By Clemens H. Kashuupulwa
Decentralization in a democratic sovereign state plays a significant role in the development process of any country when this is implemented on “delegated and devolved” basis to effect democratic participation of the public in the decision-making process.
The democratic participation of the public in the affairs that affect their lives gives communities a sense of ownership of the development projects that are implemented as a result of their input.
Decentralization being the process of taking government “regular functions closer to the people” can thus be transferred from the central government to regional councils and local authorities via a de-concentration, delegation and subsequently devolution basis to promote participatory democracy and rapid sustainable development.
It can also transfer power to regional and local councils and promote capacity building on a regular basis, “to plan, manage, implement and monitor the delivery of services”.
Generally, the concept of decentralization is aimed at “transferring political, administrative, legislative, financial and planning authority from the central government to the regional and local authorities” as well as “to promote participatory democracy and empower the local population to make their own decisions that determine their own destiny”.
In Namibia, decentralization is a “constitutional provision”. It is enshrined in the Constitution of Namibia under Chapter 12, Article 102 (4) that led to the enactment of the Regional Councils Act 1992 and the Local Authorities Act of 1992 “to hold both their appointed and elected leaders accountable to the development process at regional and local authorities’ level”.
The policy of decentralization is thus a guiding principle that aims at taking the government institutions closer to the people as was approved by the Cabinet of Namibia in 1996. It was adopted by the National Assembly [NA] in 1997 to “devolve certain agreed responsibilities, functions and resources capacity within the framework of a unitary state based on national ideas and value”.
In March 1998, the Cabinet also approved “the implementation strategy and the work plan”.
Government Plan
According to the government plan, during the period under review, functions that were agreed for immediate devolution shall with effect from April 1, 1998 be delegated to the regional councils and local authorities which shall act as principal agents under the direction of the centre with the central government remaining primarily responsible for policy and financing the costs of the programme involved.
The main question is, where are we now with the implementation of the government policy of decentralization? Public participation in the decision-making process of development is critical for input by the public in a democratic government like in Namibia.
Guided by the Constitution of Namibia, decentralization aims at taking the government closer to the people. It is “a constitutional provision” in Namibia.
Sectoral ministries whose functions have been to be implemented on a delegated basis can no longer buy time after nine years as Cabinet has already approved the implementation of decentralization on a delegated basis.
The Cabinet too, as the government of the day, has an obligation to review its policies’ implementation to deliver better service to the people.
Anyway, there might be technical issues that remain untouched until now. But the fact remains, the process of taking the government closer to the people on a delegated basis is long overdue now. Such sectoral ministries that are behind the process of delegated functions to the regions owe the nation an explanation as to why the processes of delegated functions to the regions are progressing at a slow pace.
What targets are now being set up for the implementation of the delegated functions to the regions?
Decentralization is a process in itself that can undergo phases of de-concentration, delegation and devolution of functions in any country that embarks upon taking the government closer to the people.
Among many functions that were agreed in 1998 to be decentralized to the regions immediately were:
– Community Development and Early Childhood Development
– Rural Water Development and Management
– Primary Health Care
– Emergency Management
– Liquor Licensing
– Traffic Control
– National Youth Services
– Department of Works and Maintenance
– Forestry Development, etc.
These are all regional-driven development functions, however there are also other functions that cannot be decentralized, such as, foreign relations, army and police-related issues in a unitary state like Namibia. There are also other functions that can be decentralized later.
Sectoral ministries related to those functions are silent about delegating such functions. Many of these ministries are trying to create structures that ignore to some extent the implementation of decentralization on a delegated basis, the first stage towards devolution of functions to the region.
Non-action by some line ministries denies the democratic process of the public to participate in the affairs that concern their lives.
Disheartening as it is, such ministries have set up “ad hoc committees” such as:
– The Regional AIDS Committee
– The Regional Education Forum
– The Regional Road Board
– The Regional Emergency Committee
– The Regional Water Committee
– The Regional Early Childhood Development Committee
– The Regional Licensing Board
– The Regional Communal Board
– The Regional Resettlement Committee
– The Regional Development Coordinating Committee
What one may not understand is for how long these structured regional committees are going to last. The committees are structured to be perceived as “selected delegated functions of sectoral ministries to the regions” that are accountable to their sectoral ministries and not to the councils.
Hence, in terms of decentralization of functions on a delegated basis, these “ad hoc regional committees” may be taken as serving on the basis of de-concentration of functions at regional level under their relevant sectoral ministries.
Under the Regional Emergency Management Unit [EMU] where the Governor is the Chairperson of the Committee, it is difficult to coordinate members of emergency management unit to respond effectively to any disaster that occurs in the regions.
The bush fires that destroy vegetation every year in Oshana Region is a classic example, as members of REMU, who are heads of departments of line ministries, have to first report to their line ministries to intervene unless the Governor approaches the Office of the Prime Minister to give directives to the ministries of Defence, Environment and Tourism, Safety and Security and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry for intervention as the operation itself needs transport, manpower and financial back-up that are not available at the regional level.
By implication, some of these regional ad hoc committees are chaired by the Governor in the region, while others are chaired by the Chief Regional Officer of the Regional Council according to the directives from the relevant ministries.
Ad-hoc Committees
In some of the ad hoc committees, some regional councillors are members while in others, there are selected representatives from the communities nominated by their institutions to those regional ad hoc committees.
In this case, you will find that the decisions taken by those “ad hoc committees” are reported to the relevant ministries by the representatives of those ministries who act as the secretaries to the committee bypassing the regional councils that are the executive and legislative bodies in the regions.
That is why in many cases, you will find that there is no “full democratic participation of the public in decision-making that influence their lives”.
Under such de-concentration of functions to the regions, it excludes “the elected leaders who are accountable to the development process at regional and local authorities’ level”.
This makes regional councils unaccountable to any decisions taken as the decisions were not taken by the regional council at all and neither by the sectoral ministry. When things get worse in the management of those regional committees, the regional council tends to be delegated by the relevant ministry for full intervention on a delegated basis.
This is what happens annually with the flood in the Caprivi Region and once in Karas Region in 2005. The same applies to the bush fires in Oshana and Omusati regions which occur every year.
It also happened with the mass demonstration of members of the shebeen organization over the crisis of liquor licensing in Oshana and Erongo regions in 2005.
In fact, there is nothing wrong for any ministry to delegate regional councils to carry out any functions in the development process of the region and the social wellbeing of its people as this is in line with the Regional Councils Act of 1992 as amended.
However, the transfer of functions to the regions on a delegated basis, as a process of decentralization, may now move a step closer.
The harmonization of legislation and the induction of seconded staff to be delegated to the regions, as well as the regional councils’ readiness to carry out those functions, have already been discussed and considered appropriate for implementation.
Institutional Capacity
The Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural Development [MRLGHRD] has now created institutional capacity at regional level with management cadres in place to technically run the administrative matters of the regions on a professional basis and to advise the councils to take sound decisions for the development of the regions. Regional councillors’ offices are now taken closer to the people with staff to implement the decisions of the councils.
The Directorate of Planning, Development and Rural Services is now in place. What is remaining now is to decentralize all those functions placed under “regional ad hoc committees” on delegated functions with their staff and budget to put into effect “decentralization of functions to the regions” as adopted by Cabinet in 1998 to allow “fully democratic participation of the population in decision-making that influence their lives”.
This is the way forward for regional development to reduce poverty, hunger, disease and ignorance.
Recent Reshuffle
The recent reshuffle of permanent secretaries to various ministries, if it is “to improve the efficiency of government service delivery” among many other functions, has also to look into the decentralization of agreed functions to the regional councils on a delegated basis.
The process is long overdue now with many directors and deputies at the central government still recruited there while there are few junior officers allocated at regional level.
This recruitment of directors and deputies is not in the best interest of regional development at some ministries as “efficiency of government service delivery cannot be expected at central government level only but at regional and local level as well, if the approved policy of decentralization by the Cabinet in 1996 is to be implemented”.
Full democratic participation of the public in decision-making processes with management cadres, budgeting, planning, managing, monitoring and interpreting the ideas and aspirations of the people into concrete project proposals is to be efficiently effected at regional level, while sustainable development at regional level is possible because regional councils are fully empowered with capable management cadres to efficiently run the regions using the available funds for the successful implementation of development projects.
Since independence, decentralization of functions in Namibia has been implemented only with the establishment of sectoral ministries in the regions.
Since then, ministries have been aware of “the constitutional and legal position of delegated functions to regional councils”. They too recognize and accept that no tangible progress has been made on their part to shift from de-concentration of the functions they have agreed on towards delegating those functions to the regions.
They maintain the status quo of de-concentrating the central government departments rather than devolving power to the regional councils.
This status quo denies democratic participation of the public in decision-making processes and regional councils to undertake the planning of the physical, social and economic development of the regions.
Sectoral ministries whose functions are to be decentralized are adamant on their own priority needs and that is why Regional Development Programmes of 2000/2006’s development projects that were initiated by the public were not implemented.
The Mid-Term Review of the Oshana Regional Development Plan of September 2004 made it clear that “the majority of projects identified in the Regional Development Plan were not implemented” because the line ministries consider “the Regional Development Plans as somebody else’s plans and have little commitment to its implementation”.
If Regional Development Plans were funded and implemented by the sectoral ministries, regions could have successfully developed by this time.
If sectoral ministries could have delegated departments whose functions were agreed to be transferred to the regions on a delegated basis, much could have been improved at regional level.
It is only through decentralization of delegated functions and subsequently devolution of power to the regions that one can expect development of rural areas.
– Clemens H. Kashuupulwa is an MBA Candidate and is the Governor of
Oshana Region.