Qn: Critically discuss the reasons behind decentralization and abolition of local government in Tanzania (1972-1983).
INTRODUCTION
In every state system, government authority is to some extent dispersed over several government bodies. This spread of authority is inevitable. Even in the most centralized systems, there is pressure to divide government activities and to attribute some power for making decisions and executing tasks to local authorities rather than the central government.
The term "local government" or "local-self government" means the government by freely elected local bodies which are endowed with power, discretion and responsibility to be exercised and discharged by them, without control over their decisions by any other higher authority. The actions are, however, subjected to the supremacy of the national government. Defining local-self government, it has been observed that: local inhabitants representing local body possessing autonomy within its limited spheres, raising revenue through local taxation and spending its income on local services constitute the local-self government.[1]
Local government is a system of local administration under local communities that are organized to maintain law and order, provide some limited range of social amenities, and encourage cooperation and participation of inhabitants towards the improvement of their living conditions.[2] Therefore, local government is that part of the government of the country operating at a local level, functioning through a representative organ, known as local authority or council, established by law to exercise specific powers within a defined area of jurisdiction.[3]
The purpose of local government authority is presented in the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania as amended from time to time under Article 146 (1)[4] which states that "The purpose of having local government authorities is to transfer authority to the people. Local government authorities shall have the right and power to participate and involve the people in the planning and implementation of development programs within respective areas and generally throughout the country.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
After independence in 1961 the United Republic of Tanzania emerged with limited economic capacity and poorly developed social services. Obviously, the main challenge was to create an institutional framework that could facilitate development and equitable distribution of social services, the institutional framework in Tanzania continued in the form that was left by the British colonial regime. This meant that at that time, governance at the local level was vested in three bodies, namely, the native authorities, district councils, and town councils (Shivji & Peter, 2003).
At the time of independence in 1961, there were three categories of Local Authorities in the country namely:
- Native Authorities created under the Native Authorities Ordinance of 1926.
- District and Town Councils created under the Local Government Ordinance of 1953.
- One municipality (Dar es Salaam) created under the Municipalities Ordinance of 1946.
The administration of government was divided into phases which were First decade of independence (1961-1971), the Decentralization Period (1972-1982), The Reinstatement of Local Government (1983-1995) and the Reform Period (1996-2005).
The first decade of independence
The major goal of independence government was to have a system of administration which was democratic and consolidated nationhood. The Local Government set up had to be revisited. As a measure of consolidating independence and nationhood, the Local Government Ordinance was amended in 1962 to, inter alia, repeal the Native Authority Ordinance and with it, native authorities and chiefs. Most of these chiefs were absorbed into the government as administrators.
The post-independence Local Authorities worked under difficult circumstances. Independence had just been obtained. Expectations were high. Resources were limited and the national political milieu was anxious to engage in various experiments which were seen as having the potential of bringing equitable development to the people of Tanzania.
The Reasons for the abolishment of Local Government of 1972:
The local (particularly district) Authorities collapsed. District Authorities were abolished on 30 June 1972 while Urban Authorities were abolished on June 30 1973. At the time of their abolition, there were 66 district councils and 15 urban councils in Tanzania.
- Services had expanded rapidly but Local Authorities had inadequate resources to fund them. Their financial base was poor, revenue realised was falling, because of difficult collection and changing relationships with the Central Government. Government grants were far too short of requirements.
- Local Authorities faced a major lack of capacity in terms of human resources. - Local Authorities were accused of mismanagement of the funds that they collected themselves as well as those that the Government granted to them.
- The period after independence saw concerted development enthusiasm with a lot of infrastructure getting constructed (e.g. through self-help) but with little preparation of the Local Authorities, which were eventually expected to administer this infrastructure. Besides, the political situation did not very much support the efforts by Local Authorities to collect own revenue.
- The system of supervising Local Governments, which had been in place since colonial times became weakened after independence. Since many council officials and councillors lacked the necessary experience and know-how to run Local Authorities, this weakening of supervision had deleterious effects on the running of Local Authorities.
- The relationship between Local authority staff and Councillors was almost always sour. Among the problems experienced were: Councillors getting reluctant to take part in campaigns for tax collection; financially impoverished councillors depending on sitting allowances for their income thus having unnecessarily many meetings, or holding meetings which were indecisive; blurred division of responsibilities between the councillors and officials; councillors demanding special treatment such as offices and vehicles for their personal use; and councillors engaging in shoddy deals when it came to awarding contracts.
At the same time, Tanzania was experimenting with a revolutionary system of socio-economic development known as Ujamaa socialism, which among others, involved the reorganisation of rural settlements into communal villages, and which eschewed the supremacy of the Party in all ramifications of political, social and economic organisation. The "received" system of Local Government seemed somewhat at odds with the evolving political set up.
Until 1973, the Local Government system was made up of district, town, and municipal councils. The latter were Dar es Salaam (which got city status in 1961), and the municipality of Tanga. In the end, local (particularly district) Authorities collapsed. District Authorities were abolished on 30 June 1972 while urban Authorities were abolished on June 30 1973. At the time of their abolition, there were 66 district councils and 15 urban councils in Tanzania.
Why a new system was established after abolition of Local Government:
The intention of this change was to create a system that provided more freedom for both decision-making and participation. The first president of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, argued that abolishment of the LGAs would bring the decision-making process closer to the people (Nyerere, 1972). The people could express their concerns using the party-structure of Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) the ruling party. It was expected that this structure would enhance popular participation as noticed by Picard (1980), the main purpose of this decentralization scheme was to make bureaucracy more accountable to the political party (TANU).
The result was a de-concentrated system of administration in which public servants appointed by the central government staffed all levels of government, from regions and districts to sub-district levels. An appointed officer worked as representative of the central government in the districts. His office paid the salaries of the servants in that region and he could decide upon staffing as well as having the ability to freeze projects or apply money elsewhere.
MAIN BODY
Decentralization is the process by which the activities of an organisation, particularly those regarding planning and decision-making, are distributed or delegated away from a central, authoritative location or group.[5]
The concept of decentralization deals with the division of powers between a central governmental body and local governmental units. There are many terms used to address the division of powers between these units.[6]
If the local bodies are subordinate to the central body, this is usually called de-concentration. In this situation, the local units are answerable to a superior authority and have no legal powers except for those powers that are distributed by the central body. The opposite of this is when the local bodies are, to some extent, autonomous. This method of dividing tasks in a state system is often labelled devolution. The local bodies in such a system have authority in their own right and are typically not subordinate to other units in the system.
The Decentralization Process in Tanzania
Tanzania adopted the decentralization policy in 1972, which aimed on giving more authorities and functions to the local government authorities. Consequently, this gave the citizens powers to make decision on their issues affecting their life. Furthermore, the policy has got two major forms; these were Deconcentration and Devolution.
During the Deconcentration period, rural development was centrally coordinated and managed at the district and regional levels. According to Mollel (2010:36), though deconcentration was required to give more freedom to grassroots in decision-making and participation in matters that affect their lives, yet decision-making powers continued to be retained at the centre.
During the devolution period, the method of dividing tasks in a state system from central government to local authorities. The local bodies in such a system have authority in their own right and are typically not subordinate to other units in the system.
Decentralization (The period between 1972-1982)
This period is generally known as the "Decentralisation Period". Here, the Government experimented with taking power to the people by decentralising Central Government. A system of deconcentration of the government system replaced the comprehensive Local Government system which had existed for a decade.
The new system was aimed at giving the people decision-making powers on matters affecting their welfare and of local importance and to give them the personnel and finances for their implementation. Regions and districts were to plan and implement local development activities as well as administer their own local affairs with very limited interference from the seat of Central Government, Dar es Salaam.
Decentralization of government functions from central government to the local authority in Tanzania is a policy which has been adopted and enforced by the united republic of Tanzania to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the government functions.
The decentralization of local government in Tanzania is governed by the enacted laws of the parliament, these laws are:
- The Local Government (District Authority) Act CAP 287 (RE 2002), This Act establishes local government authorities within rural areas of Tanzania. The Act also explains the functions and powers of the local government authority within rural areas.
- The Regional Administration Act, 1997 No. 19/1997
- The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania Chapter 8, Article 145 (1), stipulates the establishment of local government Authority, stating that "there shall be established of local government authorities in each region, district, urban areas and the village in the United Republic which shall be of the type and designation prescribed by law to be enacted by the parliament or the house of representatives".
- Interim Provisions Act no.27 of 1972 provides for the establishment of development councils and planning committees in ever administrative district as statutory bodies of the new arrangement to replace the district councils".
The reasons for decentralization of local government in Tanzania
Citizen participation: The enactments of Laws have been made to ensure total involvement and participation of people in their own development. The involvement and participation focus on increase of democracy in decision-making planning, implementation of activities and control of resources. A good example is citizens can participate widely on election matters because they directly affect them. The Local Authorities Elections Act[7] This Act explains the process of electing ward councillors as the representatives of local people. "Participation" became a catchword and a rallying slogan. Development councils were created in the districts and in urban areas.
Equal allocation of resources in a country. The most common theoretical argument for decentralization is that it improves the efficiency of resource allocation. Decentralized levels of government have their purpose in the provision of goods and services whose consumption is limited to own jurisdictions. By tailoring outputs of such goods and services to the particular preferences and circumstances of their constituencies, decentralized provision increases economic welfare above that which results from the more uniform levels of such services that are likely under national provision. This results in increase of efficiency and effectiveness of the government functions.
Cost Recovery, Making services more demand responsive through decentralization is argued to have the added benefit that it increases households' willingness to pay for services. Households are argued to be more willing to pay for and maintain services that match their demand. This is the flip side of the locative efficiency coin.
Provision of social and economic services and operates as autonomous organs, by which the local authorities are given delegated powers to enact by laws, to employ, to collect revenues. Example of social services includes education, health, social welfare, or housing to sub-national governments. This is evidenced by Aleksander (2012)[8]. In participatory system, citizens can influence decisions about service provision through mechanisms which enable them to indicate the type, level, quality and mix of services they desire, and the cost they are willing to pay for
such services. This constitutes a type of market mechanism for determining service provision in a manner which responds to the wishes of citizens, and is sensitive to their willingness/ability to pay. This will not only optimize citizen satisfaction, but is also an excellent mechanism for reconciling citizens expectations to the resources available and/or the price which they are prepared to pay for the services desired.
To provide the local authorities with machinery of decision-making and implementation of plans made in the lower level. In a nutshell, the aims of this decentralisation Programme were that, rural development should be managed at district and regional levels; rural development should be co-ordinated centrally; the people should be involved in the development process; rural development should be effectively planned and controlled.
It mobilizes local resources in support of the development process, and enables value-added contributions to the provision of services and development efforts, which increases the total value of services provided, or development achieved, from the limited formal resources available. This happens because local people are able to identify and mobilize local/indigenous resources which would not be available to centrally run programmes, and because citizens are often willing to volunteer free labour and expertise, and other forms of in-kind contributions, in order to support local initiatives.
A decentralized, participatory model of local governance fosters accountability, transparency, openness and creates pressure for the adoption of high ethical standards in the conduct of public affairs. Examples: (a) To induce civil society participation, local governments practicing this model will usually adopt measures to promote accountability, openness, & transparency in the conduct of their affairs, such as: co-opting civil society representatives to their committees; opening meetings of Councils /committees to the public/media, and/or broadcasting their proceedings; holding town meetings; discussing budget options with citizens; publishing annual/periodic reports. (b) In such models, LSD Planning is a local responsibility which is carried out in a participatory manner, with civil society playing a prominent role. Civil society will therefore be fully informed on the issues, trends, options, and prospects affecting or relating to the region/locality, and thus can use that knowledge to assess the state of local affairs, and performance of the authorities.
Provides the opportunity for a wider diversity of innovations, and increases flexibility of government in the context of changing circumstances. This is so because the decentralized, participatory model of governance mainstreams the many groups/citizens who were previously excluded, and creates greater scope for local and community self management. This means that the vast reservoir of talent, innovativeness, creativity, problem solving capacity and leadership qualities which have previously laid dormant in the local population is now able to find expression, and can be applied to the problems, visions and aspirations of the local community, and will also be available to contribute to nation building. Such diversity/flexibility is important pre-conditions for significant policy and pragmatic changes.
Facilitate better division of labour in the management of public affairs. The creation of strong local governments with the capacity to effectively manage local affairs enables central government to concentrate on higher level functions. This both improves efficiency and creates more effective checks and balances. A major weakness of public administration in the Caribbean is the neglect of high level functions such as policy formulation, strategic planning, setting standards and monitoring, because central agencies are pre-occupied with operational level matters, while neglecting areas which could make a qualitative difference in public management. Devolution allows each level of government to focus on the aspects of public management which it is best suited to perform.
Generally, the period of decentralization lasted for 10 years and was described by Oyugi as "misleading and confusing to be called decentralization". This period was accompanied by strong emphasis on economic plan and party domination.[9]
Conclusively, on the other hand, a fully decentralized government is impossible, since the reallocation of public means within a country demands a certain level of coordination from a central governmental body, because we find there is partial decentralization which does not lead to decentralization aspects as per the intention of it. Despite the provision in article 145 - 146 of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania[10] and Local Government Act[11] still decentralization is not well and properly practiced due to overlapping of powers in decision making between the central government and local government.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES
- Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977
- Local Government Act, CAP 287, R.E. 2002
BOOKS
- Henry Abraham Mollel & Albertjan Tollenaar (2013): Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:5, 344-353
- K.Venkata rangia "Local Government In India", Bombay (1969)
WEBSITES
- en.m.wikipedia.org
- www.poralg.go.tz
[1] K.Venkata rangia "Local Government In India", Bombay (1969), p.1.
[2] Adeyemo 2005: 77.
[3] Warioba 1991: 1.
[4] The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania CAP 2
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/decentralization
[6] Henry Abraham Mollel & Albertjan Tollenaar (2013): Decentralization in Tanzania: Design and Application in Planning Decisions, International Journal of Public Administration, 36:5, 344-353
[8] 'Fiscal Decentralization in Eastern Europe: A Twenty-Year Perspective.' MPRA Paper No. 39316 and Nobuo and Sakata (2002), 'Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidence from State Level Cross-Section Data for the United States', Journal of Urban Economics, Vol.52, No.1, pp. 93–108.
