The Zimbabwean government has made moves towards decentralisation since the early 1980s. However, little power has actually been decentralised, leading to confusion at local level. This article for Public Administration and Development analyses why decentralisation has proved disappointing in one poor district, but suggests that valuable lessons have been learned.
Attempts at decentralisation in Zimbabwe display a common characteristic: a gap between rhetoric and reality. The reluctance of national institutions to give up power means that little has been devolved. Where it has, and where funds have been allocated to support the process, efforts have been piecemeal. Most citizens have yet to benefit from improved public services and do not feel motivated to participate in local government. The increased political tension and economic deterioration of the past three years has further disrupted decentralisation plans. However, despite a lack of concrete progress, the problems surrounding decentralisation reforms have raised political awareness among ordinary people.
In remote Binga District, one of the poorest parts of the country, government decentralisation policies have had little positive impact on development efforts. The main faults of the reforms are that:
- Functions have been decentralised without adequate resources. In the late 1990s, four funding sources were made available for local projects, but poor management hampered deployment and funding has dried up.
- Some sectoral decentralisation has occurred, but on a patchy and under-funded basis. The main areas are: primary education, rural water supplies, poverty reduction programmes and wildlife management.
- Devolvement of education and water provision has resulted in more community involvement and control, but this is rarely widespread or democratic. Often it is more a case of survival than development.
- Even with wildlife management decentralisation, which has been regarded as successful, there are conflicts of interest between conservation objectives and local peoples’ needs. Funds have also been misused.
- The effectiveness of local institutions is compromised because there are too many of them, causing confusion among the public. They also lack capacity to implement reforms effectively.
- Besides macro-economic and political problems, development is hampered by insufficient local control over natural resources, a lack of entrepeneurial and technical skills, inadequate infrastructure and services, and HIV/AIDS.
The problems encountered at local level should not be seen as evidence of failure, but as part of a learning process, which will eventually yield positive benefits. This will require:
- Better design and planning of initiatives to ensure that they reflect at least some of the substantial existing knowledge about decentralisation.
- Ensuring that projects are introduced to achieve ‘desirable’ goals, not dubious ends.· An improvement in the country’s macro-economic and political situation, which is currently overriding the potential benefits of decentralisation.
- A focus on the ‘human factor’, involving greater efforts to build capacity at local institutions and to avoid political in-fighting and power struggles.
- Avoiding a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, and attempting to design the most appropriate type of decentralisation for different sectors.
- More consistent and efficiently co-ordinated funding sources. External funding agencies should try to avoid premature withdrawal from programmes.
