Historically, decentralization was first mentioned in the 1800s, by Alexis de Tocqueville when he wrote that the French Revolution began with “a push towards decentralization”. In 1863 retired French bureaucrat Maurice Block wrote an article called “Decentralization” for a French journal which reviewed the dynamics of government and bureaucratic centralization and recent French efforts at decentralization of government functions.[1]
Since the 1980s decentralization and globalization are topics in most European and developing countries (the World Bank Premnotes, 2001; BiZa, 1980). Decentralization has been a main emphasis worldwide in the debate on governance for more than a decade. It is seen as a means to improve governance and reduce the level of degradation resulting from poverty.
The definition of decentralization means diverse things to different people and it is not so much a theory as it is a common and variable practice in most countries to mainly achieve an assorted array of governance and public sector management reform objectives.
Guyana is a unitary republic with three spheres of government: central, regional and local. Local government is enshrined in Chapter VII of the constitution and the main governing legislation includes the Municipal and District Councils Act, of 1988 and the Local Government Act of 1998. The system of local governments was designed to decentralize the government and place greater political power in the hands of the people.
According to historians, the local government system was set up in Guyana shortly after the emancipation of slavery in 1838, at the time when ex-slaves purchased abandoned plantations (sugar and coffee) and established villages. A Management Committee was formed in each village which founded self-government.
The system of local government continued to evolve over the years and from 1845 to 1930, several pieces of legislation were enacted with the aim being to improve the general conditions of the village councils. This was followed by several initiatives to improve the system, including the introduction of a decentralized system of administration via District Commissions in 1932.
Improved methods of village elections were allowed in 1935 by the passing of an ordinance. The Local Government Act was consolidated in 1945 and the Municipal and District Council Act and the Local Authorities Chapter were subsequently introduced.
In 1973 the District Commissioners System of 1932 was replaced by the Ministerial Regional System (which created six administrative regions that served as links between the citizens and the State). It was heavily criticized since it was felt that the needs of the people were not accomplished because the instructional framework for ensuring that development tasks identified were not adequately addressed and was deficient.
It was enhanced by taking into consideration the
limitations that were identified and as a result, the country was divided into
ten administrative regions, which were further divided into sub-regions,
districts, communities, etc. Each was charged with different responsibilities. Presently,
there are ten administrative regions, nine towns (in October 2015, three new
towns were officially declared) and sixty-two Neighbourhood Democratic
Councils.
Table showing the number of
Municipalities and NDCs within each Region
|
No |
Regional/RDCs |
Municipality |
NDCS |
|
1 |
Barima-Waini |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
Pomeroon-Supenaam |
1 |
5 |
|
3 |
Essequibo Islands – West Demerara |
0 |
14 |
|
4 |
Demerara-Mahaica |
1 |
15 |
|
5 |
Mahaica-Berbice |
0 |
10 |
|
6 |
East Berbice- Corentyne |
3 |
16 |
|
7 |
Cuyuni-Mazauni |
1 |
0 |
|
8 |
Potaro-Siparuni |
0 |
0 |
|
9 |
Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo |
1 |
0 |
|
10 |
Upper Demera-Berbice |
1 |
1 |
|
10 |
Total
|
9 |
62 |
Map showing the ten administrative
Regions of Guyana
The Ministry of Local Government is responsible for overseeing the local government of all the local democratic organs (nine Municipalities, ten Regional Democratic Councils, sixty-two Neighbourhood Democratic Councils and seventy-five Amerindian Village Councils). The municipalities and NDCs are responsible for raising and collecting taxes and the central government makes annual grants for specified developmental work. RDCs have responsibility for education, health and agriculture support whilst NDCs are responsible for waste collection and sanitation, roads/dams and markets. Municipalities are responsible for drainage and irrigation, waste collection and maintenance of infrastructure.
This article points to the need for autonomy within localities, however, whilst the structure exists in Guyana, there is no functionality. To successfully have a reform for decentralization, both the structure and culture of organizations must be addressed. A change in the management culture is often necessary to transform local government structures effectively. Structures must be reshaped to make way for the emergence of an enabling framework; one in which local authorities may exercise their functions responsively, responsibly and to their fullest extent.
In Guyana, there is a framework for decentralization but in actual reality, the Local Government is still being “controlled” by the Central Government. Autonomy is yet to be achieved. The lack of fiscal autonomy may be the main reason; the Local Authorities still rely heavily on transfers from the Central Government as a major source of finance. This in itself causes decentralization to fail since the power of decision-making is still to a great extent controlled by the Central Government.
Historically, local government in Guyana lacked the resources to undertake the infrastructure needed to transform communities. As mentioned above, this inability causes the local government to end up maintaining the status quo of dependence on the central government for finance.
Notwithstanding the heavy dependence on Central Government, there have always been problems with the rate of tax collections in communities which has been poor historically. Taxes are paid annually and are not exorbitant however even with the little that people have to pay, they are reluctant to pay. Mostly citing that services are not being provided.
Modernizing the local government system would have to involve granting the local authorities the power to levy on the assets on ratepayers, including seizing property for non-payment of rates and taxes. However, this may as well be a fairy tale story hoping to come to pass in a country where favours are granted through affiliations and not necessarily upholding law and order which may as well include ignoring enforcement of the civil duties of citizens.
DM
[1] Robert Leroux, French
Liberalism in the 19th Century: An Anthology, Chapter 6: Maurice Block
on "Decentralization", Routledge, 2012, p. 255, ISBN 9781136313011
Comments
Post a Comment