Local government in Africa

In state theory, debates on the local state revolve around the role and powers of the state, on the one hand, and the autonomy of the local state from the central state on the other. I have been looking into this latter question with regards to Africa and have come to the conclusion that autonomy of the local state is a function of the perceived political security of the central state.

Decentralisation of state power and functions to lower levels of government have accompanied the democratisation process the world over. This devolution of power is generally considered to be a positive process; many functions are achieved more efficiently at the local level, legitimacy is improved through increased representation and participation, and state interventions can be altered and negotiated to suit the local context. South Africa is in the process of empowering local state, but why is a strong local government not being created in the rest of Africa?

I believe it has to do with the wide-spread political instability in Africa. If powers are delegated to the local level within a decentralised democratic system, the local state is able, to a certain degree, to challenge the central state. I think it is true to say that in many African countries the most enlightened political involvement takes place in the cities and this is where challenges to corrupt regimes generally originate. Autocrats tend to get there power from lesser-educated rural majorities. So it makes perfect sense that politically unstable governments with a weak track record would want to withhold political and administrative power from the local government.

Zimbabwe is a good example of this. In 1980, Zim did what all other newly independent countries did and drew all the power to the central state to consolidate a fragile new nation. However, this caused a crisis in service delivery for the towns and cities, and in the late 1980s they had to make reforms to allow for the efficient running of the place. They developed a strong local government as a major element of their development strategy and Zim was praised for this bold step in the way of democracy. However, notice that this only happened after Mugabe had crushed the Ndebele and consolidated his power. He felt secure enough to release some power to the local state. Now jump forward to 2000 when ZANU-PF received a serious challenge for power from the MDC – mostly originating in Bulawayo and other urban centres. What does Mugabe do? He withdraws all the power to the central state: autocratic decisions start to be made and the cities fall into a crisis of service delivery.

South Africa is finally building a strong, developmental local government largely because the ANC no longer feels threatened by challenges from the local level. Most of Africa does not have this luxury. So I guess it is a Catch-22 situation. You need a politically secure central state to democratise local government, but you need this decentralisation to ensure legitimacy.