| |
Contributions from
the Column
Books and Media
Afrika. Mythos und Zukunft. (Africa. Myth and Future)
Not much progress through decentralisation in Senegal
An idea, not a patchwork
Child labour: a public sector failure
1/2004 |
|
[ Accurate analysis, over-gloomy forecast ]
Not much progress through decentralisation in Senegal
Decentralisation in Senegal has neither brought more democracy to the country nor improved the supply of public services. That is Denis Tull’s principal finding in his M.A. thesis on the decentralisation process in three Senegalese rural communities. The author thus gainsays the main arguments for getting the international donor community to support decentralisation processes. According to Tull, political decentralisation in Senegal primarily benefits the ruling party, creating new positions for those who have served the party well and easing the pressure from international donors. Mechanisms and institutions such as an effective political opposition, media or alternative participation forums, which could make local government mandate- and office-holders more accountable and help achieve the goals decentralisation is expected to promote, either do not exist or do not function well and make it hard to replace the neopatrimonial political order.
Tull’s case is clear and convincing and, for an M.A. thesis, exceptionally well researched. In Africa at least, there is precious little empirical evidence at present to support the claims generally made for decentralisation. Just because a country satisfies formal criteria by holding elections and embracing a multi-party system, it does not necessarily meet the demand for more democracy and more effective local govenment. As Tull rightly points out, institutions for monitoring office-holders need to be strengthened. However, he does not identify all the factors contributing to the poor results of decentralisation efforts in Africa. One omission, for example, concerns local authorities, to which far too little decision-making authority is delegated. Tull is correct in his assessment, however, that the legitimacy of territorial authorities is also undermined by the policies adopted by numerous non-governmental aid organisations, which prefer to work with grass-roots organisations rather than with elected local officials.
The outlook Tull paints, however, is a bit too bleak. His forecast that stable patronage structures will prevent any change in the make-up of local officialdom in Senegal has been partially rebutted by the results of the last local elections in 2002. In the Kaolack region, in particular, where the communities Tull studied are located, the Opposition won a significantly stronger mandate. This was certainly also due to the change of government at national level in 2000 as well as to “transhumance”, i.e. opportunistic switches of party allegiance by representatives of the people. Public consultation and local services are also improving in many developing countries as a result of political and economic decisions being taken on the basis of – mostly outside-financed – development plans. Public involvement in the preparation and implementation of these plans makes for a marked increase in the importance of territorial authorities. Martin Klaucke
Denis Tull: Demokratisierung und Dezentralisierung in Senegal. (Democratisation and decentralisation in Senegal)
[in German] Hamburg,
Institut für Afrika-Kunde 2001, 281 pp., Euro 18.00,
ISBN 3-928049-76-3
|
