After half a century of military rule and over a decade of civil war, El Salvador in the 1990s has been hailed as a model of democratic decentralisation. How far does it deserve its reputation?
This paper from the Advanced Policy Institute in California was presented at a conference of public policymakers in 1999. It studies the rhetoric and practice of decentralisation in El Salvador through interviews with local officials and civil society. This is placed in the wider context of the decentralisation debate in Latin America, which has two major models. The first is the neoliberal, emphasising fiscal devolution and privatisation. The second is the democratic approach, which emphasises local civic participation in public decision-making. The paper gives some background political history, outlines the municipal structure of Salvadoran government and the various reform policies from the 1980s onwards. It concludes that successful decentralisation is in fact patchy, achieved in some areas but not others, according mainly to the commitment and capacities of local actors.
- A rural country, El Salvador’s governance had always been decentralised in practice until the military takeover in 1931; the concentration of power accelerated during the 1950s with centrally-planned modernisation policies such as import substitution.
- During the 1970s poverty and growing repression sparked a 12-year civil war; the two sides often fought over municipalities, creating areas of local governance which undermined central control.
- A new tier of local democracy was created in the mid- 1980s and municipalities were granted greater responsibilities. In an attempt to shore up public support, a programme of improving municipal infrastructure was implemented with the support of external donors.
- As peace agreements were being finalised in 1991-92, an official programme of decentralisation was developed to strengthen municipal capacity; to redefine the central government’s role as strategic; and to clarify the democratic relationships between state, private sector and civil society.
- This involved territorial deconcentration of state functions, delegation of responsibilities to municipalities and to other organisations, and privatisation of public services; the plan was welcomed across the political spectrum, but never really implemented.
- A plan with similar aims was proposed a few years later; critics complained that it was not legislation that was lacking, but the political will to follow through in practice.
El Salvador’s decentralisation is not an unqualified success; given the diversity in the results from five case studies of municipalities, more research is needed before promoting a particular role model.
- Institutional weaknesses slow reform: intermediary institutions are resistant to change; partisan politics affect funding to local government and cause a sclerosis of dialogue. Many people do not believe one should associate with someone from a different party.
- There is a widespread lack of public faith in institutions: political parties, government and the military were seen by over 80 per cent of respondents to a survey as corrupt; even private companies and labour unions scored over 75 per cent.
- Decentralisation rhetoric is only slowly followed by action, and then usually neoliberal rather than democratic reforms.
- NGOs often become entangled in political battles; this weakens their legitimacy and effectiveness.
- Much more capacity building is needed: most municipalities have a tiny staff with little training, and community participation in governance was strongest where external agencies had conducted training programmes.
