power in local public decision-making
(Brautigam et al, 2008; Moore, 2007). Political decentralization could be defined in other
circles as the transfer of political authority to the local level through the establishment or
reestablishment of elected local government (perhaps as part of a democratic transition),
electoral reform, political party reform, authorization of participatory processes, and
other reforms (Center for Democracy and Governance, 2000).
Under the financial dimension,
(often referred to as financial or fiscal
decentralization) some level of resource allocation and revenue collection capacity is
transferred to lower levels of government to allow local government to finance new
responsibilities in terms of expenditure, with arrangements for resources usually
negotiated between local and central authorities (Olowu, 2001).
It also means the shifting of financial power to the local level. It involves
increasing or reducing conditions on the inter-governmental transfer of resources and
giving jurisdictions greater authority to generate their own revenue (Center for
Democracy and Governance, 2000)
The
administrative
dimension
(often
referred
to
as
administrative
decentralization) involves the full or partial transfer of an array of functional
responsibilities to the local level, such as health care service, the operation of schools,
the management of service personnel, the building and maintenance of roads, and
garbage collection (Center for Democracy and Governance, 2000).
A total decentralized process of public administration therefore involves the three
dimensions of decentralization process. Progress along any of these dimensions is
13
decentralization. Decentralization tends to be strongest, however, when real political
autonomy, sufficient administrative responsibility, and the financial resources to carry
out primary functions appear at or are transferred to the local level together. There is,
therefore, the need to design a decentralize structure that embraces the three dimensions
of the decentralization concept in order to derive the maximum benefit.
2.1 Historical Background of Decentralization in Ghana
Local government in Ghana started with the introduction of Native Authorities
by the colonial government in 1878 (Institute of Local Government Studies, ILGS). The
then traditional rulers served as central figures in the local government. Several, forms of
Local Governments were practiced over the years in Ghana. Between 1950 and 1957;
the two-tier local government system (ILGS, 2006), Local Government (Amendment)
Act 359(1971) amended in 1974, the National Redemption Council Decree (NRCD) 258,
the District Council (DC), (ILGS, 2006) and the current District Assembly (PNDC LAW
207) 1988 (Model A, Decentralization, Policies and Practices, 2003).
Ayee and Amponsah, 2002 in a survey enumerated a more elaborated brief
history of the district assemblies, unit committees and area councils (Ghana’s
decentralization process) in Ghana. To Ayee and Amponsah decentralized government in
Ghana began with the introduction of Indirect Rule by the British Colonial Authorities
in1878. Native Authorities (NAs) (a council of traditional chiefs) carried out decisions of
the British government conveyed through district commissioners to the indigenous
people in the Gold Coast.
In 1952, a new form of decentralized authority based on the recommendations of
the Watson Commission (1948) and the Coussey Committee (1949) was introduced. The
local government councils were composed of two-third elected membership and one-
14
third chiefs with paramount chiefs as presidents of the councils (Ayee and Amponsah,
2002).
In 1974, another attempt at reform of decentralization resulted in the
establishment of 65 district councils. Membership of the council remained same as at the
1952 reforms.
In 1978, another attempt was made by the then General Akuffo’s Supreme
Military Council (SMC) government to further decentralize the public administration in
Ghana by holding a district council election throughout Ghana. However, the
decentralization process was touted and short-lived because of a coup d’état that
overthrew the SMC government in 1979 led by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings.
Ghana’s current decentralization programme was the brainchild of Rawlings’ Provisional
National Defense Council (PNDC) that toppled Dr, Limann’s People’s National
Convention (PNC) in 1981. In June 1982, the PNDC passed the PNDC Law 14 that
dissolved the district councils elected in November 1978 (Ayee and Amponsah, 2002).
2.1.1 The 1992 Constitution of Ghana and the Decentralization Programme
[Legal Framework]
The main features of Ghana’s decentralization programme were enshrined in the
1992 Constitution of Ghana, the Local Government Act of 1993, the Civil Service Law
of 1993, the National Development Planning Act of 1994, and the District Assemblies
Common Fund Act of 1993 (Kumi-Kyereme, Yankson and Thomi, 2006).
Crawford, (2009) opines that the principles of decentralization and participation in
government were strongly endorsed in the 1992 Constitution by this prescription that:
15
The State shall take appropriate measures to make democracy a
reality by decentralizing the administrative and financial machinery of
government to the regions and districts and by affording all possible
opportunities to the people to participate in decision-making at every level
in national life and in government [Article 35(6) d].
The decentralization process in Ghana has two key levels, those of central government
and local government at the district level. The local government system is made up of a
Regional Coordinating Council (RCC), a four-tier Metropolitan, and three-tier
Municipal/District Assembly structures (MLGRD, 1996).
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana Article 240 (1) states that “Ghana shall have a
system of local government and administration which shall, as far as practicable, be
decentralized” The provision gave the legal support to the decentralization programme,
which had been initiated in Ghana in 1988 by recognizing the existence of
decentralization process in Ghana. The chapter 20 of the constitution is dedicated to
decentralization and local government (article 240 to 256).
The 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides in Article 240 (1) (d) and (e) that:
(d) As far as practicable, persons in the service of local government shall be
subject to the effective control of local authorities and (e) to ensure the
accountability of local government authorities, people in particular local
government areas shall, as far as practicable, be afforded the opportunity to
participate effectively in their governance.
Again, the 1992 constitution of the Republic of Ghana, in Chapter six –
Directive Principles of State Policy- Article 36 (2) (c) states “The State shall , in
particular take all necessary steps to ensuring that individuals (citizens) and the private
sector bear their fair share of social and national responsibilities including
responsibilities to contribute to the overall development of the country”
Articles 41 sub-sections h, i & k require the citizens to actively engage in the nationbuilding process;
16
Article 41”The exercise and enjoyment of rights and freedoms is inseparable
from the performance of duties and obligations, and accordingly, it shall be the
duty of every citizen:
(g) To contribute to the well-being of the community where that citizen lives;
(h) To defend Ghana and render national service when necessary;
(i) To co-operate with lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order; and
(j) To declare his income honestly to the appropriate and lawful agencies and to
satisfy all tax obligations.
The above directives therefore require the citizens to act appropriately among
others to make the decentralization process successful in his/her community. The
intention of the decentralization framework is to deepen political, administrative and
fiscal decentralization in Ghana and to reaffirm the government commitment to the
policy of decentralization in conjunction with citizen’s participation. To achieve the
decentralization programme, the process operates through constitutional mandated local
government structures, personalities, and management. The district assemblies therefore
have the office of the District Chief Executive (DCE), elected and appointed Assembly
Members (AMs) and the Unit Committees (UCs) at the very bottom of the structure. The
local government system therefore provides platform for citizens’ participation without
any well spelt out roles for the ordinary citizenry. However, if there is any the researcher
is yet to find out.
According to Local Government Act 462, 1993: Article 20(3) (b); the DCE shall
be responsible for the day-to-day performance of the executive and administrative
functions of the Assembly. This provision has made the DCE a unique personality in the
execution and the attainment of the goals of the decentralization process.
17
Local Government Act 462; Article 16 section 1 (a-j) define the duties of the AM. These
include, a member of a District shall as appropriate Maintain close contact with his electoral area, consult his people on issues
to be discussed in the district assembly and collate their views, opinion,
and proposals.
 Present the views, opinions and proposals to the district assembly.
 Attend meetings of the district assembly and meetings of sub-committees
of which he is a member;
 Meet his electorate before each meeting of the assembly;
 Report to his electorate the general decisions of the assembly and its
Executive Committee and the actions he has taken to solve problems
raised by residents in his electoral area;
 Draw attention in general to national policies which are relevant to the
subject under discussion;
 Maintain frequent liaison with organized productive economic groupings
and other persons in the district and
 Take part in communal and development activities in the district.
According to the Local Government (Urban, Zonal and Town Councils and Unit
Committees) (Establishment) Instrument, (LI 1589) of 1994, Unit Committees are to
perform among others the following duties:
 Mobilize members of the Unit for the implementation of self-help and
development projects;
18
 Provide the focal point for the discussion of local problems and take remedial
action where necessary or make recommendations to the assembly where
appropriate through the relevant Urban, Zonal or Town Council.
 Organize communal and voluntary work especially with respect to sanitation.
 Educate the people on their rights, privileges, obligations and responsibilities
in consultation with the District branch of the National Commission for Civic
Education (NCCE).
According to the above provisions in the Legislative Instrument 1589 and the
Local Government Act 462, 1993, the sub-district structures were established to promote
participatory democracy where local people (citizens) will be encouraged to get involved
in decision-making process of their localities. It is therefore imperative to assess the
citizens’ participation in the decentralization programme, the stewardship of the DCE,
AMs and UCMs cannot be over emphasized.
The PNDC government’s initiative in reform of decentralization started in 1988
with the promulgation of PNDC Law 207. The 1992 Constitution and the various
legislations on decentralization have been able to articulate the explicit objectives of the
decentralization such as empowerment, participation, accountability, effectiveness,
efficiency, responsiveness, decongestion of the national capital and the checking of the
rural-urban drift (Ayee & Amponsah, 2002).
Crook, (2003) states that Ghana’s District Assemblies introduced in 1989 under military
rule, were successful in enhancing electoral participation and giving access and
representation to normally excluded groups, such as the uneducated, farmers, traders and
artisans. Yet, has this electoral participation and giving access and representation is all
that involve decentralization, he questioned.
19
Amponsah and Boafo-Arthur, (2003) in a study carried out on Ghana’s
democratic renaissance: an overview observed that the extent to which Ghana’s current
drive towards democratic maturity is being realized from holistic perspective is based on
the understanding that consolidation of democracy requires extensive participation of the
entire citizenry especially at the grassroots level. Smith, 1996; 1998; Wunsch, (2001)
cited by Ayee, (2002) asserts that the impact of decentralization on local government in
Ghana may be measured by the following factors:
representative government,
administrative capacity, the legitimacy of local structures, the contribution of civil
society (citizens) and developing a local political process; accountability and
responsiveness.
Ayee, (2002) was of the opinion that “moving decentralization forward cannot be
brought about without widespread citizen participation and significant efforts to build an
inclusive consensus and ownership among the key actors in such events”. Guri, (2006)
observes that Ghana’s decentralization has been sufficiently established and all the
necessary structures have been put in place from national to zonal levels. However, the
system has been shown not to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of local people.
Reason is that power has been decentralized to the district level all right but has been
“recentralized” and is in the control of the bureaucrats and political appointees. The
District Assemblies would be responsive to local people only when the local people are
so organized as to constitute a countervailing force that will make them politically
relevant to bureaucrats and political power seekers. Traditional rulers are in the best
position to “mobilize” the local communities and provide leadership for this due to their
legitimacy and proximity to the people.
20
2.2 Decentralization and Citizen Participation
2.2.1 Meaning of Citizen Participation
Spiegel, (1968) cited by Smith, (n.d.) asserts that citizen participation is the
process that can meaningfully tie programmes to people. Citizen participation in
community decision-making can be traced as far as Plato’s Republic. Plato’s concepts of
freedom of speech, assembly, voting and equal representation have evolved through the
years to form basic pillars upon which the United States was established Smith, (n.d.) .
The fact sheet continues that citizen participation is the essence of democracy. The town
assembly, an American tradition, was also an early contributor to citizen participation. In
the town assembly, all the citizen in a community got together to decide on issues Smith,
(n.d.) (online).
Cogan & Shapes, (1996) cited in Parker, (2002) “Citizen Participation Theory”
assert citizen participation is a process which provides private individual an opportunity
to influence public decisions and has long been a component of the democratic decisionmaking process. As the literature has it, the roots of citizen participation can be traced to
ancient Greece and Colonial New England. They held the view that before the 1960s,
government processes and procedures were designed to facilitate “external”
participation. The Citizen Participation theory concluded that citizen participation was
institutionalized in the mid-1960s with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
programmes. This tradition, citizen participation in community decision-making, is not
unknown to the Ghanaian community. The practice where community members
assemble in the village chief’s palace to deliberate on matters of mutual concern is still
prevalent. As villages grow and expand both numerically and economically, it became
increasingly difficult for every citizen to actively participate in all community decisions.
21
To fill this void in the decision-making process, people began to delegate their
involvement to representatives either directly or through a community group.
Citizen participation can be approached or defined in many ways. A citizen
participates in community affairs when one pays taxes, obeys the law or takes part in
community elections. Wade, (1989), Christensen and Robinson, (1980) cited by Smith,
(n.d.) (online) observes that people involved in community affairs when certain
conditions are present or deficiencies are noted. Bridges, (1974) cited by Smith, (n.d.)
(online) cites seven advantages to be gained from active participation in community
affairs:
1. The citizen can learn from and inform government representatives.
2. The individual gain skills.
3. The citizen learns to understand and appreciate the individual needs and interests
of all community groups.
4. The citizen learns how to resolve conflicting interests for the general welfare of
the group.
5. The individual begins to understand group dynamics as it applies to mixed
groups.
6. Reach consensus; achieve better policy decisions and solution.
7. Gain control over policy process.
Smith, (n.d.) (online) observed that citizens will voluntarily participate in a community
activity when they:

See positive benefits to be gained.
22

Have an appropriate organizational structure available to them for expressing
their interests.

See some aspect of their way-of-life threatened.

Feel committed to be supportive of the activity.

Have better knowledge of an issue or situation and

Feel comfortable in the group.
It can be deduced that citizens will participate in community decision-making if only
they envisage any benefits.
2.2.2 Citizen Participation and Decentralization
Participation and decentralization have a symbiotic relationship. On one hand,
successful decentralization requires some degree of local participation (World Bank
2000). The symbiotic relationship between decentralization and participation leads to
contradictory policy guidelines. Moreso, mechanisms for citizen participation could be
considered a helpful pre-condition when evaluating the prospects for successful
decentralization (World Bank, 2000). Accordingly, the design of decentralization should
take into account the opportunities and limitations imposed by existing channels of local
participation. On the other hand, lack of participatory mechanisms could be considered a
motivation for decentralization and can help create local demand for more participatory
channels to voice local preferences.
Participation as a means to successful
decentralization and as a goal of decentralization cannot be over-emphasized. Citizen
participation in some form is an essential part of successful decentralization.
Crook (2003) asserts that the extent to which decentralization is associated with
more participatory governance can be measured to some degree by changes in the
23
‘quantity’ of participation (numbers participating in elections, representative bodies,
associations etc.) and by changes in its social scope (which groups participate and
whether it has become more inclusive of the poor and disadvantaged). The call for
citizens’ interest to appreciate and participate in the administration and governance
cannot be over-emphasized.
Governments the world over, especially at the local level, are experimenting with
different ways to engage citizens in decision-making (Smith, 2005). The issue of
participation, or the lack of it, has found its way on to national and international agendas.
In many parts of the world, interest in research and development into participatory
development approaches is increasing. It is now accepted that citizen participation in
local development is the key to the equality, inclusiveness and sustainability of
development (Meldon, Walsh and Kenny, 2000).
Meldon, Walsh and Kenny (2000) observe that it is impossible to establish a
universal definition of participation. An understanding of the concept is often assumed;
in practice, development actions are often based on differing perceptions of participation
and different perceptions of the level and quality of participation being sought, partly
because of the lack of experience of effective participation practice. The literature gives
a series of definitions of participation ranging from “token involvement of people”, to,
“autonomous decision making”. At its most basic, participation is "to take part" - this is
very simplistic and implies that everyone is participating at some level in every action
(World Bank: Decentralization Thematic Team, (n.d.).
If we are to understand
participation we need to explore beyond "taking part" and look to other commentators
who have explored the extent and nature to which people “take part”.
24
Asimah (2000) however, defines popular participation as a voluntary
involvement of the people in making and implementing all decisions directly or
indirectly affecting their lives, He further explains it as activities undertaken by lowincome groups with or without outside assistance to improve their living conditions. The
later explanation in essence is limited in scope since both low and high income groups
engage in one form or the other in addressing issues that affect negatively or positively
their lives. However, the Institute of Local Government Studies (ILGS), 2006 explains
the word “participation” as taken from the Latin word, “particeps” which means an
action to have or taken in an event, a process, an enterprise with others. Participation
according to the handbook may involve information sharing, consultation and
collaboration.
Platt (1996) cited in Fung and Wright, (2003) refers to the three types of
participation of local communities and individuals. These are:
- Physical participation - being present, using one's skills and efforts;
-Mental
participation
-
conceptualizing
the
activity,
decision-making,
organization and management;
- Emotional participation - assuming responsibility, power and authority
Participation can be top-down or bottom- up, uniform or diverse, simple or complex,
static or dynamic, controllable or uncontrollable, predictable or unpredictable.
Meanwhile Alison, (2007) prescribes six forms of citizen participation in local
government:
 Participatory approaches to budgeting which provide more transparent
methods for allocating public resources, involving citizens, elected
representatives and local government officials,
25
 Processes of participatory planning which range from public involvement
in the construction of small community-based projects, to large
neighbourhood action plans to strategic area planning and rebuilding of an
entire city,
 New forms partnerships between citizens, the government and other
stakeholders,
 New forms of public scrutiny to hold elected representatives and
government officials to account ragging from local scrutiny groups,
 New methods of consultation and inclusion such as community study
circles, and
 Opportunities for citizens’ participation in service delivery such as
housing,
employment
and
community
safety
service
through
neighbourhood renewal and tenant management programmes.
Absence of citizen participation in decision-making is bound to result into what Young,
(1992:181-`193) cited in Kunzman, (2006) refers to as the “five faces of oppression” or
disparate categories, of oppression. These are, namely, exploitation, marginalization,
powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence;
Exploitation: a state of domination that occurs through a steady process of the
transfer of the results of the labour of some people to benefit others;
Marginalization: the creation of people, a whole category of people is expelled
from useful participation in social life;
Powerlessness: the absence of genuine democracy where most people do not
participate in making decisions that regularly affect the conditions of their lives
and actions;
26
Cultural imperialism: the experience of existing in a society whose dominant
meanings render the particular perspectives and point of view of one’s own
group invisible at the same time as they stereotype one’s group and mark it out
as “other”; and
Violence: a condition in which the members of some groups live with the fear of
random, unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motives
but to damage, humiliate or destroy them.
Berner (2001) observes, “Involving citizens in the governance process is rooted
in the Jeffersonian tradition of American politics. Jefferson according to Berner
advocated locally based, bottom-up government that is responsive to citizens, and he
viewed citizen apathy as dangerous to civic health”. There is little disagreement that the
citizens should have an opportunity to influence actions and activities that concern them.
Whether or not the citizens use the opportunity, keeping that option available is
important in a democracy he pointed out.
Therefore, the lack of citizens’ participation in the activities and matters that
affect them directly or indirectly can generate into lawlessness, anarchy and stagnation of
development of needs and efforts.
2.3 Methods of Citizen Participation/Involvement in Decision-Making
Citizen participation in decision-making varies and differs from one context and
conception. Arnstein (1969) cited by Silveriar, Shaffer and Behr, (1993) gives eight
levels of citizen participation ranging from nonparticipation to citizen power. To
Arnstein the levels include:
27
Manipulation: places people on advisory boards to rubberstamp decisions; to
educate them on the agency perspective; distorting the participation into a public
relation gimmick.
Therapy: engages citizens in numerous activities, under the guise of citizen
involvement in planning/decision-making, but where experts subject the citizens
to 'clinical group therapy' to cure them, rather than fix the original problem.
Informing: provides information that is one way to the citizens, or too late to
really affect decisions and fails to achieve real input; news media, pamphlets,
response to inquiries, and information giving (not exchange) meetings are
frequent forms of one-way communication.
Consultation: involves citizens in a significant manner, but is a shame if there
are no assurances that their input will be fully incorporated in the decisions, or
the full range of options are considered; frequent forms are attitude surveys,
neighborhood meetings, and public hearings.
Placation: represents tokenism if those previously excluded from power remain a
numerical minority on the board and/or are not accountable to any constituency
in the community; another form is giving only powers of advice or planning, but
not to turn them into actual decisions.
Partnership: represents real citizen participation when citizens and governments
agree to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through joint
structures, and neither partner can unilaterally change the agreement; implicit in
this is that citizens have access to resources (time, staff, information) comparable
to the government partner.
28
Delegated Power: occurs when through negotiations between government and
citizens, citizens gain the dominant decision making position on programs
affecting them to insure accountability to the client's needs.
Citizen Control: falls short of the rhetoric of absolute control, but the intent is
that citizens actually have managerial and policy control and can set the
conditions under which government can alter the institution or program.
In a similar discourse Berner (2001) states effective method in involving citizens
in public discussion include public hearings, special open meetings (town meetings),
opportunities to speak at regular meetings, citizen advisory boards, mails in coupons,
coffee-house conversations, surveys, web-sites/e-mail, visits to local civic groups, visits
to neighbourhood associations and contact initiated by citizens.
The ILGS (2006:41&42) provides that the existing modes of participation that
individual communities participate in local governance and influence decision-making in
Ghana today include:
 Attend public meetings or public hearings,
 Participate in elections (voice) and referenda,
 Community meetings,
 Public education and communication campaigns,
 Pre-budget consultations between local governments and citizenry,
 Community level group meetings that target the membership of a particular
targeted group (market women, drivers, dressmakers, etc)
 Focus group discussions
 Annual meetings and conferences
 Use of the media both print and electronic
29
 Task forces and ad hoc committees of local governments
 Direct advice and support from councilors
 Lobbying
 Action planning: a process of carefully structured collaborative activities in
which all sections of the community work closely with specialists from different
disciplines to deal with planning and sanitation issues.
2.4 Factors affecting Citizens Participation in the Decentralization Process
In a survey conducted by the Economic Commission for Africa on the topic ICTS
for effective decentralization; A pilot study in selected Woredas (Districts) in Ethiopia,
Dr. Assefu Admassie (Admassie, 2003) listed the following factors that affect effective
decentralization:
 Lack of standardization
 Shortage of skilled manpower/labour force
 The educational level of the employees
 Poor data acquisition and storage
 Lack of analytical skills of employees
 Poor infrastructural development
 Poor horizontal and vertical communication and
 Inadequate public private partnership.
In another survey on factors for determining effective decentralization by
(allsubjects4you) observed that, the size of organization, history of organization,
management philosophy, availability of managers, costliness of decision, and rate of
change in organization and nature of activities are factors that determine the
effectiveness of decentralization. In a closely related survey on the topic “Local
30
government administration and challenges of rural development in Nigeria” Arowolo,
(2008) enumerated seven problems that affect local government administration in
Nigeria. These include finance, inadequacy of skilled workers, problems of participation
and involvement, misplaced priority, general indiscipline and undue interference from
central government officials.
In summary, the factors affecting the success or failure of local governments or
decentralization programmes are many and varied. The differences may emanate from
other factors: political, social, economical, cultural, geographical or historical.
2.5 Summary
This chapter presents the views that have been expressed by various writers on
decentralization process and citizen participation in local government. The next chapter
discusses the methodology adopted for the study which includes the research design, the
study population, sampling and sampling procedure, instruments for data collection and
data analysis framework.
31
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Research Design
The research design is a case study. Case study design, as observed by Merriam
(1998), is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for
those involved. The interest is in the process rather than the outcome, in context rather
than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation; insights gleaned from case
studies can directly influence policy, practice and future research. Case studies are
differentiated from other types of qualitative research in that they are intensive
descriptions and analysis of a single unit or bounded system (Smith, 1985). In a similar
discourse, Creswell (2007) explains that a case study research involves the study of an
issue explored through one or more cases within a bounded system (i.e., a setting, a
context).
The strength of a case study design depends on the nature of the research problem
and questions being asked. Again, case study offers a means of investigating complex
social units consisting of multiple variables of potential importance in understanding the
phenomenon. Furthermore, it is anchored in real-life situation and results in a rich and
holistic account of a phenomenon, offers insights and illuminates meaning that expand
its reader’s experience and prove effective in investigation, educational process,
problems and programmes, evaluating programmes and for informing policies. The
research design focused on case study approach because of its strength over others in
investigating how the citizens in Ho Municipality perceive the decentralization process
and their participation in the decentralization process.
32
3.1 The Study Population
The population for the research included residents of the Ho Municipality in the
Volta region of Ghana, especially the voter population in the Municipality. The research
required the views of local actors and as such, they constituted the target population.
According to the 2000 Ghana Population and Housing Census, the population of the
Municipality was 233,135 and the voter population as at November 2008 was 75120
(Regional Electoral Commission, Ho ) . The two constituencies, Ho East and Ho West,
constituencies have 300 Electoral Areas, 165 in the Ho Central Constituency and 135 in
the Ho West (Weto) constituency, and 300 Unit Committees. All citizens of the voting
age in Ho Municipality (18 years and above) qualify to be selected for the research. The
target population refers to the Members of Parliament (MPs), Municipal Chief Executive
(MCE), Heads of Decentralized Department (HODD), Traditional Authorities (TAs),
Assembly Members (AMs), Unit Committee Members (UCMs) and the ordinary citizens
who are the paramount participants and ultimate beneficiaries of the decentralization
process.
The target population was categorized into three groups: government officials,
the people’s representatives (MPs, AMs & UCMs) and the citizens whose opinions were
supposed to confirm or deny data from the government officials and the elected
representatives. The government officials constituted MCE, HODDs and Area Councils
(AC) officials. The third group was made up of citizens, ordinary citizens, a group of
people considered as the owners of the decentralization process and people who resides
in the Ho Municipality. They include self-employed:
farmers (crop and animal),
businessmen/women, artisans (tailors, hairdressers, carpenters etc), government
employees; (civil servants, public servants), and others such as students and chiefs.
33
3.2 Sample and Sampling Techniques
Generally, the purposive sampling procedure was employed. The purposive
sampling procedure was the best option for all the target population. However, in cases
where the researcher had to choose instead of targeting a whole population (e.g. 4
assembly members from 42) the convenient method was employed in the selection of the
respondents.
The Municipality was divided into 3 zones and other settlements. Ho is the
Municipal capital, Kpedze and Abutia electoral areas. However, all persons in the target
groups considered critical to the research were interviewed either through interview or
questionnaire. Attempt was made to solicit views of all categories of citizens in the
Municipality considering their educational background and type of occupation they
engage in. The rationale was to get a fair representation of the populace in the
Municipality. In all, a total sample of 50 respondents was targeted for the research, 6
respondents for interview and 44 respondents for questionnaire.
3.3 Research Instruments
The main instruments used in gathering data for the research were interview
protocol and questionnaire. The questionnaire and the interview protocol were selfdesigned instruments. The interview protocol was used to elicit information from
government appointees and staff of the Ho Municipal Assembly, heads of decentralized
departments of the district assembly, both elected and appointed assembly members and
unit committee members. The interviewees were asked same questions irrespective of
position or status in the district. All the items of the interview protocol were open-ended
questions that were based on the research questions. There were 16 items in all, in
addition to an introductory statement that introduced me to the interviewee and
34
indicating the purpose of the interview. No bio-data was collected on the respondents
except Item 1 that collected data on the experiences of the respondent in terms of
duration of service at that position. Items 2-4 elicited information on the opinion and
understanding of the respondent on the decentralization process. Items 5-11 contained
questions that gathered data on citizen participation in the decentralization process and
items 12-15 required the respondents to enumerate factors that affect the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipality and Ghana as a whole. Item 16 gave opportunity to
respondents to comment on any other issue they deemed relevant to the decentralization
process. A copy of the interview guide is attached to the study as Appendix A.
The questionnaire was used to collect data from citizens of voting age, 18 years
and above, who are residents in the Ho Municipality. The instrument consisted mostly
of close-ended (Likert’s Scale) and two open-ended items. I designed the questionnaire
with the help of my supervisor after a careful study of the literature and the research
questions. The questionnaire items were pilot tested with colleagues of the Social Studies
department and few students of the university who were assembly members. The pilot
test helped me to judge whether the instruments were adequate to measure and whether
they are a representative sample of the behaviour domain under investigation.
Besides the bio-data of the respondents, which included the district, community
of residence, gender, age and occupation, the instrument has three (3) main sections A,
B and C. Section A is made up of three sub-sections. The first sub-section contained
items, which elicited the respondent’s view and understanding on the decentralization
process. Sub-section 2 & 3 gather data on Unit Committee Members (UCMs) and
Assembly Members (AMs) respectively. There were 18 items under the section A.
Section B contained items that investigated citizen participation or involvement in the
35
decentralization process. The section also has three sub sections: Citizen’s involvement
in the decentralization process, relevance of issues/matters at community meetings and
stakeholders and decentralization. There were 20 items in the section. Section C has 12
items that contained data on factors that affect the decentralization process, 10 were
close-ended items and 2 were open-ended items. The entire questionnaire instrument has
50 items and a copy of it is attached as Appendix B.
3.4 Data Collection Procedure
The collection of the data for the research was done in two phases. The first
phase was interviewing public and civil stakeholders and some of the assembly members
and unit committee members in the decentralization process in the Municipality for a
four week period started in February to mid March 2011. This enabled me to familiarize
myself with most of the local government (Municipal Assembly) staffs and assembly
members and the unit committee member in the Ho Municipality. In this phase of the
fieldwork, interviews were held with key staff such as the Municipal Chief Executive
(MCE), Municipal Coordinating Director (MCD), Municipal Finance Officer (MFO),
and other Heads of the Decentralized Departments in the Municipality, and some
Assembly Members (AMs) and some Unit Committee Members (UCMs). In all 8
respondents were interviewed.
The second phase was the administration of questionnaire to residents in the Ho
Municipality. Two research assistants were employed together with the researcher.
Originally, 20 questionnaires were given to each together with the researcher. One
research assistant administered his questionnaires in and around Ho, the district capital.
Another research assistant administered in and around Kpedze, yet the other two
administered in and around Ho Township and Abutia respectively. The researcher
36
himself administered his share of the questionnaires in the rural settlements of the Ho
Municipality.
3.5 Reliability and Validity of Instruments
The reliability and validity of the interview protocol and the questionnaire were
established first by submitting the items to the research supervisor and two lecturers in
the Social Studies department for their comments. In particular, the supervisor made
appropriate modifications as wrong and ambiguous items were discarded and items that
needed modifications as suggested by the experts were corrected whiles appropriate ones
were retained. The scrutiny of the instruments and the items that followed them helped to
render the items appropriate enough to elicit the desired results.
3.6 Data Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative data were gathered for the research using
interviews and questionnaires. The qualitative data from interviews conducted were
analyzed manually by making summaries of the views of the respondents and supporting
these relevant quotations that spelt out the views of the respondents. The analysis
presented in the next chapter is organized under themes derived from the data and the
research questions that guided the investigation.
In the quantitative data, questionnaires, the data were coded, graded and fed into
the Scientific Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 16 for windows. Five-point and fourpoint Likert type scales were used to solicit the level of agreement on issues pertaining to
the study. The scales are:
A. Strongly Agree (SA)-1
Agree (A)-2
Uncertain (U)-3
37
Disagree (D)-4
Strongly Disagree (SD)-5
B. Always (A)-1
Very Important (VI)-1
Occasionally (O)-2
Important (I)-2
Seldom (S)-3
Less Important (LI)-3
Not at All (NA)-4
Not Important (NI)-4
An analysis was undertaken to generate the data gathered on themes in relation to
the research questions on the topic “Citizens participation in the decentralization process
in Ghana: A case study of the Ho Municipality of the Volta Region.” The research
questions as stated earlier on were, what are the views of citizens about the
decentralization process? To what extent are the citizens participating in the
decentralization process? And what factors are affecting citizen participation in the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality of Volta Region? Simple percentages
were used to analyze the quantitative data obtained. The findings were compared to the
responses from the interviews.
3.7 Summary
The chapter described the research design, study population, sample and
sampling procedure, research instruments, data collection techniques, how data was
analyze including validation of instruments. The next chapter presents and analyzes the
data gathered.
38
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the study, based on the analysis of data
collected for the study. The findings are subsequently discussed based in the context of
the literature. The findings are presented using tables and narratives. Analysis was based
on the research questions that informed the study.
Demographic Data of the Questionnaire
Table 1: Distribution of Responses by Community
Community
Frequency
Percent %
Bankoe
10
22.2
Kpedze
10
22.2
Abutia
10
22.2
Akome
15
33.4
Total
45
100.0
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by community. The table indicates that
the data was collected from different communities in the study area. As the table shows,
the respondents were fairly selected from the different communities except that some
respondents, mainly from Kpedze did not return the questionnaires.
39
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Age
Age Range
Frequency
Percent %
18-20
4
8.9
21-30
8
17.8
31-40
15
33.3
41-50
16
35.6
51-60
2
4.4
61+
-
-
Total
45
100.0
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 2 depicts the age of the respondents. From the table it can be observed that
95.6% representing 43 of the respondents were aged between 18-50 years, which is
usually, the working population are in the majority. As the data indicates about 4.4% (2)
respondents were aged between 51-60 years. This indicates that the population in the
study area is youthful and can be harnessed for the success of the decentralization
process.
Table 3: Distribution of Respondents by Sex
Responses
Frequency
Percent %
Male
Female
33
12
73.3
26.7
Total
45
100.0
Source: Field Data (2012)
40
Table 3 shows that 33 (73.3%) of the respondents were males whiles 12 (26.7%)
were females. The small percentage of females could be attributed to the shying away of
the female population from politics.
Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by Occupation
Responses
Frequency
Percent %
Government Workers
Self-Employed
14
20
31.1
44.4
Others
11
24.4
Total
45
99.9
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 4 presents the occupation of respondents. The table shows that majority ie 20
(44.4%) of respondents were self-employed while 14 (31.1%) were government workers.
The other 11 (24.4%) were unemployed, students, retirees or famers.
Background of Interviewees
Fourteen (14) participants were interviewed for the qualitative data. The participants
are personnel who are directly or indirectly, paid-up or non paid-up, elected and
appointed personnel of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipal Assembly. The
participants can be conveniently put under three broad categories: Staff of the Municipal
Assembly, (Heads of Decentralized Departments (HODD) of the district assembly and of
civil organizations, and elected and appointed members of the Ho Municipal Assembly,
Assembly Members (AMs) and Unit Committee Members (UCMs)). The staff of the
Municipal assembly included the DCE, DCD, DFO and others, the head of decentralized
departments were directors of district NCCE, EC the rest were Municipal Assembly
Members; Presiding Members, Assembly Members, Unit Committee Members and Area
41
Council Officer. The participants are “critical case sample” because they were
purposively selected based on specific experiences, positions, or attributes they have
which could enrich the work (Bradley, 1992).
Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Office
Office of Interviewee
Frequency
Percent %
Local Government Staff
HODD
3
25
2
16.7
AM
3
25
UCM
4
33.3
Total
12
100.0
Source: Field Data (2012)
The result in the table above indicates that 3 respondents representing 25 percent of
the respondents interviewed were local government staffs. These are mostly senior staffs
of the Municipal Assembly. Two respondents representing 16.7 percent were Head of the
decentralized departments in the Municipality. Another 3 (25%) were assembly members
and the rest 4 representing 33.3 percent interviewed were unit committee members.
Table 6: Distribution of Respondent by Duration of Office
Range (Years)
Frequency
Percent
1-5
6-10
9
1
64.3
7.1
11-15
2
14.3
16-20
2
14.3
Total
14
100.0
Source: Field Data (2012)
42
From the data, it shows that 9 respondents representing 64.3% of those interviewed
work between one to five years at the position for which they were interviewed. One of
them representing 7.1% have a working experience at the positions they were
interviewed between the period of six and ten years whereas only two interviewee had a
working experience at the positions for which interviewed between 11 and 15 years and
another two respondents representing 14.3% respectively between 16 years and 20 years,
which is indicative of the fact that they all have a considerable level of experience in the
decentralization process.
4.1 Citizens’ views about the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality.
The findings in this section of the study in relation to the first research question.
Research Question 1
What are the views of citizens about the decentralization process in the Ho
Municipality?
This research question has been answered under three sub-sections: citizen
perspectives on the decentralization process; perspectives on the unit committee system;
and perspectives on their Assembly Members and decentralization process. The
responses are presented in tables and the analysis is supported by critical statements from
interviews which shed more light on the questionnaire response.
43
4.1.1. Citizens’ Perspectives on the Decentralization Process
Table 7: Citizens’ Perspectives on the Decentralization Process
ITEMS
SA(%)
A(%)
U(%)
D(%)
SD(%)
TOTAL (%)
1. The decentralization
process is relevant
to me (local government system) 18(40) 15(33.3) 7(15.6) 4(8.9) 1(2.2)
2. I understand the decentralization
process
25(55.5) 10(22.2) 6(13.3) 3(3.3)
45(100.0)
1(2.2) 45(100.0)
3. The decentralization process
has achieved its goals.
3(3.3) 11(24.4) 23(51.1) 5(11.1) 3(3.3)
45(100.0)
4. The decentralization process is for the
selected few in
the community
.14(31.1) 12(26.7) 13(28.8) 6(13.3) 0(0.0)
45(100.0)
5. The decentralization process has
positive impact on the
local people
18(40) 16(35.6) 4(8.9) 6(13.3) 1(1.1)
45(100)
Source: Field Data (2012)
Item 1 indicates that 33 respondents, representing 73.3%, agreed that the
decentralization process is relevant to them. Out of that number 18 (40%) strongly
agreed that the decentralization process is relevant. The data also indicates that 4 (8.9%)
respondents disagreed and 1 (2.2%) of the respondents strongly disagreed with the view
that the decentralization process is relevant. As the item indicates, 7 respondents,
representing 15.6%, were, uncertain about the relevance of the decentralization process.
Item 2 indicates responses to the statement, “I understand the decentralization
process”. As the responses to the item indicates, 35 (77.7%) respondents agreed that they
44
understand what the decentralization process is all about, whereas 4 (5.5%) indicated
they do not understand the decentralization process. Item 2 also indicates that 6,
respondents representing 13.3%, of the sampled population, were uncertain whether they
understand the decentralization process or not. Interviews with participants indicated that
they understood the concept of decentralization. The interviewees were asked how the
decentralization process (local government system) worked. One respondent said, ‘In
short the aim of the decentralization concept is to bring power, governance and
accountability near the grassroots’. Another respondent commented that, ‘the
decentralization process means that the administration of the country should be extended
to the grassroots, that the grassroots should have a say in the planning of the
development of the nation.’ One thing that was clear in the interview responses was the
articulation of the idea that the decentralization process is supposed to laud a ‘bottom-up’
approach to development. One respondent who gave a more explicit response explained
the decentralization process in Ghana as follows:
The decentralization process is a way of getting decision making to the
grassroots within the communities; from the grassroots right up to the
national level. We have the Unit Committees(UCs), Area Councils, Town
Councils or Zonal Councils, Municipal Assemblies, Regional
Coordinating Councils (RCC) and National Government. The unit
committees are within the communities, the town councils and area
councils that form the larger councils then we have the general assembly at
the district assembly, the RCC at the region and the Local Government
Ministry at the national level. The UCs mobilize the people within the
communities; whatever concerns, challenges and grievances they have,
they send them through the Town /Area Councils (their chairmen and
secretaries) and further forwarded through the Assembly Members to the
Municipal Assembly.
This goes to confirm findings from the quantitative data that majority of the citizens
in the Ho Municipality understand the decentralization concept.
45
Item 3 shows that only 14 (27.7%) of the citizens agreed the decentralization process has
achieved its goals in the Ho Municipality. The data shows that 5 (11.1%) of the citizens
disagreed that decentralization process achieved its goals. As the Table shows 23
(51.1%) of respondents were uncertain about whether the decentralization process in Ho
Municipality has achieved its goals. Table 7 also indicates that 3 (3.3%) of respondents
strongly disagree with the view that the decentralization process has achieved its goals in
the Ho Municipality.
The results from the interviews on whether the decentralization process has
achieved its goal and objectives are not different from the results from the questionnaire
data. Out of the 13 interviewees, 8 argued that the decentralization process has achieved
its goals in the Municipality. One interviewee explained that:
In the instance that awareness has been created at the local level that
there is the need for people to participate in local governance and the
people’s ideas, because it is the people’s needs and lots that must be
improved. So, now that they are aware they have the assembly and their
representatives are there and the unit committees.
Those who disagreed are of the view that the major problem is with the
ineffectiveness of the ‘bottom-up’ approach of the decentralization process. In their
view, the Unit Committee level is the basis of the decentralization process. However,
they argued that there is little evidence of any effectiveness at the Unit Committee level.
One informant explained that:
If you look at the Unit level that is unit committee, I always have the
understanding and perception that the action spot is the unit level. That is
where the people reside, where the action takes place. However, the unit
committees unfortunately have no provision for their remuneration, so it is
less or more a sacrificial work. Therefore, with the situation where the
economy is not buoyant and people not having the way they want because
of the economic hardship, people tend to leave what it is for society, that
communal spirit, apparently you must survive first before to be able to put
your talent at the disposal of society. Because we realize the participation
46
of unit committee is lacking except certain few people who are committed.
(Municipal Director CHRAJ at Ho, February 12, 2012)
These concerns relate closely to the question of election and how those elected
turn to act. Therefore, I turn to explore views on how people view the decentralization
process from the perspective of having to elect representatives. The views are presented
in Item 4.
Item 4 indicates that only 26 (57.8%) being majority of respondents thought that
the elected representatives are accountable to the citizens during elections. Whiles 6
(13.3%) of respondents disagreed that the representatives were accountable to the people.
They thought that the decentralization process is for the elected few and some staff in the
Municipal Assembly. Item 4 also indicates that 13 (28.8%) respondents were uncertain
whether the decentralization concept is for the privileged in the district.
Item 5 presents the views of respondents on whether the decentralization process
has had a positive impact on the actions and activities of the local people. The table
reveals a rather interesting finding. The data shows 18 (40%) of respondents agreed that
decentralization has imparted positively on the local people while 7 (14.4%) disagreed
and 4 (8.9%) of respondents were uncertain.
4.1.2 The Unit Committee Members and Decentralization Process
Under this subsection, Unit Committee Members and Decentralization process, I
tend to look at the respondents’ assessment of the work of decentralization process based
on the work of the Unit Committee Members (UCMs) in the Ho Municipality. The
results are presented in Table 10. The first analysis in Table 10 shows the respondents’
perspective on whether they think the Unit Committees are functional: the members are
active and work in an organized manner.
47
Table 8: Views on the functionality of Unit Committee Members (UCM)
ITEMS
SA
A
U
D
SD
TOTAL
6. The UCMs are active
and work in
Organized manner.
2(4.4) 10(22.2) 11(24.4) 10(22.2) 12(26.6) 45(99.8)
7. The UCMs maintain a
clear focus on the
developmental projects
2 (4.4) 11(24.4) 7(15.5) 10(22.2) 15(33.3) 45(99.8)
8. The UCMs are prompt to address
problem affecting the community.3(6.6) 8(17.8) 6(13.3) 16(35.5 12(26.6) 45(99.8)
9 The Unit Committee Members organize
the people for development project 3 (6.6)11(24.4) 13(28.8) 16(35.5) 2(4.4) 45(99.7)
10 The UCMs educate the citizens
on their roles and
responsibilities.
5(11.1) 7(15.5) 12(26.6) 14(31.1) 7(15.5) 45(99.8)
11 The UCMs involve the individuals
in decision-making.
6 (13.3) 9(20) 14(31.1) 15(33.3)1(2.2)
45(99.9)
Source: Field Data (2012)
The responses in Table 8 show that only 13 (28.8%) of the respondents agreed
that the members of the Unit Committees are active and work in an organized manner.
The majority of respondents 32 (48.4%) of the respondents disagreed. Item 6 shows that
another 11 (24.4%) of the respondents were uncertain. Things were not essentially
different when it comes to the question of the relevance of the Unit Committees in
contributing to local development.
Item 7 in Table 8 shows that 13 (28.8%) of the respondents agreed that the work
of the Unit Committee Members was contributing to local development. The majority 25
(55.5%) of the respondents disagreed and 7 (15.5%) were uncertain.
One participant of the interview observed, “The UCMs are supposed to be the first organ
on the ground within the community or the electoral area headed by the AM but it seems
they lack that direction. They are only there in name; they really do not know their
work”. Another interviewee said the UCMs are there in principle.
Item 8 shows respondents’ views on how prompt the unit committee members
address problems affecting the communities in the Ho Municipality. As Table 8 shows,
48
11 (24.4%) of the respondents agree that the unit committee members promptly address
problems affecting the communities. However, 28 of the respondents, representing
62.1% disagree that the unit committee members are prompt to address communal
concerns about development. The other 6 (13.3%) respondents were uncertain. This
pattern is also reflected in item 9, which shows the respondents’ views on whether the
UCMs organize the people for development.
Item 9 shows that 14 (31.1%) of respondents agreed that UCMs mobilize
members of their communities (Units) for the implementation of self-help and
development projects. However, item 9 also shows that 18 (39.9%) respondents disagree
while 13 (28.8%) of the respondents were uncertain.
As the Unit Committee Members are expected to educate the people in the unit
on their rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities (ILGS, 2006) I sought the
respondents view on the subject. The result is presented in item 10.
Table 8 presents the responses of the respondents which show that
UCMs have
been educating their communities on their rights, roles and responsibilities. Item 10
indicates that 12 (26.6%) agreed, and Item 10 again shows that 23 (51%) of respondents
disagreed while the other 14 representing 31.1% were uncertain. A similar picture was
evident in Item 11, which presents findings from respondents’ views on whether UCMs
involve citizens in decision-making.
Item 11 indicates that 15 (33.3%) respondents agreed that the UMCs members
actively engage with the community members to make decisions about the proposals that
should be submitted to the Area or Town councils on behalf of the community. As the
table indicates, 16 (36%) disagreed, while 14 (31.1%) were uncertain.
49
4.1.3 Assembly Members (AMs) and Decentralization Process
This subsection presents data on the respondents’ views on work of Assembly
Members in the decentralization process. Tables 9 presents the data gathered on the
respondents’ views on the decentralization process in relation to the work of the
Assembly Members in the Ho Municipality of Volta Region.
Table 9: The Assembly Member (AM) and Decentralization Process
ITEMS
SA (%) A(%) U(%) D (%) SD(%) TOTAL %
9. The AM works in collaboration with
UCMs, TAs and citizens
15(33.3) 21(46.7) 2(4.4) 5(11.1) 2(4.4) 45(99.9)
10. The AM is prompt to address problems
affecting the community.
14(31.1) 15(33.3) 3(6.6) 8(17.7) 5(11.1) 45(99.8)
11. The AM maintains a clear focus on the
development of the community. 7(15.5) 18(40) 9(20) 11(24.4) 0(0.0) 45(99.9)
12. The AM involves the community
members in decision-making 8(17.7) 19(42.2) 13(28.8) 3(6.6) 2(4.4) 45(99.7)
13. The AM holds regular meetings
with the people
in the community
6(13.3) 17(37.8) 12(26.6) 7(15.6) 3(6.7)
45(100.0)
14. The AM discusses the assembly’s
agenda with the people in the
community
4(8.8) 13(28.8) 18(40) 8(17.7) 2(4.4) 45(99.7)
15. The AM evaluates the district
and the community’s issues
with the peoples
3(6.7) 19(42.2) 9(20) 8(17.8) 6(13.3) 45(100.0)
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 9 shows that 36 respondents, representing 80%, agreed that Assembly
Members work in collaboration with other stakeholders such as traditional leaders and
citizens. However, 12 respondents, representing 28.8%, disagreed while 3 responses
representing 6.6%, were uncertain. As a result, the next item (Item 13) presents views on
whether Assembly Members promptly discuss issues with the community as and when
they arise.
Item 13 shows that 29 (64.4%) respondents, agreed that Assembly Members
promptly discuss issues with their constituents while 13 (28.8%) disagreed. The data also
50
shows that 3 (6.6%) were uncertain that their Assembly Members discuss issues
promptly with constituents.
Another duty of the AM in the decentralization process, the local government
system is to take part in communal and development activities in the district precisely
within his electoral area. Analysis of result in Table 9 shows 29 respondents representing
64.4% agreed, 13 (28.8%) and 3 (6.6%) responses disagreed and uncertain, respectively.
The trend as shown in the responses is rather an interesting one. Half the respondents
were either uncertain or disagreed. The question to be asked is, is there no existence of
any development projects in those communities? Could it be that the respondents who
disagreed or were uncertain have not seen any developmental projects carried out by the
district assembly since the inception of the decentralization programme in their
community or otherwise. However, the result indicates majority agreed AMs maintain a
clear focus on the development of the communities in the Ho Municipality.
The AM has the duty to meet his electorate before each meeting of the assembly,
consult his people on issues to be discussed in the district assembly and collate their
views, opinion, and proposals thus involve the electorate in the decision making process.
Item 15 reveals that 27 respondents representing 60.2% agreed that AMs involve the
community members in decision-making, while 13 (28.8%) and 6 respondents
representing 11% were uncertain and disagreed, respectively. Even though a majority of
the citizens agreed AMs engage the citizens in the decision-making process, there are
also varied views as indicated in the summary shown above
One duty the AM must undertake is to consult his people on issues to be
discussed in the district assembly and collate their views, opinion, and proposals. They
51
also present the views, opinions and proposals to the district assembly. Consultation may
take several forms. One common form of consultation in Ghana is to hold meeting with
the parties that matter. Table 9, item 16, reveals that AMs in the Ho Municipality partly
hold regular meetings with the electorates. 23 respondents representing 51.1% agreed
AMs hold regular meetings in their electoral areas, 10 respondents disagreed
representing 22.1% and 12 (26.6%) of the respondents questioned were uncertain.
Details of the results of the AMs discussing the assembly’s agenda with the people in the
community are presented in Item 17, 17 respondents representing 37.6% of the targeted
population questioned, agreed, 11 (24.4%) disagreed whiles 18 responses representing 40
percentage were uncertain.
From Table 9 item 18 it is observed that 22 respondents representing 48.9%
indicated that AMs do evaluate the district and the community’s issues with the people,
14 representing 31.1% of them disagreed and 9 respondents representing 20% of the
respondents were uncertain as to whether the AMs evaluate the district and communities
with the peoples. The result shows majority of the respondents agreed that AMs evaluate
district and community issues with the electorates.
4. 2. Citizen participation in the decentralization process
In this section, the findings of the study in relation with the second research question are
presented.
Research Question 2
To what extent are the citizens in the Ho Municipality participating in the
decentralization process (Local Government System) in Ghana?
The research question has been answered under three sub-sections: Citizens, involvement
in decentralization process; Relevance of issues/matters at community meetings and
52
Decentralization and stakeholders.
The findings are presented in Table 10 using
frequencies and percentages for the items that gauge respondents participation in the
decentralization process followed with narratives. The responses were coded: Always
(A), Occasionally (O), Seldom (S), and Not at all (N). The analysis will be based on the
reference of “agreed” for always and occasionally and “disagreed” for seldom and Not at
all.
Table 10: Citizens’ Participation (Involvement) in the Decentralization Process
ITEMS
A(%) O(%) S(%)
N(%)
Total(%)
16. How do Unit Committee members organize
meetings in your community?
22(48.8) 9(20) 8(17.7) 6(13.3) 45(99.8)
17. How do you often participate in those organized
meetings?
11(24.4) 17(37.7) 9(20) 8(17.7) 45(99.8)
18. How do you see yourself participating in the
decision-making process?
5(11.1) 13(28.8) 6(13.3) 21(46.6) 45(99.8)
19. I take part in the decision making process
in the community
4(8.8) 12(26.6) 13(28.8) 16(35.5) 45(99.7)
20. I attend meetings organized by UCM
in my community
7(15.5) 10(22.2) 6(13.3) 22(48.8) 45(99.8)
I have taken part in local elections since
Table 10 continued
the beginning of the DA concept
23(51.1) 12(26.6) 4(8.8) 6(13.3) 45(99..8)
21. I take part in making decisions on
community development projects
15(33.3) 14(31.1) 11(24.4) 5(11.1) 45(99.9)
22. I attend communal works organized for
developmental project in my locality 24(53.3) 13(28.8) 1(2.2) 7(15.5) 45(99.8)
23. I pay my taxes and other levies
53
Table 10 continued,
to the Municipal Assembly
26(57.7) 9(20) 4(8.8)
6(13.3)
45(99.8)
24. I am part of the development planning
in my community
9(20) 10(22.2) 7(15.5) 19(42.2) 45(99.9)
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 10 presents the findings on the extent to which unit committee members organize
meetings to enable citizens to participate in the decentralization process through meeting
attendance. Item 19 reveals 22 respondents representing 48.8% agreed UCMs organize
community meetings whiles 14 of the respondents representing 31% disagreed. This is a
confirmation of earlier findings of UCMs non-functioning in the Ho Municipality. Item
20 finds out whether the citizens participate in such meetings if they are organized.
The data in Table 10 depict that majority of the citizens who responded to the
questionnaire agreed that they often participate in meetings organized by UCMs in their
unit. Out of the 45 responses 11 representing 24.4% responded always, 17 representing
37.7% occasionally, 9 (20%) seldom and 8 (17.7%) not at all.
Item 21 revealed that majority of the citizens that responded to the questionnaire
disagreed they are part of the decision making process in their various units for that
matter the district as a whole. Besides, 5 respondents representing 11.1% stated always,
13 (28.8%) stated occasionally whiles 6 respondents representing 13.3% seldom and 21
(46.6%) not at all.
The results confirmed what one of the Heads of the decentralized department
said: “the citizens are partially participating in the decentralization process. Partially,
because assembly members are not doing their work to the satisfaction of the concept,
you go to an assembly member, ask him how long you have met your people, he will say
54
for some time now I have not met them. When the assembly members meet at the
assembly meeting they do not go back to discuss the issues with their people.”
Item 22 asked a specific question whether the citizens take part in the decisionmaking in their community. Table 10 shows that out of the 45 responses 16 (35.5%)
indicated always, 13 (28.8%) occasionally, 12 (26.6%) seldom and 4 (8.8%) not at all.
From the data there are varied views expressed by the respondents. The findings from the
interview are not different from that of the questionnaire. For example, one respondent
stated:
They are involved in one way or the other, because any decision that is
carried out by the assembly is embraced by all and sundry, so to some extent
they are involved in decision-making. Normally, before assembly members
come to session or meetings they gather the views of the citizens in the
community and when they come to the floor of the house they factor those
views into the decisions taken.
Yet, another has this to say:
You cannot see any meaningful participation of those at the grassroots.
In addition, when you come to the area councils and town councils, it is
almost the same and it depends on three key issues, resources, the capacity
of the people to participate; and how much awareness has gone to the people
to enable them participate in decision-making and governance. If you look
at all the three dimensions not much has been done to bring decentralization
to the doorsteps of the people.
Item 23 is a replica of Item 19 to determine the consistency of the respondents’
answer. The results show 22 (48.8%) respondents said they always attend meetings
organized by UCMs, 10 (22.2%) occasionally, 7 (15.5%) seldom and 6 (13.3%) not at
all. The finding is an indication that the citizens agreed that they attend meetings
organized by UCMs in their communities.
Article 42 of the 1992 Republican Constitution of Ghana gives the right to vote to
all citizens of voting age in Ghana. ‘Every citizen of Ghana of eighteen years of age or
above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered as a voter
55
for the purposes of public elections and referenda’ (Constitution of Ghana, 1992). From
Table 10, item 24, it is observed that majority of the respondents indicated they have
taken part in local elections in the Ho Municipality. Also, 23 (51.1%) out of the 45
respondents agreed while 12 respondents representing 26.6% occasionally, 4 respondents
representing 8.8%
seldom took part in local elections and 6 representing 13.3% not at
all.
One interview participant said what confirms the outcome of the findings:
Right now the involvement of the citizens in the decentralization process
is seen just in voting. They vote to elect assembly members and unit
committee members and that is all.
From item 25 it is observed that 15 respondents representing 33.3% always took
part in decision making, 14 (31.1%) occasionally, 11 (24.4%) seldom and 5 (11.1%) not
at all and 26 provide information about actual engagement in developmental projects in
their units. When asked whether they are part of the decision-making body that decides
on projects in the community, 24 respondents representing 53.3% agreed while 7
(15.5%) of the respondents disagreed. However, majority of the respondents agreed they
attend communal works that execute developmental projects that is 37 (82.1%) agreed,
as against 7 (15.5%) that disagreed. Meanwhile, items 25 & 26 bring to the fore the
relationship between decision-making and participation in communal works.
Item 27 found out from the citizens their participation in the payment of taxes and
other levies to the district assembly. The analysis shows 32 respondents representing
71.1% out of the 45 responses stated; they always or occasionally pay their taxes and
levies against 10 respondents representing 22.1% who stated they seldom pay taxes or
not at all. The finding implies almost 20% plus of the targeted sample population in the
Ho Municipality do not pay any tax or levies to the district assembly.
56
The next item 28 as presented in Table 10 asked citizens to indicate whether they
are part of the development planning in their units. From the data given, 19 (42.2%)
indicated they participate always or occasionally while 26 (77.7%) of the respondents
indicated seldom or not at all. The result is an indication that majority of the citizens are
not part of the development planning process in their units in the Ho Municipality of the
Volta Region of Ghana.
The findings from the interview on citizen participation in the decentralization process in
the Ho Municipality were significant. Out of the 14 interviewees 7 participants
representing 50% stated the citizens are involved in one form or the other, 4 participants
representing 28.5% stated the citizens are partially involved in the decentralization
process while 3 others representing 21.4% stated the citizens are not involved in the
decentralization process.
4.2.2. Relevance of Issues /Matters at Community Meetings
In this subsection, I consider the relevance of issues and matters at community
meetings. The results are presented in table 11 on the respondents’ perspective on how
regular the issues are discussed.
Table 11: Issues/Matters at Community Meetings
Issues/Matters
A(%)
O(%)
S(%)
N(%)
25. Disagreements among citizens 4(8.8) 14(31.1) 6(13.3)
21(46.6)
26. Land problems
0(0.0) 3(6.6) 16(35.5)
26 (57.7.)
27. Developmental issues
8(17.7) 12(26.6) 9(20)
16(35.5)
28. Payment of taxes/levies
9(20 ) 11(24.4) 12(26.6) 13 (28.8)
Source: Field Data (2012)
57
Total (%)
45(99.8)
45(99.8)
45(99.8)
45(99.8)
From the responses given, 4 (8.8%) and 14 (31.1%) respondents indicated issues
concerning disagreements among citizens were always and occasionally discussed at
community meetings. Six respondents also indicated such issues are seldom discussed
while majority of 24 respondents representing 53.3% indicated matters of disagreement
among citizens are not at all discussed at community meetings organized by UCMs of
the communities. The findings reveal majority of the respondents agreed, community
meetings do not consider relevant, disagreements among the citizens. On land problems,
majority of the respondents (26 out of 45) representing 57.7% indicated that land
problems are not discussed at all. From the table, developmental problems or matters and
payment of taxes and levies in the communities are not given any prominence neither at
UC meetings. Responses for developmental problems show, 8 respondents representing
17.7% indicated always while 12, 9 and 16 of them representing 26.6%, 20% and 28.8%
respectively indicated occasionally, seldom and not at all. Responses for the payment of
taxes and levies were not different, 9, 11, 12 and 13 respondents representing 20%,
24.4%, 26.6% and 28.8% respectively indicated always, occasionally, seldom and not at
all, how often issues of payment of levies or taxes discussed at UC meetings.
4.2.3. Decentralization and Stakeholders
This subsection presents data on the respondents’ views on the relevance of
stakeholders in the decentralization process. Table 12 presents the findings on how the
respondents rate in order of importance the stakeholders of the decentralization process
in the Ho Municipality.
58
Table 12: Decentralization and Stakeholders
Stakeholder
VI (%)
I(%)
LI(%)
WI (%)
Total (%)
33. Municipal Chief Executive (MCE) 26 (57.7) 12(26.6) 7(15.5) 0(0.0) 45(99.8)
34. Assembly Member (AM)
23(51.1) 15(33.3) 7(15.5)
0(0.0)
45(99.9)
35. Unit Committee Member (UCM) 18(40) 11(24.4) 10(22.2)
6(13.3) 45(99.9)
36. Traditional Authority (TA)
0(0.0)
37. Citizen (C)
27(60) 12(26.6)
6(13.3)
29(64.4) 11(24.4) 5(11.1)
0(0.0)
45(99.9)
45(99.9)
Source: Field Data (2012)
Five personalities are presented under this heading. Items 34-38 asked the citizens to
rate in order of importance the stakeholders in the decentralization process, especially in
the decision making process in the Ho Municipality. Multiple responses from the 45
respondents presented in Table 12 for each of the personalities. The results from Table
12 identified the MCE 26 (57.7%), AM 23 (51.1%), UCM 18 (40%), TA 27 (60%), and
Citizens (C) 29 (64.4%), and rated very important in that order. For the rating,
‘important’, UCM had 11 (24.4%), AM 15 (33.3%), TA 12 (26.6%), C 11 (24.4%) and
DCE 26 (57.7 %) respectively. For ‘less important’ MCE and AM 7 (15.5%) each, TA 6
(13.3%) and C 5 (11.1%) each and UCM 10 (22.2%). Six respondents representing
13.3% indicated the UCM were ‘without importance’. The findings show AM and TA
are highest rated followed by MCE and C and the least rated personalities is the UCM.
From the result majority of the respondents rate AMs and TAs most important, MCEs
and Cs important and UCMs less important.
4:3:1 Factors that affect the decentralization process in Ho Municipality
In this section, the findings of the study in relation with the third research question
are presented.
59
Research Question 3
What are the factors affecting citizen participation in the decentralization process
in the Ho Municipality?
This presents perspectives of respondents on the factors that affect the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipal Assembly of Volta Region. The factors affecting citizen
participation in the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality were considered from
three perspectives: factors emanating from the municipal assembly, factors based on the
people’s representatives notably the assembly members and the unit committee members
and factors involving the roles, responsibilities and obligations of the citizens.
Table 13: Factors that affect the decentralization process in Ho Municipal
Assembly
ITEMS
SA (%) A (%) U(%) D(%) TOTAL (%)
38. The MA is not functioning well because
the MCE is not accountable to the
electorate
18(40) 11(24.4) 9(20) 7(15) 45(100.0)
39. The MA is not performing up to expectation
of the citizens because the MCE is not
elected by the electorate
14(31.1) 16(35.5) 9(20) 6(13.3) 45(100.0)
40. The MA will be better off if the entire
membership of the assembly is elected
rather than the current arrangement when
one-third is appointed
12(26.6) 13(28.8) 11(24.4) 9(20) 45(99.8)
41. The non-payment of regular allowances
to AM is not helping the decentralization
process
18(40) 15(33.3) 3(6.6)
9(20) 45(100.0)
42. The non-payment of regular allowance to UCM
is not helping the decentralization
process
17(37.7) 14(31.1) 9(20) 5(11.1) 45(100.0)
43. The non-functioning of UCs is due to
too many UCs operating in any one
area council
12(26.6) 19(42.2) 8(17.7) 6(13.3) 45(99.8)
60
table 13 continued,
44. The inability of the MA to generate
internal funds is due to the lack of
awareness of citizens of their
obligations
18(40) 13(28.8) 5(11.1)
9(20)
45(100)
45. The AMs, TAs and UCMs of the MA
Compete rather than cooperating with
one another
6(13.3) 12(26.6) 16(35.5) 11(24.4) 45(99.8)
46. The policies of any ruling
government affect the decentralization
process to a greater extent
12(26.6) 18(40) 10(22.2) 5(11.1) 45(100.0)
47. The apathy of citizens of
non involvement in the decentralization
process is due to lack of information
or education by the stakeholders of
the programme
17(37.7)
Source: Field Data (2012
14(31.1) 8(17.7) 6(13.3) 45(100.0)
There shall be a Municipal Chief Executive for every district who shall be
appointed by the President with the prior approval of not less than two-thirds majority of
members of the Assembly present and voting at the meeting (Ghana’s Constitution,
1992: Article 243 (1)). Items 38 & 39 asked the respondents to indicate whether they
believe the non-performance of the municipal assembly to the expectation of the
citizenry can be attributed to non-election and non-accountability of MCE to the
electorate. The findings in Table 13 depict that the majority of the respondents agreed
that non-election of the MCE and him not accountable to the electorates in the
municipality to a very large extent affect the performance of the Municipal Assembly.
From Table 13, 29 respondents representing 64.4% agreed that the Municipal Assembly
(MA) is not functioning well because the Municipal Chief Executive is not accountable
to the electorate, however, 7 (15.5%) disagreed and 9 (20%) were uncertain. In item 39,
61
30 respondents representing 66.6% share the view that the MA is not performing to
expectation of the citizens because the electorate does not elect the MCE, yet 6 (13.3%)
and 9 (20%) disagreed and uncertain respectively.
In Item 40 respondents were asked to indicate whether they agree or disagree that
the district assembly will be better off if the entire membership of the assembly is elected
rather than the current arrangement where one-third of the assembly is elected.
According to the analysis from Table 13, 25 of the respondents representing 55.5%
agreed that the district assembly would be better off if the entire membership of the
assembly is elected rather than the current arrangement where one-third is appointed.
Less than 10% disagreed and approximately 24.4% were uncertain.
Items 41 & 42 asked the respondents whether they think the non-payment of regular
allowances to AMs and UCMs is contributory factor to the realization of the objectives
of the decentralization process. Responses from Item 41 shows that 33 respondents
representing 73.3% agreed the non-payment of regular allowances to AMs is not helping
the decentralization process, while 9 (20%) and 3 (6.6%) disagreed and uncertain
respectively. Item 42 on the other hand shows 31 respondents representing 68.8% agreed
and 5 respondents representing 11.1% disagreed and 9 respondents representing 20.0%
were uncertain that non-payment of allowances to UCMs is not helping the
decentralization process. Relating the findings from items 41 & 42 bring to the fore the
relationship between AMs and UCMs in decentralization process are similar but not
identical therefore, majority of the respondents agreed non-payment of allowances to
both affect the decentralization process.
Item 43 on the functioning of the UCs reveal that majority of the respondents
acknowledged the non-functioning of unit committees is due to too many unit
62
committees operating in any one area council or electoral area. There was a sixty-eight
percent agreement by the respondents as against 13.3% who disagreed and 17.7%
uncertain. The results show 12 respondents representing 26.6% strongly agreed, 19
(42.2%) agreed, 8 (17.7%) uncertain and 6 (13.3%) disagreed respectively that the nonfunctioning of unit committees is due to too many unit committees operating in any one
electoral area.
Item 44 shows the various responses to how the respondents agree or disagree that
the inability of district assembly to generate internal funds is due to lack of awareness of
citizens of their obligations. The data analysis reveals about 68.8% of the respondents
agreed that the non-functioning of UCs is due to too many UCs operating in any one-area
council and 20% disagreed. From the results 18 (40%) strongly agreed, 13 (28.8%)
agreed, 5 (11.1) uncertain and 9 (20%) disagreed respectively.
One factor to affect the realization of the objectives and the goal of decentralization
process is the understanding that stakeholders are to cooperate with one another rather
than compete with one another. Respondents were asked whether AMs, TAs and UCMs
of the District Assembly compete rather than cooperate with one another for item 45.
The analysis shows that 18 respondents representing 40% agreed while 11, (24.4%)
disagreed and 16 (35.5%) are uncertain. Item 46 shows the views of the respondents
whether they agree or disagree that the policies of any ruling government affect the
decentralization process largely. The breakdown of responses is 30 respondents
representing 66.6% agreed, 5 (11.1%) disagreed and 10 (22.2%) were uncertain. The
results indicated more than three-fifth of the targeted population believe the policies of
any ruling government
affect the decentralization programme while a little over one-
fifth has no idea and less than one-fifth disagreed.
63
Item 47 presents the views of respondents on whether the apathy of citizens of noninvolvement in the decentralization process is due to lack of information or education by
the stakeholders of the programme. Out of the 45 responses received 31 respondents
representing 68.8% agreed while 6 (13.3%) disagreed and 8 (17.7%) were uncertain. The
results indicated majority of the targeted population believed that one factor that affects
the decentralization process is lack of education or adequate information to the citizens
on the demands and details of the decentralization process implemented by the
government of Ghana since its inception in 1988.
Table 14: Other Factors Respondents Observed to Affect the Decentralization
Process in the Ho Municipal Assembly
Responses
Number of responses
Percent
(%)
Low level of education of stakeholders
6
13.3
Lack /inadequate funds for development
3
6.6
Absence of access road network
3
6.6
Over politicization of issues
5
11.1
Insufficient/lack of qualified staff
3
6.6
Absence of commitment of stakeholders
2
4.4
Vastness of the district
2
4.4
Non-involvement of Traditional Authorities
3
6.6
Table 14 continued,
Favoritisms, ethnicity and selfishness
3
6.6
Lack of logistics at Municipal Assembly
4
8.8
Centralization of financial powers at Accra
4
8.8
Lack of cooperation among stakeholders
3
6.6
64
Table 14 continued,
Non-involvement of communities in
Awards of contract
4
8.8
Total
45
99.2
Source: Field Data (2012)
From Table 14 the respondents identified other factors that affected decentralization
process in the Ho Municipality. In order of magnitude 6 respondents representing 13.3%,
each identified ‘Low level of education of stakeholders’ and ‘Over politicization of
issues’ 5 (11.1%) as some factors that affect the ultimate realization of the
decentralization process in Ho Municipality. The responses further indicated
‘Lack/inadequate funds for development, 3 (6.6%), Absence of access road network, 3
(6.6%). Over politicization of issues, 5 (11.1%), Insufficient/lack of qualified staff’ 3
(6.6%), ‘Lack of logistics at Municipal Assembly’4 (8.8%) and Vastness of the
Municipal area, 2 (4.4%). Others include Absence of ‘commitment of stakeholders’
2(4.4%), “favoritisms, ethnicity and selfishness” 3 (6.6%) and Non-involvement of
communities in awarding contract 4 (8.8%) and Centralization of financial powers, 4
(8.8%). Non-involvement of Traditional Authorities and Lack of cooperation among
stakeholders 3 (6.6%) each were also mentioned as other factors that affected effective
decentralization of the district.
In the interview survey, respondents were asked ‘what factor(s)/ issue(s)
affect(s) the implementation of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipal
Assembly. A summary of the responses to the question show that factors such as
lack of education (low literacy rate of the citizens) financial constraints stemming
65
from inadequate funds from the central government and inability of the district
assembly to mobilize sufficient funds, human resources, comprising competency,
quality and availability, and logistics to work with. Other factors mentioned were
irregular information flow and non-utilization of investment opportunity in the
districts. To support the above one respondent made this statement:
To my best knowledge, I could say most of the people at the
Assembly are linked to political parties; therefore, they politicized
issues at the municipal assembly. Again, when it comes to the
appointment of people to positions, they do not see people who are
capable and can perform at those positions. The decentralization
process should be devoid of politics, we need to see the capabilities of
people rather than using political lens to select or place people at
positions at the Municipal assembly.
The factors that were identified by the respondents to affecting the effective
implementation of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality are many and
varied.
Table 15: Suggested Solutions to Factors that Affect the Decentralization Process
In the Ho Municipality by Respondents
Responses
Number of Responses
Percent (%)
Education related issues
14
31.1
Finance related issues
11
24.4
Political related issues
2
4.4
Planning and commitment
3
6.6
Human resource/logistics
4
8.8
Re-demarcation: district and electoral areas
4
8.8
Others
7
15.5
Total
45
99.6
Table 15 continued,
66
Source: Field Data (2012)
Table 15 shows the various responses to how the factors that affect the
decentralization process can be addressed to achieving the goal and objectives of the
concept. 14 responses representing 31.1% of the respondents indicated education related
solutions. One of the respondents said, assembly members should be well educated on
their roles so as they in turn educate the citizens. From Table 15, 11 respondents
representing 24.4% indicated improvement in the funds that come to the assembly for the
execution of the decentralization programme. “Assembly members should be allocated
part of the district common funds (Assembly Member Common Fund) as in the case of
Members of Parliament”, proposed by one respondent. Funds should be distributed
evenly among the electoral areas; the Assembly should make judicious use of its funds
for infrastructural development in the municipality to enhance the decentralization
process were some of the financial propositions indentified. Respondents also observed
if politicians stay away from the decentralization process, experienced and seasoned civil
servants employed at the district assemblies and adequate logistics supply to the districts
to work with, it will promote the realization of the ideals of the decentralization process.
Other solutions identified that constituted the 16.25% of the responses were: the Ho
Municipality should be re-demarcated or split into two districts and large electoral areas
split into smaller units for easy administration, Unit Committee Members and Assembly
Members should be made mobile and traditional authorities should be more involved in
the decision-making process in the district.
4.4. Summary
Chapter four comprised of presentation of findings and analysis of findings of the
study. The perception of the citizen about the decentralization process was explored,
67
citizen participation and involvement in the decentralization process was examined and
factors that affect the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality were sought.
68
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.0. Introduction
This chapter deals with the discussion of findings derived from the analysis of data
collected for the study. The findings are subsequently discussed within the context of the
literature. Besides, the findings are discussed in relation to the research questions:
1. What are the views of citizens about the decentralization process in the Ho
Municipality?
2. To what extent are the citizens in the Ho Municipality participating in the
decentralization process (local government system) in Ghana?, and
3. What are the factors affecting citizens’ participation in the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipality?
5.1 Citizens’ Views and Understandings of the Decentralization Process
The first research question sought to find out the citizens’ views and
understanding of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality. The result
indicated that the level of understandings and views of respondents in the Ho
Municipality was significant as indicated by the scores. The findings indicated that
respondents were convinced that the decentralization process was relevant to them.
However, the result shows that 15.6% of respondents could not indicate whether they
agree or disagree, suggests that some citizens still do not understand the decentralization
process. The 15.6% of respondents who were uncertain could mean they had no
knowledge of the concept or do not understand how they could relate their lives to the
decentralization process. It is, therefore, an indication that a significant number (15.6%)
of the citizens in the Ho Municipality do not have sufficient information about the
69
decentralization programme not to talk of participating in it. These findings corroborate
the findings of the qualitative data, because some of the respondents were confused on
how the decentralization process works, its meaning and in some cases, its aims.
The study found out that respondents held the strong belief that the
decentralization process had not achieved its goals. The approximately 15% of the
respondents who were uncertain is a sizable percentage. A probable explanation for this
could be that the respondents’ expectation of the concept was not met. This might
suggest some more work by local government institutions to explain the concept to the
citizenry and to elicit their support and participation in the process. This seems to be the
root of why participation in local government (decentralization process) is problematic.
As Guri (2006) suggested the system has been shown not to be responsive to the needs
and aspirations of local people.
The study revealed that about 67% of the respondents believe that AMs were not
accountable to the electorates. This is suggestive of the rationale for the finding which
indicated respondents have varied views and understandings on the notion that the
decentralization process has had a positive impact on the lives of the people. It is worthy
to note that there is a problem based on Ayee’s (2002) observation that the impact of
decentralization can be measured not only by representative government, administrative
capacity, the legitimacy of local structures, the contribution of civil society (citizens) and
developing a local political process but more so by accountability and responsiveness. As
such, it could be hypothesized that the impact of decentralization cannot be realized
without accountability and responsive representation. This could probable be the
explanation for what brought about the varied views expressed by the respondents, and
might have been measured against the factors proposed by Ayee.
70
According to the Local Government (Urban, Zonal and Town Councils and Unit
Committees) (Establishment) Instrument, (LI 1589) of 1994, Unit Committees are to
perform a number of duties: Mobilize members of the unit for the implementation of
self-help and development projects; provide the focal point for the discussion of local
problems and take remedial action where necessary or make recommendations to the
assembly where appropriate, through the relevant urban, zonal or town council; organize
communal and voluntary work especially with respect to sanitation; educate the people
on their rights, privileges, obligations and responsibilities in consultation with the district
branch of the National Commission on Civic Education. Based on this, if the ordinary
citizen is able to assess the work of Unit Committee Members (UCMs) of his/her
community, it could be an indication of his/her understanding of the decentralization
process.
In contrast, the study found that UCMs are not active and do not work in any
organized manner. This is contra-indicative of the vision underlying the Unit Committee
concept in the LI 1589 of 1994 (ILGS, 2006). As the result shows, 57.7% of the
respondents were of the view that UCs are not active or work in organized manner. The
findings further revealed that the respondents disagreed that UCMs maintain a clear
focus on development projects. It could be deduced from the results that majority of the
respondents in the Ho Municipality believe Unit Committee Members in the district were
not proactive on issues concerning the developmental agenda and projects within their
communities. This is consistent with the finding that 62.1% of the respondents disagreed
that UCMs are prompt to address problems affecting the communities. The position of
the respondents is that the UCMs do not organize the people for development projects in
their units (See Table 8). The findings revealed that respondents disagreed that the
71
UCMs educate the citizens on their roles and responsibilities. This is indicated by 51% of
the respondents who disagreed. The implication of the data generated is a confirmation
of what one interviewee said, “The unit committees exist only in principle”. The study
also indicated that the respondents disagreed that UCMs involve the citizens in decisionmaking. The result further reveals majority of the respondents in the Ho Municipality do
not see any meaningful involvement of the citizens in decision-making by the unit
committee members. It is worth mentioning that every 4 out of 5 respondents in the Ho
Municipality disagree that the unit committees are performing the core responsibilities
assigned to the Unit Committees, in accordance with the decentralization process, the
very rationale of its establishment. The study then indicated the citizens do not
understand the decentralization process because the UCs do not perform their core
responsibilities as required by the Legislative Instrument that established it (LI 1589) of
1994, (ILGS, (2006)
Article 16 section 1 (a-j) of the Local Government Act 462 requires Assembly
Members of a District shall as appropriate maintain close contact with his electoral area,
consult his people on issues to be discussed in the district assembly and collate their
views, opinion, and proposals; present the views, opinions and proposals to the district
assembly. Other duties are to attend meetings of the district assembly and meetings of
sub-committees of which he is a member; meet his electorate before each meeting of the
assembly; report to his electorate the general decisions of the assembly and its Executive
Committee and the actions he has taken to solve problems raised by residents in his
electoral area. The rest are to draw attention in general debate to national policies, which
are relevant to the subject under discussion; maintain frequent liaison with organized
productive economic groupings and other persons in the district and take part in
72
communal and development activities in the district. The citizens understanding of the
concept of the decentralization process can largely be measured on the assessment, the
citizens made of the work of Assembly Members in relation to the decentralization
process.
The findings indicated that the respondents agreed AMs are prompt to address
problems affecting the community, maintain a clear focus on the development of the
community, involve the community members in decision-making and hold regular
meetings with the people in the community. There are positive signals that AMs do
work. However, the study also revealed the AMs do not discuss the assembly’s agenda
with the people in the community and never evaluate the district assembly’s and
community’s issues with the people (citizens).
The results show that majority of the respondents largely have a fair view of the
decentralization process while some have problems with the concept. The result also
indicated consistently that approximately a fifth of the respondents have no or very little
understanding of the decentralization process. As in Table 7 between 7(15.6%) and
10(22.2%) respondents constantly maintained their indecision or uncertainness on all
items relating to their views and understandings of the decentralization process. It could
be concluded that majority of the citizens of Ho Municipality understood the
decentralization process and were able to assess the work of AMs and UCMs. It can then
be inferred that a 70%, (7 out of every 10), citizens of the Ho Municipality understand
the decentralization process. About 12% of the citizens do not understand, or are
uncertain about their understanding of the concept. Over all, the findings suggest that
those who agreed the decentralization process is relevant to them do understand it while
the number of respondents who do not understand it and were uncertain of it, indicated it
73
is not relevant to them. A hundred percent of those who were interviewed gave answers
that indicated they understood the decentralization process. The study then endorsed the
conviction of Meldom, Walsh and Kenny (2000) that an understanding of a concept is
often assumed.
5.2 Citizens Participation in the Decentralization Process (Local Government
System) in the Ho Municipal Assembly.
Citizen participation in the decentralization process at the grassroots is supposed
to be led by the unit committee members in collaboration with assembly members,
traditional authorities and more so the willingness of the citizens themselves. The
findings show that unit committee members do not organize meetings in the
communities. This is supported by 37.7% of the respondents who disagreed that unit
committee members organize meetings. As a result, approximately 62.1% of the
respondents attested to the fact that they do not participate in any organized meetings in
their communities. Amponsah and Boafo-Arthur (2002) observed that the extent to
which Ghana’s current drive towards democratic maturity is being realized from holistic
perspective is based on the understanding that consolidation of democracy requires
extensive participation of the entire citizenry especially at the grassroots level.
The findings also revealed that the majority of the respondents affirm they are not
part of the decision-making process in their various units. However, the picture is not all
bleak. From the findings there appears to be an overwhelming participation in local
elections by the respondents. This is supported by nearly 77.7% of the respondents
indicating they took part in elections since the coming into force of the district assembly
concept. The finding was corroborated with the assertion of one HODD when he stated:
74
Right now the involvement of the citizens in the decentralization
process is seen as, just in voting. They vote to elect assembly members
and unit committee members and they think that is all.
This is a confirmation of what Crook (2003) stated: “Ghana’s District Assemblies
introduced in 1989 under military rule were successful in enhancing electoral
participation and giving access and representation to normally excluded groups, such as
the uneducated, farmers, traders and artisans”. The question has been whether this
electoral participation and giving access and representation is all that involve
decentralization. Indeed I do not agree with Crook because citizen participation entails
more than just electing representatives and voting at elections to empowering the folks at
the grass roots to own and partake in running affairs of the Assembly at the community
level. The results show that majority of the respondents attend communal works
organized for developmental projects. This is supported by 82.1% of the respondents
who indicated they engage in such projects. Yet, on deciding on developmental projects
to be carried out in the communities, half of the respondents indicated they were part of
the decision-making process. From the findings, it could be observed that people who
participate in communal works in the communities may not be those who decide on the
development project and the vice versa.
It can be observed from the data that respondents clearly suggested people in the
area do not participate always or usually in decentralization process except for elections
(Table 10). As Table 10 shows, only 11.1% of the respondents believe they are part of
the decision-making process. This might be due to status as TAs, AMs and UCMs, or
that they are influential members of the district and in their communities. The results
consistently show that respondents do not attend meetings nor take part in decision-
75
making process in their community. This situation presents a worry because one goal of
decentralization is to promote local participation in governance and development through
local organization through Unit Committee Systems. This finding is defeatist of the goal
of the decentralization process, which profess as the belief of Meldon, Walsh and
Kenney (2000) that “citizen participation in local development is the key to the quality,
inclusiveness and sustainability of development.
Article 36 (2) c of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana provides that, “The State shall, in
particular take all necessary steps to ensuring that individuals (citizens) and the private
sector bear their fair share of social and national responsibilities including
responsibilities to contribute to the overall development of the country”. Article 41 (h) of
the 1992 constitution demands citizens declare their income honestly to the appropriate
and lawful agencies and to satisfy all tax obligations. The results on the payment of
levies and taxes give two diverging results: while about 57% of the respondents indicated
they pay their taxes, nearly 90% of the respondents interviewed answered that most
citizens in the Ho Municipal Assembly do not pay their taxes and levies. A probable
explanation could be those who stated they pay their taxes and levies might be
government employees whose income taxes are deducted at source by the Controller and
Accountant General Department. On the other hand, those who participated in the
interviews were judging those in the private sector in the district hence the differences in
the responses. The payment of tax at the local level is important to raise local revenue for
socio-economic development of the district. The lack of this shows that citizens are not
supporting the development agenda, which raises question about their participation.
I turn to examine the probable rationale for this local uncertainty toward
participation in the decentralization process. It seems that one reason why citizens do not
76
participate actively in local governance is that issues discuss at community meetings are
not relevant to them. As the results suggest, the respondents are interested in community
meetings, which will discuss issues of development, taxation, communal disagreements
and land disputes. However, the results also show those issues are not usually subjects of
discussion. As such, the people are not attending community meetings even if they the
elected representatives attempt to organize them. Table 10 shows only about 24% of
respondents regularly attend meetings organized in the community. The findings support
Smith (n.d.), when he observed that citizens will voluntarily participate in a community
when they see positive benefits to be gained.
The findings reveal that respondents agreed that all stakeholders of the
decentralization process are important and relevant to the decentralization process. This
is supported by the results that indicated high percentages for each of the stakeholders by
the respondents (See Table 12). This finding suggests there is the need for some sort of
collaboration and networking that must exist between the stakeholders to promote the
realization of the goal and objectives of Ghana’s decentralization process.
5.3 Factors Affecting Citizen Participation in the Decentralization Process in the
Ho Municipality.
The findings of the study show that effective implementation of the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipal Assembly is affected by a number of factors. These include
the office of the Municipal Chief Executive and how the Municipal Chief Executive is
selected, Assembly Members and Unit Committee Members of the Municipal Assembly
and the motivation given them, internal funds mobilization, cooperation among
stakeholders, education given to the citizenry among others suggested by respondents.
From the findings there appear to be growing consensus among the respondents that
77
Municipal Chief Executives must be accountable to the people. This is supported by 29
(64.4%) who agreed that the district assembly is not functioning well because the
Municipal Chief Executive is not accountable to the electorates. Again, 30 (66.6%)
agreed the district assembly is not performing to the expectation of the citizens because
the Municipal Chief Executive is not elected by the electorates. Because Municipal
Chief Executives are not performing to the expectation and not accountable, citizens do
not feel a need to give the necessary support in terms of paying taxes, etc. It suggests the
Municipal Chief Executives have lost credibility and cannot lead the Municipal
Assembly to mobilize support for development agenda for the districts. The result further
implies the citizens wish the electorates elected the Municipal Chief Executive of the
municipality to make him more accountable to the electorates. Interestingly,
approximately 20% of the respondents could not agree or disagree to the issues.
The findings, therefore, question the constitutional provision that upholds that
“there shall be a Municipal Chief Executive for every district who shall be appointed by
the President with the prior approval of not less than two-thirds majority of members of
the Assembly present and voting at the meeting” (Ghana’s Constitution, 1992: Article
243 (1)). This revelation could mean that majority of the people believe there are
structural defects of the present decentralization programme of Ghana. In contrast, it
could mean the people seem not to understand reasons for the appointment of the
Municipal Chief Executives by the President of Ghana besides, what are the real
expectations of the citizens that Municipal Chief Executives are not meeting by their
current performances. These issues call for further investigation.
The results further revealed that majority of the respondents agreed the district
assembly would be better off if the entire membership of the assembly is elected rather
78
than the current arrangement where one-third is appointed. The results therefore,
question the constitutional provision of the decentralization process. Article 242
establishes that:
A District Assembly shall consist of the following members (a) one
person from each local government electoral area within the district
elected by universal adult suffrage; (b) the member or members of
Parliament from the constituencies that fall within the area of authority
of the District Assembly as members without the right to vote; (c) the
District Chief Executive of the district; and (d) other members not
being more than thirty percent of all the members of the District
Assembly, appointed by the President in consultation with the
traditional authorities and other interest groups in the district (Ghana’s
Constitution, 1992).
The results revealed that the non-payment of regular allowances to Assembly
Members and Unit Committee Members largely affect the realization of the goal and
objectives of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipal Assembly. This is
supported by nearly 33 (73.3%) of the respondents who agreed that the non-payment of
regular allowances to Assembly Members affect the decentralization process and 31
(68.8%) of the Unit Committee Members also agreed with the Assembly Members. The
findings signal that District Assemblies could generate more funds if the Unit Committee
Members educate the citizens on their obligations. This is confirmed by over 68% of the
respondents who agreed the inability of district assembly to generate internal funds is
lack of awareness of citizens of their obligations. Such, lack of awareness seem to
emerge from a cyclic disorder in the implementation of the decentralization process. This
is overt in the finding that the citizens have lost interest in meetings because those
meetings do not address issues considered relevant and so Assembly Members and Unit
Committees do not have opportunities to educate citizens on their (Citizen’s) obligations.
The results further show that majority of the respondents agreed that the nonfunctioning of Unit Committees is due to too many Unit Committees operating in any
79
one-area council. As such, efforts to reduce UCs could strengthen them and might be
useful. However, such efforts will fail, if not supported by a capacity programme that is
useful in helping UCs to educate communities. The result corroborates the electoral
reforms carried out by the Electoral Commission of Ghana for the 2010 District
Assembly and Unit Committee Elections. “Every electoral area now has only one unit.
The number of unit committees has been reduced to the number of electoral areas”
(Electoral Commission of Ghana, District Assembly and Unit Committee Elections
2010).
One factor to affect the realization of the objectives and the goal of decentralization
process is the understanding that stakeholders are to cooperate with one another rather
than compete with one another. Respondents were asked whether AMs, TAs and UCMs
of the District Assembly compete rather than cooperate with one another. The outcome
reveals there were varied views expressed by the respondents. The varied views
expressed by respondents could be explained by the various leadership styles exhibited
by the stakeholders, the ideological perspective of each stakeholder and how they
understand the decentralization concept as against that of the respondents. The results
indicated more than three-fifth of the targeted population believe the policies of any
ruling government
affect the decentralization programme while a little over one-fifth
has no idea and less than one-fifth disagreed. In addition, the results show another factor
that affects the decentralization process is lack of education or adequate information to
the citizens on the demands and details of the decentralization process implemented by
the government of Ghana since its inception in 1988.
Finally, the study identified other factors that affect the decentralization process
in the Ho Municipal Assembly. These include: low level of education of stakeholders,
80
over politicization of issues, lack/inadequate funds for development, absence of access
road network, insufficient/lack of qualified staff, lack of logistics at district assembly,
vastness of the district, absence of commitment of stakeholders, favoritisms, ethnicity
and selfishness and non-involvement of communities in awarding contract, centralization
of financial powers, and non-involvement of Traditional Authorities in decision-making
at the assembly. Thus, this confirms Wunsch, (2001) cited by Ayee, (2002) when he
asserted, the impact of decentralization on local government in Ghana might be
measured by the following factors: representative government, administrative capacity,
and the legitimacy of local structures, the contribution of civil society (citizens) and
developing a local political process; accountability and responsiveness.
The findings show that respondents believe the decentralization programme will
be successful if the following solutions to the factors are considered in the
implementation of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality. These include
education related issues, finance related issues, political related issues, planning and
commitment of stakeholders, human resource/logistics, re-demarcation of the district and
electoral areas. On education related issues; government has to provide community radio
stations in each district to educate the citizens on government policies and programmes;
(including the decentralization programme) in their local dialects. Assembly Members
and Unit Committee Members should be well educated on their roles so as they also
educate the citizens. Finance related issues include creation of Member of Assembly
Common Fund (MACF) in parallel to Member of Parliament Common Fund (MPCF),
and funds from District Assembly Common Fund (DACF) should be distributed fairly
among the electoral areas and the district make judicious use of its funds for
infrastructural development in the district to enhance the decentralization process. On
81
political related issues, respondents observed if politicians stay away from the
decentralization process, experienced and seasoned civil servants employed at the district
assemblies and adequate logistics supply to the districts to work with will promote the
realization of the ideals of the decentralization process. Other solutions identified that
constituted 15.5% of the responses were: the Ho Municipality should be re-demarcated
or split into two districts and large electoral areas split into smaller units for easy
administration, Unit Committee Members and Assembly Members should be made
mobile and traditional authorities should be more involved in the decision-making
process in the district.
5.4 Summary
The chapter discussed findings of the study presented in chapter four. The
discussion was done in relation to literature and the research questions. The findings
revealed that the decentralization process will be successful if the current system is
revised to give greater autonomy to the individual at the grassroots level. In the next and
final chapter, a summary of research findings, conclusion and recommendations on the
study are presented.
82
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.0. Introduction
This chapter presents a summary of the research findings. In addition,
recommendations made on how to improve citizens’ participation in the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipal Assembly of Volta Region of Ghana. The study, explored
citizens’ understandings and views about the decentralization process, examined the
extent to which citizens participate in the decentralization process and sought to identify
factors that affect citizen participation in the decentralization process in Ho Municipal
Assembly of Volta Region. The summary of findings presented here is based on the
three research questions formulated to guide the study.
 What are the understandings and views of citizens about the
decentralization process?
 To what extent are the citizens in the Ho Municipality participating in the
decentralization process (Local Government System) in Ghana?
 What are the factors affecting citizens’ participation in the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
6.1. Summary of Findings
Generally, the study revealed that approximately 75% of the residents of Ho
Municipality have a fair understanding of the decentralization process. However, the
other 25% have little understanding of the decentralization process. It was identified that
decentralization eulogizes the need to involve all local stakeholders including the
‘ordinary’ citizens who must be actively involved in decision-making.
83
The results showed that most citizens (residents) were of the view that the
decentralization process is not responsive enough to the needs and aspirations of the
local people. The respondents believe the decentralization process has not achieved its
goal and objectives in the municipality. Respondents were of the view that Unit
Committee Members (UCMs) are non-performing, dysfunctional and lack focus. The
UCMs neither organized the citizens in the units nor educate them on any aspect of the
decentralization process. In contrast to the view held about the UCs, the study reveals
that Assembly Members (AMs), in spite of the challenges they face, were more
responsive to the needs of the citizens. Although they do not discuss the outcomes of
Assembly meetings with their electorates, they were perceived to be more accountable
than the Municipal Chief Executives and UCs.
The study examined citizens’ participation in four main areas namely: Citizen
participation in decision-making, local elections, communal works and paying
taxes/levies. Respondents do not feel that they participate in the decision-making .The
Unit Committee members who must create the avenue for the citizens to participate in
decision-making do not organize public meetings in the units. As such, the Unit
Committee Members become embittered and frustrated, because the unit committee
work is sacrificial and voluntary.
The study reveals that respondents participate in voting during local elections to
elect Assembly Members and Unit Committee Members. However, respondents were not
participating in deciding on developmental projects for the communities, except to
support communal labour by attending communal works. They do not attend community
meetings because the meetings are either not organized or do not address developmental
issues that are of interest to them. The study found that half of the respondents honor
84
their tax obligations. However, interview results show that some citizens do not pay their
taxes and levies in the municipality.
The study results showed that there are a number of factors, which affect the
participation of citizenry in the decentralization process. Those factors identified include:
1. Lack of accountability by Municipal Chief Executives, elected and appointed
representatives such as Assembly Members and Unit Committee Members to the
electorates.
2. Ineffectiveness of Unit Committees. Unit Committee Members do not organize the
citizens in their units
3. Lack of financial incentives for elected representatives to coordinate activities in their
electoral areas.
4. Lack of capacity to mobilize funds at the district level. The Municipal Assembly has
not demonstrated ability to generate funds to support development.
5. Other stakeholders (Municipal Chief Executives, Assembly Members and Unit
Committee Members) do not consult the ‘ordinary’ citizens in planning development
projects.
6. Political factors: the policy of ruling governments and politicization of issues at the
district assembly affect the implementation of the decentralization programme in the
district. These issues have been a major problem for all citizens participating in the
decentralization at all times.
7. The low level of education of majority of stakeholders is a problem to realizing the
objectives of the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality.
The study results revealed that one issue respondents considered could promote citizen
participation in the decentralization process is the creation of Assembly Member
85
Common Fund (AMCF) or Electoral Area Common Fund (EACF). This, they believe, if
created and made operational would enable Assembly Members and Unit Committee
Members reach the electorates and the citizens more effectively.
6.2. Conclusion
Decentralization process is essentially about public administration that proclaims
local governance. Ghana’s decentralization programme, as clearly demonstrated, made
significant and commendable progress in institutionalizing public administration and
good governance. Ghana has been practising either socialist or liberal forms of
government for the past twenty years since the coming into force of the 1992 Republican
Constitution of Ghana. Even though the decentralization process started earlier on under
a military regime in 1988, it has taken firm roots. Ghanaians have generally accepted and
embraced the decentralization programme.
The 210 districts of Ghana, Ho Municipal District inclusive, are making frantic
efforts against structural defects, financial constraints, and other teething problems
coupled with mal-functioning of certain institutions and stakeholders in realizing the goal
and objectives of the decentralization process. Ho Municipality has created and
institutionalized the various institutions and engaged stakeholders in promoting the
decentralization programme in the municipality. The institutions and the stakeholders
include the Municipal Assembly, the office of the Municipal Chief Executive, the
decentralized departments of the assembly, the elected and the appointed members of the
assembly, unit committee members, and the citizens. These institutions and stakeholders
supposed to deepen and widen the views, understandings and scope of citizen’s
participation in decision-making and local governance. The findings have revealed that
much is yet to be achieved.
86
There is a fair understanding of the decentralization process in the Municipality.
However, decentralization process has not provided the necessary impetus for the
citizens to participate fully in the process. The citizens have not been effectively
involved in the decentralization process, except during local elections. These issues have
been related to certain factors. Those factors include selection and accountability of some
of the stakeholders, for example Municipal Chief Executives, lack of funds for
development in the municipality, and ineffectiveness of Unit Committees.
6.3. Recommendations
A study of citizen participation in the decentralization process with no recommendation
on how to make the citizens more participatory would be seen to be incomplete. From
the findings, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. There is the need for some more education in the Decentralization Process for
all citizenry.
2. District Assembly Staff, Assembly Members and Unit Committee Members
should be given induction on ways to effectively involve their constituents in
the decentralization process.
3. The Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development should establish
monitoring
mechanisms
to
assess
the
extent
of
citizens’
engagement/participation in the decentralization process in the Ho
Municipality and beyond.
4. That the decentralization philosophy calls for a working relationship between
the government institutions and the local stakeholders. Therefore, opportunity
must given to all to participate in the programme especially the traditional
authorities. The implementation of such policy options might lead to changes
87
in local governance, which can change citizens’ views of decentralization
process.
5. Re-organized Unit Committees should be supported with small Grant
Schemes to help them coordinate governance in the local units
6. Assembly members should engage more with their constituents and
electorates to promote their interest in local government.
7. There is need to re-assess policy making which now seem to be top-down
instead of bottom-up as envisaged in the decentralization policy.
8. Municipal Chief Executives and elected representatives should have regular
consultations with their people as prescribed in the decentralization process.
9. A fund, Assembly Member Common Fund (AMCF) or Electoral Area
Common Fund (EACF) parallel to Members of Parliament Common Fund
(MPCF) created to speed up developments in the units.
10. That the Ho Municipal Assembly be split into two separate districts, thus the
Central Constituency and the West Constituency become separate districts for
effective decentralization in promoting citizen participation.
11. Finally, citizens must be encouraged to plan for their own development
projects
RECOMMENDED AREAS FOR FUTHER RESEARCH
1. Examining low voter turnout at the District Assembly elections in Ghana: A
case study of the Ho Municipality of the Volta Region.
2. Financial Decentralization in Ghana: A case study of the Ho Municipality of
the Volta Region Ghana’s District Assemblies.
88
3. Does Decentralization Serve the Poor? A case study of the Ho Municipality
of the Volta Region.
89
REFERENCES
Admassie, A. (2003). ICTs for Effective Decentralization: A pilot study in selected
Woredas (Districts) in Ethiopia. Economic Commission Council Retrieved on
November 11, 2011 from www.uneca.org/codi/documents/pdf/woreda/%20study
Ahwoi, K. (2000). Enhancing the Decentralization Programme: District Assemblies and
Sub- Structures as Partners in Governance. Accra: IEA Publications.
Ahwoi,
K. (2006). Ghana’s Public Administration Reforms: Devolution,
Decentralization, Deconcentration, Delegation or Delegation. GIMPA Journal of
Leadership, Management and Administration. Accra: Gimpa Press. , (4):8-44.
Ahwoi, K. (2001). Participatory Governance in Ghana’s Decentralization Process and the
Retrogression of Legislative Encroachment. GIMPA Journal of Leadership,
Management and Administration. Accra: Gimpa Press. (5): 1.
Akosah-Sarpong, K. (2011). Enriching Decentralization with Kleroterion. Retrieved on
August 16, 2012. From thewillnigeria.com/….DECENTRALIZATION WITH
KLEROTERION. htl
Amaro, N. (1995). Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation in
Cuba. Retrieved on December 29, 2010
ocraciaparticipativa.net/documentos/36amaro.pdf
Amponsah, N., & Boafo-Arthur, K. (2003). “Ghana’s Democratic Renaissance: An
Overview”. In Amponsah, N., & Boafo-Arthur, K. (Eds). Local government in
Ghana grassroots participation in the 2002 local government elections (1-17).
Accra, Uniflow Publish Ltd.
Arowolo, D. (2008). Local Government Administration and Challenges of Rural
Development in Nigeria. Retrieved on December 12, 2010 from
http://www.articlesbase.com/leadership-articles/local-governmentadministration-and-the-challenges-of-rural-development-in-nigeria-350828.html
Asimah, A. (2000). Enhancing Popular Participation: The SCMP Experience. In Thomi,
P. W. K., Yankson, S. Y., & Zanu. S. (2000) (Eds.). A Decade of
Decentralization in Ghana: Retrospect and Prospect; Accra: Gold Type Ltd.
Ayee, J. R. A. (2002). The global context of decentralization A Decade of
Decentralization in Ghana: Retrospect and prospect; In Thomi, P. W. K.,
Yankson, S. Y. Zanu (2000) (Eds.) Accra: Gold Type Ltd.
90
Ayee, J. R. A. (2003). Decentralization and Local Governance: The Ghanaian
Experience, In N. Amponsah & K. Boafo-Arthur (Eds.) (2003) Local government
in Ghana: Grassroots Participation in the 2002 Local Government Elections (1948). Accra: Uniflow Publish Ltd.
Berner, M. (2001). Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting In Popular
Government Retrieved on January 6, 2011 from
www.sog.unc.edu/pubs/electronicversions/.../article3.pdf - United States
Boateng, E. A. (1996). Government and the People outlook for Democracy in Ghana.
Accra: Buck Press.
Bradley, C. (1992). Turning anecdotes into data - the critical incident technique. Fam
Pract 9 p. 98-103. Retrived on May 23 2011 from www. Ncbi. nlm. gov/
pubmed/1634037
Brautigam, D., Fjeldstad, O. & Moore, M. (2008). Taxation and State- Building in
Developing Countries: Capacity and Consent. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.
Center for Democracy and Governance, (2000). Decentralization and Democratic Local
Governance Programming Handbook, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for
International Development. Retrieved on December 23, 2010 from
www.usaid.gov/our_work/...and.../DDPH_09_22_09_508c.pdf
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. (1992). Accra: Assembly Press.
Crawford, W. (2009). Making Democracy a Reality? The Politics of Decentralization and
the limits of local democracy in Ghana, Journal of Contemporary Africa
Studies.Vol.27, No.1 Pages45-63, Pout ledge: Taylor and Francis Group.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd Ed.) London: Sage
Publication, Inc.
Crook, R. C. (2003). Decentralization and poverty reduction in Africa: The politics of
local-central relation. London Public Administration and Development. London:
John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Decentralization thematic team (n.d). Participation and Decentralization in Issues in
program
design.
Retrieved
on
January
7,
2012
from
http://www.ciesin.columbia,edu/decentralization
Alison, D. (2007). Champions of Participation. Retrieved on June 21, 2011 from
www.ids.ac.uk/go/news/champions-of-participation-present
Electoral commission of Ghana (2010). District Assembly and Unit committee Elections
2010: What you should know, Accra: Assembly Press.
91
Factors for determining effective decentralization by allsubjects4you. Retrieved on
January 10, 2012 from http://www.allsubjects4you.com/Management-effectivedecentralisation.htm
Falleti, T. G. (2005). A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American cases in
comparative perspective. American Political Science Review Vol.99 (3)
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003) "Thinking about Empowered Participatory
Governance." In: A. Fung and E. O. Wright (Eds.). Deepening Democracy:
Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory governance. London:
Verso.
Ghana Legislative Instrument (L.I. 1589), (1994). Local Government (urban, zonal and
town councils and unit committees) (established). Accra: Assembly Press.
Ghanaweb, (2009) Issues on Decentralization. Retrieved on May 21, 2011 from
www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?
Gibson, P. D., Lacy, P. D., & Dougherty, M. J. (2004). Improving Performance and
Accountability in Local Government with Citizen Participation. The Innovation
Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Vol.10 no.1. Retrieved on
February 6, 2012 from http://srdc.msstate:edu/cred/02cf/cdm.htm
Guri, B (2006). Traditional Authorities, Decentralization and Development: A concept
paper for strengthening the capacity of traditional authorities for good
governance and development at local level. Center for Indigenous Knowledge
and Organizational Development (CIKOD) Accra: GIMPA Press.
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, (2007). Champions of
Participation: Engaging Citizens in Local Government. Impact Alliance.
Retrieved on June 7, 2011
www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=46016_201&ID2=DO
Institute of Local Government System (ILGS) (2006). A handbook: The role of the
Assembly Member in Ghana’s Local Government System. Accra: Assembly
Press.
Kumi-Kyereme, A., Yankson, P., & Thomi, W. (2006). Challenges of Decentralization
in Ghana: District Assembly’s responsiveness to community needs. IFE
Psychologia
(14):1.
Retrieved
on
March
17,
2012
from
http://www.ajol.info/viewissue.php?jid
Kunzman, R. (2006). The Civic (and Pedagogical) Virtue of Recognizing Reasonable
Disagreement in Theory & Research in Social Studies; (34):2. NCSS
Lawyer’s Environmental Action Team (LEAT) (1998). Local Government (District and
Urban Authorities) Acts, Nos 7 and 8 1998. Retrieved on April 24, 2011 from
www.leat.or.tz/publications/env.handbook/2.4.env.standards.php
92
Lowndes, V. & Pritchett, L. (2007). CLEAR: Understanding Citizen Participation in
local government and how to make it work better. Leicester: Local Government
Research Unit, Demon Fort University. Retrieved on November 20, 2011 from
www.europeanchallenge.eu/...ws1_Keynote_Lowndes_andpratchtt-CLEAR.pfd.
Meldon, J., Walsh, J. & Kenny, M. (2000). Local Development and Citizen
Participation: Lessons from Ireland. Retrieved on January 30, 2012 from
eprints.nuim.ie/272/2/Paper_on_Local_Government_Draft.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education:
Revised and expanded from case study in education; USA: Jossey-Bass
Module A: Decentralization Policies and Practices; Case study Ghana; Participant’s
manual (2003). Decentralization Policies and Practices
Moore, M. (2007). How Does Taxation Affect the Quality of Governance? Retrieved on
May 20, 2012 from IDS <www2:ids.ac.uk/gdr/ofs/pdfs/Wp280.pdfz
Nsiah-Gyabaah, K. (2006). Democratic decentralization and sustainable development in
Ghana; Challenges and opportunities in GIMPA. Journal of Leadership,
Management and Administration, (4), Accra: GIMPA Press.
Olowu, D. (2001). ‘Decentralization Policies and Practices under Structural Adjustment
and Democratization in Africa’. Democracy, Governance & Human Rights
Programme. Retrieved on 4 July, 2011.
www. Yorku.ca/hdrnet/images/upload/olowu.pdf
Parker, B. (2002). Theory of Citizen Involvement. Retrieved on August 22, 2011 from
http://pages.uoregon.edu/org/PPPM613/class10theory.htm
Plattner, M .F. & Diamond, L. (2004). The Theory of Citizen Involvement. Journal of
democracy, Vol.15.No.2, 105; Washington D.C.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Retrieved on August 11, 2011 from http://www.africa.ufl.edu./asq/v8i2a.htm
Rondinelli, D.A. (1981) Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective:
Theory and Practice in Developing Countries. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 47(2):133-145.
Rondinelli, D.A., McCullough, J.S., & Johnson, R.W. (1989). “Analyzing
Decentralization Policies in Developing Countries: A Political Economic
Framework”. Development and Change (20) Pp 57-87.
Prud’Homme, R. (1995). The Dangers of Decentralization. World Bank Research
Observer, 10, 201-220
93
Robertson, W. (2000). The Role of Participation and Partnerships in Decentralized
Governace: A Brief Synthesis of Policy Lessons and Recommendations of Nine
Case Studies on Service Delivery for the Poor. UNDP- BDH Retrieved on
December 12, 2011 from <www.unpd.org/
governance/marralechdrom/concepts/works % 20 Role % of % 20 participation.
pdf >
Seddon, J. & De Tommaso, G. (n.d). Political, fiscal, and administrative
decentralization participation, civil society and decentralization. Washington
D.C.: World Bank’s Decentralization Thematic Group.
Silveira, K., Shaffer, R., & Behr, C. (1993). A summary of citizen participation methods
for the waterfront development project in Ontario, Wisconsin: Center for
community economic development staff paper (93, 1); Retrieved on June 7, 2011
from www.aae.edu/cced/952.
Smith, K. L. (n.d) Citizen Participation in Community Development. Retrieved on May
1, 2012 from http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1700.htm
Smith, B.C. (1985). Decentralization: The Territorial Dimension of the State; London:
George Allen and Unwind
Spiegel, Hans, B.C. (1968). Citizen Participation in Urban Development. Washington,
D.C.: N&L Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. Ohio: Prentice Hall.
Stringer, E.T. (2007). Summary of Decentralization and Rural Development Documents
(SDA), 1997. What is democracy? Action research (3rd Ed.) London: Sage
Publications
Inc.
Retrieved
on
February
11,
2011
from
http://www.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/Glmainjthm/?id
The need to ‘Nurture’ New Districts. (2009, October) Decentralization Agenda (12th
ed.)( p.3).
Todd, D.J. (2006). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in action
In Administrative Science Quarterly: (24):4 Retrieved on November 03, 2011
from http://www.jstor.org/mon
UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21: International cooperation to accelerate sustainable
development in developing countries and related domestic policies In UN
Department of Economic and Social Division for Sustainable Development. From
www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21
UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development (1999)
(3):2. From: http://www.bgci.org/resources/article/0011/
USAID. (2000). Democratic Decentralization Programming Handbook. Washington D
C: Technical Publications
94
Weiler, J. (2008). Guide to Educational Action Handbook in Social Science. Winneba:
E.P. Printing Press.
Wisker, K. (2008). The Postgraduate Research Handbook. (2nd Ed.) New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
World Bank Report (1989). Democratic Consolidation Strategy Paper (p.45).
World Bank Report (nd). Decentralization Thematic Team, Participation and
Decentralization: Issues in Program Design. Retrieved on October 1, 2011
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/decentralization/English/Issues/Participation.htm
l
95
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
(For MPs, DCEs, DAS, HODDs, PMs, AMs and UCMs)
Introduction
I am Paul Ekpeh a student of University of Education, Winneba in the Social Studies
Department pursuing a programme of Master of Philosophy. I am researching into the
topic Examining citizen participation in the decentralization process in Ghana: A
case study of the Ho Municipality of the Volta Region. I am collecting data for the
above study.
Thank you very much for giving me the audience and allowing me to solicit your views
on the decentralization process in Ghana. The study is aimed at getting information on
the decentralization process. It seeks to learn about your understanding, perception and
view of the concept, your assessment of its implementation and more so your
involvement and that of others as participants. I want to assure you, your identity will not
be connected to the write-up. Whatever you say will be treated confidential.
1. Sir/madam how long have you been at this position?
2. How does decentralization process (local government system) work?
3. Has the decentralization process been able to achieve its goals in the Ho
Municipality?
4. Is there any specific objective(s) that has or have not been achieved?
5. In your opinion, to what extent are citizens involved in the decentralization
process in the Ho Municipality?
6. What mechanism(s) is or are put in place to involve the citizens at the
community and district levels?
7. What do you perceive to be the prospect(s) of the decentralization process in
the Ho Municipality?
8. What do you consider the major constraints for citizen’s participation in the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
9. (a) What causes the constraints? (b) How can it be addressed?
10. What suggestions do you have for promoting citizens participation in the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
How would you assess citizen participation in the decentralization process in
terms of:
 Decision-making
Are the citizens involved?
96
How are they involved?
Who involved them?
 People representation (Election of Assembly Members and
Unit Committee members)
Are the citizens involved?
How are they involved?
Who involved them?
 Revenue Generation
Are the citizens involved?
How are they involved?
Who involved them?
11. What factor(s) / issue(s) affects/affect the implementation of the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
12. How can these factors/issues be addressed for effective implementation of the
decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
13. How do Unit Committee Members involve the citizens in decision-making in
their communities?
14. How do Assembly Members involve the citizens in decision-making in their
electoral area?
15. Would you like to make any other comments or ask any question in relation
to this discussion that can better promote the involvement of the citizens in
the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality?
Conclusion: Sir/Madam, I am very much appreciative of your in-depth
knowledge on the decentralization process in the Ho Municipality and that of
Ghana as a whole. I hope your doors will still be opened to me for any further
clarification should the need arises. Thank you.
97
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE: CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE
This survey is aimed at getting information on the decentralization process (Local
Government System) in Ghana. It seeks to learn about your perception of the
decentralization concept, your views and assessment of its implementation and more so
your involvement as a citizen and that of others. Your answers should reflect your
experiences and perceptions of the decentralization process in your community. There
will be no attempt to connect your identity with the responses made on this
questionnaire. Thank you.
PAUL EKPEH - 0244995216
.Community: …………………………………
Personal Information: Please tick ( ) the appropriate box
1. Male ( )
2. Age:
Female ( )
18- 20 years
( )
41-50 Years ( )
21-30 years ( )
31-40 years ( )
51-60 years ( )
60+ years ( )
3. Occupation………………………………………………………………………
…………….
SECTION A: PERCEPTION AND VIEWS ON DECENTRALIZATION
PROCESS
In terms of your perception and views of the decentralization process, rate how well you agree
or
Disagree with the statement below. Tick the appropriate box
(1)
QUESTIONS
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
StronglyAgree UncertainDisagreeStrongly
agree
1. The decentralization process(local Government
System) is relevant to me.
2. I understand the decentralization process
3. The decentralization process has achieved its goals.
4. People elected under the decentralization process are
for the accountable to the electorate in the community.
98
disagree
5. The decentralization process has had a positive
impact on the actions and activities of the local people
99
Unit Committee Members and Decentralization Process
(1)
Strong
ly
QUESTIONS
agree
6. The Unit Committee Members are active
and work in organized manner.
7. The Unit Committee Members maintain
a clear focus on the developmental
projects
8. The Unit Committee Members are
prompt to address problem impeding the
development of the community.
9. The Unit Committee Members organize
the people for development projects.
10. The Unit Committee Members educate
the citizens (individuals) on their roles
and responsibilities.
11. The Unit Committee Members involve
the individuals in decision-making.
100
(2)
(3)
Agre Uncerta
e
in
(4)
(5)
Disagr
ee
Strong
ly
disagr
ee
Assembly Members and Decentralization Process
QUESTIONS
(1)
(2)
Strong
ly
Agre Uncerta
e
in
agree
12. The Assembly member works in
collaboration with Unit Committee
Members, Traditional Authorities and
citizens.
13. The Assembly member is prompt to
address
problems
affecting
the
community.
14. The Assembly member maintains a clear
focus on the development of the
community.
15. The Assembly member involves the
community members in decision-making
16. The Assembly member holds regular
meetings with the people in the
community
17. The Assembly member discusses the
assembly’s agenda with the people in the
community
101
(3)
(4)
(5)
Disagr
ee
Strongl
y
Disagr
ee
18. The Assembly member evaluates the
district and the community’s issues with
the peoples
102
SECTION
B:
CITIZENS
(INDIVIDUALS)
INVOLVEMENT
IN
DECENTRALIZATION PROCESS
Indicate how well you are involved in the decentralization process in your locality. Tick
the appropriate box.
QUESTIONS
19. How do Unit Committee members organize
meetings in your community?
20. How do you often participate in those organize
meetings?
21. How do you see yourself participating in the
decision making process
22. I take part in the decision making process in the
community
23. I attend meetings organize by Unit Committee
members in my community
24. I have taken part in local elections since the
beginning of the district assembly concept
25. I take part in making decisions on community
development projects
26. I attend communal works organized for
developmental project in my locality
103
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Alwa
ys
Occasiona
lly
Seldo
m
Not
at all
27. I pay my taxes and other levies to the Municipal
Assembly
28. I am part of the development planning in my
community
Relevance of Issues/Matters At Community Meetings
How often are the following issues discussed at meetings organized by the Unit
Committee for members of the community?
(1)
Always
TOPICS/ISSUES
29. Dealing of disagreements
citizens
among
30. Land Problems
31. Developmental issues
32. Payment of taxes/levies
33. Others ( Specify)
104
(2)
Occasionall
y
(3)
Seldom
(4)
Not at all
Decentralization and Stakeholders
How relevant are the following in the decision making process of the decentralization
process? Rate in order of importance
(1)
Very
Important
PERSONALITIES
34. The District
(DCE)
Chief
Executive
35. The Assembly Member (AM)
36. The Unit
(UCM)
Committee
Member
37. Traditional Authority (TA)
38. The Ordinary Citizen (OC)
105
(2)
Important
(3)
(4)
Less
Not
Important Importance
SECTION C:
PROCESS
FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE DECENTRALIZATION
Indicate how you agree or disagree on the following issues.
(1)
Strongl
y agree
QUESTIONS
39. The Municipal Assembly (MA) is not functioning
well because the Municipal Chief Executive is
not accountable to the electorate
40. The Municipal Assembly is not performing to
expectation of the citizens because the Municipal
Chief Executive is not elected by the electorate
41. The Municipal Assembly will be better off if the
entire membership of the assembly is elected
rather than the current arrangement when onethird is appointed
42. The non-payment of regular allowances to
Assembly Members
is not helping the
decentralization process
43. The non-payment of regular allowance to Unit
Committee Members
is not helping the
decentralization process
44. The non-functioning of Unit Committees is due
to too many unit committees operating in any one
area council
45. The inability of the Municipal Assembly to
generate internal funds is due to the lack of
awareness of citizens of their obligations
46. The Assembly members, Traditional Authorities
and Unit Committee Members of the Municipal
Assembly compete rather cooperate with one
another
106
(2)
agre
e
(3)
Uncerta
in
(4)
Disagr
ee
47. The policies of any ruling government affect the
decentralization process to a greater extent
48. The apathy of citizens of non involvement in the
decentralization process is due to lack
of
information or education by the stakeholders of
the programme
49. In your view, what other factors affect the decentralization process in your
municipality?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
50. How can it be addressed?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………
107