| |
Contributions from
the Column
Focus
Local politics is the cornerstone of democracy
Don’t plan cities, negotiate them
Working with Pakistan’s civil society
Street law: crime and policing in a South African township
Sources of conflict: water provision in Bolivia
8-9/2006 |
|
Cornerstone of citizenship
Local-level politics is where the people can become directly involved. The success of democracy depends on citizens experiencing that their engagement can make a difference and improve their standard of life. The Stockholm-based International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) has assessed governance in the four African cities of Nairobi, Lusaka, Gaborone ( Botswana) and Mwanza (Tanzania). The results show that democratic institutions and procedures are in place, but that there still is scope for deepening local-level democracy.
[ By Vidar Helgesen ]
Today, democracy enjoys an almost unchallenged global position, hardly matched by any other worldview. More people than ever before are governed by elected representatives. Nevertheless, democracy and efforts to build democracy still face challenges, and a prominent one is the perception that democracy has failed to improve peoples’ lives. In some parts of the world this perception seems to lead to declining support for democracy. Democratic institutions such as legislatures, executive branches and political parties are seen as ineffective in representing and fulfilling the citizenry’s demand for economic and social progress. Even in countries or regions where democracy was believed to have deep roots, popular discontent with the lack of economic and social development can lead to the emergence of populist and extremist politics.
In this context, local governments are important, as they represent the tier of governance to which citizens turn to meet their immediate needs. The incomplete nature of many democratic transitions in recent years, combined with the concern that democratic systems are not delivering socio-economic development efficiently and quickly, has led to a renewed sense of urgency. We need to comprehend better how democracy at the local level contributes to improvements in governance.
Of course, local democracy should not be seen merely as an instrument for development, but as an end in itself. Democracy is sustained by meaningful local elections, through which people can appraise the performance of local authorities, such as city councils and mayoral offices. Direct citizen participation is essential for creating and sustainably maintaining a high-quality, democratic political system. Local participation is the cornerstone of all modern notions of citizenship. This is the level, where institutions and decision-making procedures allow for an immediate sense of personal involvement. This is where the voices of ordinary individuals can be heard most easily. Doing so is essential, because democracy is about more than elections. It involves meaningful dialogue, debate and discussion when trying to solve problems. Such deliberation takes more than only listening to citizens’ complaints; it involves a give-and-take discourse among all interest groups concerned.
Such participation allows individuals to understand the complexity of community affairs. Informed and educated citizens make democracy – decision-making by the people – possible and effective. Participation closes the gap between the political “elite” and members of the community. It is not enough, if only technocrats understand the complexities of social life.
It has been said that too much emphasis today is placed on representative rather than direct democracy, and that adversial modes of decision-making have superseded more cooperative approaches. Indeed, election campaigns and vocal differences between political platforms can create a distance between citizens and public officials. These phenomena can also give rise to tensions among different social groups. As a consequence, average citizens may become apathetic and withdraw from political life.
Scholars of governance argue that the legitimacy of local government institutions is in decline, and that there is widespread skepticism concerning the ability of local political parties to represent and coordinate diverging interests. One indication of citizens’ withdrawal from political life is low voter turnout. Research by International IDEA has found: “Overall participation in competitive elections across the globe rose steadily between 1945 and 1990. But in the 1990s, with the influx of a host of competitive elections in newly democratising states, the average for elections held since 1990 has dipped back to 64 per cent.” Inclusion and participation are essential for building the trust and accountability needed for citizen confidence in the quality of local democracy.
African case studies
International IDEA provides a useful tool for assessing democracy from within, at national or local level: the State of Democracy Assessment methodology. In 2003 and 2004 IDEA undertook comprehensive assessments of local democracy in four cities in East and Southern Africa: Gaborone City, Botswana; Lusaka, Zambia; Mwanza, Tanzania; and Nairobi, Kenya. The purpose of the exercise was to catalogue systematically the quality of representative democracy (in terms of elections, political parties and council functioning) and participatory democracy (civil society and citizen engagement) in light of the challenges these cities face.
The rate of urbanisation in Africa is higher than that of any other continent. Some analysts contend that such a fast rate of growth must result in poverty, disease, food insecurity and environmental degradation, suggesting high levels of conflict and violence. Others argue that concentrated populations are easier to provide for in terms of health care, education and employment opportunities. For example, it may be easier to offer HIV-positive individuals access to treatment in cities than in rural areas. To a great extent, it depends on the quality and capacity of local governance, whether Africa’s fast-growing cities will contribute to, or detract from, human development and human security.
The principal finding of the IDEA assessments was that each city had a functioning system of local democracy, with elected councils and programmes reaching out to the community. In all four cases, however, the ability of the local authorities to address governance challenges was limited. For instance, national legislative frameworks imposed restrictions on the autonomy of city-level administrators. Local authorities lacked the capacity to directly ameliorate problems of poverty and unemployment, housing shortages and competition over land. Nor were they in a position to provide universal access to safe water, health care or education facilities within the boundaries of their cities.
All of the cities evaluated had extremely diverse populations. Moreover, the shadow of colonial settlement patterns was looming large. Some areas are the preserve of the wealthy, others are the domain of marginalised groups (often newly-arrived migrants). Migration from rural areas and across national borders is a key problem for Africa’s cities and often results in conflicts over land. Such conflicts were reported in all four cities. In each case, the local authorities had little power to address them. Usually, such disputes were referred to courts or handled by national-level administrators. Local governance, moreover, was made more complicated as cities were expanding beyond municipal boundaries. Various municipal entities must therefore cooperate in efforts to solve shared problems.
The assessments highlighted the contradictory nature of the effects of urbanisation in Africa. The city of Nairobi, for example, has a higher rate of human development than the rest of Kenya. In Lusaka, on the other hand, 70 per cent of the residents live in poverty. Poverty, inequality and limited employment prospects remain the critical challenges for all cities surveyed. Remarkably, none of the cities appears to be well integrated into the global economy, making it difficult to generate the economic growth needed to create new jobs and other employment opportunities.
Representative politics
National legislative frameworks establish the structures of city-level democracy. However, these frameworks tended to be incomplete in the cases surveyed. Laws and statures often served to limit the quality of democracy at the local level. IDEA’s research showed that all four cities needed greater administrative authority. This was particularly so in the areas of self-generated municipal finance, conflict management and economic development.
All four cities have elected councils and established procedures for democratic decision-making. Elections are competitive, but voter turnout remains very low. Electoral processes are generally the responsibility of national-level agencies, although, in some instances, there is city-level oversight or involvement. Voter turnout in local elections was generally about 50 % below that at the national level. It might therefore make sense for cities to hold local elections at the same time as national polls.
Campaign issues were similar in each city assessed, including clean government and good public-service delivery. Every research team recommended that mayors be elected directly, in contrast to the present system of indirect election by municipal council members. The current system results in shifting coalitions, “floor-crossing” by councillors and disputes over the legitimacy of the mayor’s office. The political parties dominate the councils, and, too often, mayors seem to be ineffective incumbents with primarily ceremonial roles. According to the research teams, a system of directly electing mayors would increase voter interest in city-level polls and help to reduce voter apathy.
At the municipal level, political parties generally reflect the platforms and identities of the national parties of which they are a part. In some cases, local-level party accountability and transparency are weak. Apparently, national-level leaders pull the strings at the local level, including the selection of candidates.
Our studies stated that the performance of elected officials was not rigorously monitored in the field of service delivery. A common recommendation was therefore that cities set more specific development targets. Progress towards meeting these targets should be monitored at regular intervals. The Mwanza team, for instance, suggested establishing a “National Local Government Poverty Eradication Fund”. Such a fund would allow local administrators to set and reach targets to the benefit of the poor.
Participatory approaches
The direct involvement of civil society groups, community-based organisations and the private sector in policy-making varied across the four cities. Nairobi, for example, reported fairly well-established processes of enabling civic engagement in the making and implementation of policy, while Mwanza reported less structured forms of collaboration. All of the cities, however, made use of public-private partnerships to facilitate service delivery, although concerns were expressed about corruption in contracting processes.
All four cities had independent and capable local media. Usually the news media was in private hands and reporting on local affairs was neither censored nor restricted by the state. However, the media was apparently only paying inadequate attention to issues of local democracy, such as the deliberations and decisions of the city council. Many non-governmental groups (NGOs) focused on national-level issues, but hardly engaged in local-level activities. In Mwanza, the assessment team even found that NGOs were sometimes more responsive to donors than to their local beneficiaries.
All four cities were engaged in interesting public outreach and consultation initiatives. Lusaka’s Programme against Malnutrition was an example, as was Nairobi’s Safer Cities Programme. These efforts were sometimes supported by local and international NGOs, such as CARE or Oxfam. In all four cities, however, greater effort were deemed necessary to reach out to historically marginalised groups, including women, youth and the disabled. According to the assessments, e-democracy was a burgeoning phenomenon. Both Lusaka and Nairobi have begun to use information and communications technology to engage in public outreach. Lusaka City Council had a new website, and Gaborone City was planning to introduce innovative programmes such as web-based reports on city council performance. It would make sense to install computer kiosks in order to provide information to members of the public, as has been done to good effect in other developing countries. Nonetheless, radio remains an important means of disseminating information in Africa, and all four cities surveyed relied on radio for public outreach.
Conclusion
The issue of local-level democracy is essential for community participation. Local politics provides the cornerstone for modern notions of citizenship. After all, it is here that institutions and decision-making procedures allow for direct forms of democracy, in which the voices of ordinary individuals are heard. Local democracy thus facilitates “political education” in general, by allowing for immediate interaction and personal involvement. Ultimately, informed and educated citizens are the base of democracy in the sense of decision-making by the people.
The findings from the four African case studies reflect a rich appreciation of the central governance challenges and the ways in which democratic institutions and processes are established and function. However, there is room for improvement with regard to legal frameworks and procedural methods. Future research should focus on distinguishing the ways in which representative and participatory democratic institutions and processes directly affect the ability of city-level authorities to make measurable gains in human development and security. In other words, future exercises in assessing local democracy should identify more clearly and specifically how improving democracy leads to improving the quality of life for the populations in Africa’s fast growing cities.
Vidar Helgesen
is the Secretary-General of the International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), based in Stockholm.
V.Helgesen@idea.int
http://www.idea.int
|
