Prospects of Decentralization in Somaliland
Abdirahman Adan Mohamoud
Hargeisa
Dec, 2011
1. Introduction
Decentralized Governance is increasingly becoming an interesting topic for many United Nations, international, bilateral agencies, development partners, local partners and academia.
Decentralized governance, is in many cases seen as one of the means of preventing and diffusing conflict, enhancing service delivery and strengthening the capacity of local governments.
According to the World Bank, in the last quarter century, over 85 countries have attempted to transfer responsibilities of the state to lower tiers of government. Significantly, most of these lower-tier governments have been elected, so that the decentralization is not just administrative or fiscal, but also political. The motivation for the decentralization has varied. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, it was part of the political and economic transformation; in Latin America, it was to reinforce the transition to democracy; in South Africa, Sri Lanka and Indonesia, it was a response to ethnic or regional conflict; and in Chile, Uganda and Cote d’Ivoire, it was to improve the delivery of basic services (Shah and Thompson 2004). Even when it is not explicit, improving service delivery is an implicit motivation behind most of these decentralization efforts.
The reasons for this are twofold. First, these basic services, such as health, education, water and sanitation, all of which are the responsibility of the state, are systematically failing—and especially failing the poor people (World Bank 2003). The fact that governments are falling short of their responsibility to ensure adequate health, education, water and sanitation to their people is evident at various levels. At the macroeconomic level, the main instrument with which governments exercise this responsibility—public spending— seems to have only a weak relationship with outcomes. Public spending on health has no significant association with reductions in child or infant mortality; and public spending on education has an extremely weak relationship with primary school completion rates (Filmer and Pritchett 1999a, 1999b; Filmer, Hammer and Pritchett 2000).
Due to the large number of countries that are already engaged in the decentralized governance as well as the ones in the process of introducing it, decentralization is now dubbed as the “Silent Revolution” (UNSSC course materials).
2. Definition and Meaning of Decentralization
There are different definitions given to the subject matter of decentralization by different scholars, academics and practitioners. However, in this case, for the sake of clear understanding and smooth reflection of the rest of the article, we will use the following definition.
“[i]Decentralization within a government is taken to mean a transfer of power away from a central authority to lower levels in a territorial hierarchy (Crook & Manor, 1999).
3. Forms of Decentralization
Decentralization can comprise three broad aspects. The first is Deconcentration, a situation whereby central government undertakes some of its responsibilities through regional or local offices without transferring power or responsibilities to any other organization (Richard Scott-Herridge, 2002). The aim is to retain full control of service planning, expenditure and delivery whilst achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness.
Another aspect is known as Delegation, where responsibility for decision-making and service delivery is transferred by central governments to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by it, but remained directly answerable to it for functions delegated to them. These organizations may include local government, the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
A third broad aspect involves Devolution. This is when central government transfers authority to semi-autonomous local government bodies for decision-making, resourcing, administration and delivery. “They are not directly accountable to central government although they have to work within statutes and rules set by it. Although these can severely constrain the actions of local government, in principle it remains primarily politically responsible to its electorate “(Richard Scott-Heridge, 2002, p.6). Devolution is the most common form of decentralization. Nonetheless, neither of these forms is panacea. The very manner in which decentralization is structured is what matters most.
4. Decentralization Process
As defined here, (above) decentralization is a process. It is a set of policy reforms aimed at transferring responsibilities, resources, or authority from higher to lower levels of government. In general, the decentralization reforms analyzed here followed the collapse of the developmental state and accompanied the move toward free–market economies characteristic of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Generally, in a decentralized governance process, three elements/aspects are crucial; administrative, fiscal, and political decentralization (depending on how deep one aims to decentralize)
Administrative decentralization comprises the set of policies that transfer the administration and delivery of social services such as education, health, social welfare, or housing to sub-national governments. Administrative decentralization may entail the devolution of decision–making authority over these policies, but this is not a necessary condition. If revenues are transferred from the center to meet the costs of the administration and delivery of social services, administrative decentralization is funded (and coincides with fiscal decentralization). If sub-national governments bear the costs of the administration and delivery of transferred services with their own pre–existing revenues, administrative decentralization is not funded.
Fiscal decentralization refers to the set of policies designed to increase the revenues or fiscal autonomy of sub-national governments. Fiscal decentralization policies can assume different institutional forms. An increase of transfers from the central government, the creation of new sub-national taxes, and the delegation of tax authority that was previously national are all examples of fiscal decentralization.
Political decentralization is the set of constitutional amendments and electoral reforms designed to open new—or activate existing but dormant or ineffective—spaces for the representation of sub-national polities. Political decentralization policies are also designed to devolve electoral capacities to sub-national actors. Examples of this type of reform are the popular election of mayors and governors (who were previously appointed), the creation of sub-national legislative assemblies, or constitutional reforms that strengthen the political autonomy of sub-national governments.
Regarding the consequences of each type of decentralization, I expect administrative decentralization to have either a positive or negative impact on the autonomy of sub-national executives. If administrative decentralization improves local and state bureaucracies, fosters training of local officials, or facilitates learning through the practice of delivering new responsibilities, it will likely increase the organizational capacities of sub-national governments.
Nevertheless, if administrative decentralization takes place without the transfer of funds, this reform may decrease the autonomy of sub-national officials, who will be more dependent on subsequent national fiscal transfers or sub-national debt for the delivery of public social services.
Similarly, fiscal decentralization can have either a positive or negative impact on the degree of autonomy of the sub-national level. The result will depend largely on the design of the fiscal decentralization policy implemented. Higher levels of automatic transfers increase the autonomy of sub-national officials because they benefit from higher levels of resources without being responsible for the costs (political and bureaucratic) of collecting those revenues.
On the contrary, the delegation of taxing authority to sub-national units that lack the administrative capacity to collect new taxes can set serious constraints on the local budgets, and increase the dependence of the local officials on the transfers from the center. Prosperous sub-national units prefer to collect their own taxes, but poor states or municipalities are negatively affected every time the collection of taxes is decentralized and, as a consequence, the horizontal redistribution of transfers from rich to poor sub-national units is affected.
5. Key Elements of Successful Decentralized Governance
Decentralization is a process and as studies show there is no one size that fits all. In other words, situations differ from one country to another and there is no prescribed form of decentralization that will fit in even homogenous countries or post-conflict environments. Each situation needs to be analyzed with its underlying factors. However, there are key features that successful decentralized governance has in common.
· Full commitment from national and sub-national governments is a principal issue for effective decentralized program. The central government must be willing to give up some of its control and recognize the various benefits of fully functioning decentralized governance and the importance of sub-national structures in service delivery, among other matters.
· Clarity in the legal framework is another major requirement so that a decentralized governance program can be successful. This implies provisions in the legal framework that enshrines the exact model that decentralized governance can be structured in a given country. Studies have revealed in the countries where such clarity is missing, the decentralized governance often encounters with recurrent hiccups.
· Transparency and accountability are still other elements that can guarantee the installation of a valuable decentralized program. In other words, the program is structured in a manner that is not only crystal-clear in nature but also encourages citizens’ participation. This wider participation often rules out any possible mistrust between the central/local governments and the local people.
· Capacity of the human resources particularly those who are directly involved in the reform program is also counted as an overriding factor for the implementation of a decentralized governance program. Unfortunately, in many countries, and particularly in the developing countries, capacity is often low and thus the very understanding of a decentralization concept and the possible consequences that often results from it is missing. This imposes the intended reform a serious threat and unless the capacity of the local people is greatly enhanced, it is unlikely to have a working decentralized governance program.
· Equally important, but often less considered, is the institutional capacity. We frequently hear discussions on human resource development but we rarely encounter efforts aimed at strengthening institutional capacity in terms of systems, procedures, policies and communication channels etc.
· Strengths of the ability of sub-national structures to generate adequate revenues are also regarded an important feature of the effectual decentralized governance. More than any thing else, this ensures the sustainability of the program and at the same time lessens the dependence of external sources of continuity.
· Furthermore, successful decentralized governance is inclusive in nature and opens up forums for participation for all segments of the society. It greatly encourages citizens’ participation in the different stages of the program, be it in the programming, formulation, financing and monitoring and evaluation phases of such programs.
· In addition, effective decentralized governance is characterized to careful scrutinizing the relations between devolution of power and resources vis-a-vis conflict prevention and peace-building. Should the decentralization programs fail to look at the link between the two, escalation of conflicts may occur.
· Finally, presence of strong civil society including vibrant media is an added value when it comes to implementation of such programs. Availability of these opens up the door for a genuine dialogue as to why such a program is needed, whether it is applicable to the local context and the modality it can be structured in order to diffuse conflict and consolidate peace in post-conflict environments.
6. Decentralization and Service Delivery
Dissatisfied with centralized approaches to delivering local public services, a large number of countries are decentralizing responsibility for these services to lower- level, often, locally elected governments. The results have been mixed.
Many scholars who are in interested in the subject matter argue that if decentralized governance is structured successfully, it often contributes to better delivery of services. It enables local communities to be actively involved in identifying, designing and delivering the much-needed services in an effective manner. The principle of subsidiarity is often applied and services are delivered where it can be provided in the most effective and efficient manner. In terms of best practices, studies have shown that service delivery was greatly enhanced in environments where decentralized governance was successfully structured and implemented.
7. Merits and Demerits of Decentralization
There are some perceived merits and demerits of decentralization.
The advantages can include the following:
· Facilitating good governance by empowering the local population and allowing them to participate in matters affecting their lives. This allows for the local people to be a watchdog on the system and ensure that public officials deliver quality goods and services (World Bank, 2000/2001).
· Improving service delivery. It is argued that the lower levels of government can deliver services such as water, education, sanitation, health etc effectively. Also, at the lower levels of government, politicians and civil servants are more aware of the needs of their community that will be more responsive to providing such services. More importantly, preferences of local populations are better known at lower levels of government.
· The productivity efficiency argument. This refers to the contention that local governments can produce the same goods and services at lower costs than central governments. Because sub-national governments are closer to the population. Cost of producing goods and services will be minimal. The usual “middle-men syndrome” and bureaucracy involving contract procedures would be reduced.
· Improving the efficiency of central governments. Decentralization allows central governments to concentrate on national and international issues. The central government can concentrate on macroeconomic policies for the entire economy rather than be pre-occupied with delivering services to all the communities.
· Decentralization may make it less difficult for government to recover the costs of public services. That is, services would be more demand-responsive hence increasing the households’ willingness to pay services. In other words, households and their families are perceived to be more willing to pay for and maintain services that match their demand.
· Fostering competing may result in better public goods at lower prices. “Competition allows for a variety of bundles of local public goods to be produced and individuals can reveal their preferences for those goods by exercising some form of “exit” option- at the extreme, moving to those jurisdictions that satisfy their tastes” (Azfar, O et al, 2005, p 19).
On the other hand, some of the perceived demerits of the decentralization can include fragmentation of national unity, predominantly, in post-conflict situations, increases corruption and empowers local elites and finally contributes to macro-economic instability (UNSSC course materials). In contrary, lack of decentralization and self-governance can also lead to breaking of national unity and secession)
8. Trends in Somaliland
In Somaliland, decentralized governance is provided in the constitution as well as the in main Local Government Law known as the Law # 23/2007. Despite these provisions in the law, little achievements were scored against the transformation of these laws into reality. Since 2009, the UN Joint Programme on Local Governance and Decentralized Service Delivery (JPLG) has been, however, trying to work on decentralized governance focusing on improvements in service delivery. This program is jointly implemented by 5 UN agencies as well as the Government of Somaliland.
The program had an initial discussion with the Government of Somaliland in 2009. As a result, principles of decentralization were agreed with most of the concerning service delivery ministries including health, education, water and public works. However, this improvement was interrupted by the presidential elections in June 2010 and the subsequent change of the government. Nevertheless, the program is now working hard and signed a memorandum of understanding with Interpeace and the Academy of Peace and Development in furthering joint efforts on the decentralization program in Somaliland.
The progress of the program in the decentralization arena was, nevertheless, constrained by a number of factors. These include limited understanding of the decentralization concept and practices and how it is related to peace building and conflict prevention and/or escalation. Contradicting laws relating to decentralization need to be harmonized and streamlined. Resistance to reform in the minds and hearts of some key central government figures was also noted as an obstacle. To make matters worse, new districts were haphazardly nominated for political purposes without clear border delineation. Nonetheless, the strong political will demonstrated by the government of Somaliland is a great opportunity that opens up doors for genuine discussions as to the modality and technicality of the implementation of decentralized governance in Somaliland.
9. Concluding Remarks
Many argue that decentralization is desirable but where the ingredients necessary for its proper implementation are lacking then decentralization and service delivery at lower levels of government remain problematic. These concepts and principles of decentralization have been attempted in several countries. The results have been mixed (World Bank, 2003)
In Somaliland, as prescribed in the above paragraphs, Somaliland government receiving technical assistance from UN JPLG is now working in implementation of a decentralization program. The following points, if implemented, will contribute to success of this program.
· Facilitating for renewed and stronger political commitment amongst the central government ministries, particularly those perceived to be reluctant with regard to the decentralization program. This is important since the decentralized governance is stated in the country’s legal framework.
· The UN Joint Programme to resume and rejuvenate a meaningful and genuine discussion with the government of Somaliland on the various benefits of decentralization in Somaliland and the possible consequence the nation may face should decentralization fail. Such a dialogue can take forward to the achievements scored so far such as the agreement of the decentralization principles.
· Nomination of a Decentralization Secretariat under the leadership of the Decentralization Champion at an appropriate level of the central government. This body will lead and coordinate all efforts aimed at the decentralized governance.
· Capacity development to both national and sub-national structures who are directly involved in the implementation program. The newly- developed National Development Plan rightly advocates capacity development of these institutions. “The national capacity in terms of the effectiveness of institutions, and the quality of human resources available is low and must be addressed strategically. The strategy must aim at building the capacity of central government institutions, local governments, private sector enterprises and community organizations” (NDP Pg 23)
· Solving the issue pertaining to the new districts and having clear border delineation between the old and new districts. Full clarity to the status of the new districts within the JPLG implementation.
· Reviewing and streamlining the resource re-distribution mechanism (Inter-Governmental Fiscal Transfer) and coming up with simple, understandable, predictable and equitable formula.
· Strengthening and consolidation of the existing local government association. ALGASL, the Association of Local Governments Authorities in Somaliland can play a pivotal role in liaising local and central governments and filling the gap between the two. The organization can fulfill this role should its capacity to engage in national discourse on decentralization be greatly improved and the necessary investment made available.
10. References
1. Material from United Nations System Staff College Course on “Decentralized Governance, Prevention of Conflict and Peace-Building” in Turin, Italy, November, 2011
2. Decentralization and Service Delivery, Development Research Group, World Bank
3. Decentralization and Service Delivery: A Framework By: Akpan H. Ekpo, Department of Economics, University of UYO, Nigeria
4. A Sequential Theory of Decentralization and its effects on the inter-government balance of power: Latin American cases in comparative perspective, Tulia G. Falleti
5. (Shah and Thompson 2004).
6. (Filmer and Pritchett 1999a, 1999b; Filmer, Hammer and Pritchett 2000).
7. (Richard Scott-Herridge, 2002)
8. (Crook and Manor, 1999).
9. (Azfar, O et al, 2005, p 19)
10. JPLG, Annual Reports, 2009 and 2010 (www.jplg.org)
11. National Development Plan (2012-2016)
E-mail: abdirahman.adan@gmail.com
