{UAH} Repeal the Local Government Act 1997 - 2000 Replace with Town and Country Planning Act

Thank you so much Mr. Odong Otara - I will hasten to say decentralisation is one of the most useless laws in Uganda.

Success stories on decentralisation system in Uganda are exaggerated

Share Bookmark Print Rating
http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/Success-stories-on-decentralisation-system-in-Uganda/-/689364/2483758/-/o4x8puz/-/index.html

By Odong Otara

Posted  Monday, October 13   2014 at  01:00

In Summary

It is argued that normally, decentralisation should aspire to foster development policies and strategies suited to local social and economic conditions.

SHARE THIS STORY

Tweet

Related Stories

• Success stories on decentralisation system in Uganda are exaggerated

The Ugandan decentralised system of governance has often been applauded outside the country as a comprehensive and well developed initiative and a success story. This is because the system has given the impression that it has attempted to augment the consolidation of elite powers by directly involving local communities in local planning, resource allocation, management and accountability and improved poverty-focused investments.

This explains why since its inception as defined in the Local Government Act 1997, amended in 2000, a number of external delegations have visited Uganda to learn from its decentralisation experience. But are we really there? To establish this we need to have some snapshots of what decentralisation is all about, while pausing appropriately to pose the question 'are we really there' as following hereunder:
Decentralisation defined differently by various people is the transfer of the locus of power and decision-making either downward (vertical decentralisation) or to other units or organisations (horizontal decentralisation). Uganda recognises and practices a mix of four main aspects of decentralisation; devolution, deconcentration, delegation and fiscal decentralisation.

Devolution or democratic decentralisation is the transfer of power from the larger central government to smaller local governments. The transfer may be total – make all decisions or partial.

Deconcentration or administrative decentralisation is the vertical transfer of power to act – but not to decide and ultimately control within the administration or technical institution. Delegation may be vertical or horizontal transfer of limited executive power, but not decision-making authority from an administrative service authority to district local governments, parastatals or private companies.

Fiscal decentralisation is the transfer mechanisms that ensures local level planning and budgeting are informed by and integrated in national planning and budgeting and in a system of monitoring and oversight linked to the budget. Are we really there?

It is argued that normally, decentralisation should aspire to foster development policies and strategies suited to local social and economic conditions.
That if done appropriately, it should promote localised governance structures responsive to citizens' needs and allow downsizing and streamlining of centralised government institutions.

And that successful decentralisation requires that the respective roles of national and local level authorities should be clearly defined, effective institutions for planning and decision-making developed at all levels, a higher budgetary allocation for pro-poor public spending and that the different actors at those levels are involved actively, freely and meaningfully.

Are we really there?
In-depth evaluation of Ugandan decentralisation against issues raised above while answering the question 'are we really there?' can generate a lot of debate about the system because it has hitherto not only fallen short of delivering what is expected of it in terms of the desired sustainable pro-poor reforms.

But also has not yet attained a level where decentralised local governments are fully autonomous and accountable with sufficient capacities and control over their processes and affairs.

The challenges of inappropriate decentralisation in Uganda, (which could also be true of other African countries) are that it has tended to breed or reinforce local elites which concurs with what some critics say about the system that it has resulted into creating an evenly centralised technocratic mode on the one side and a system of local patronage on the other.

Other challenges in the long run are that it could trigger socio-political fragmentation along ethnic lines, marginalisation of less dynamic regions, weakening of national cohesion and precipitation of internal conflicts.
In conclusion, it is safe to insinuate that empirically, the state of decentralisation in Uganda hitherto is contradictory to the success stories told about it 'from external eyes'.

The system instead appears to be serving the purpose of consolidating control of the central government rather than enabling empowerment of the district local governments. Similar power imbalances also exist between most district local governments and sub-district local governments.

Dr Otara is a development management and governance expert. taramildo2011@gmail.com

_____________________________

Bwanika Nakyesawa Luwero

--
UAH forum is devoted to matters of interest to Ugandans. Individuals are responsible for whatever they post on this forum.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com or Abbey Semuwemba at: abbeysemuwemba@gmail.com.