Has decentralisation enhanced local democracy in Ghana? This article from the Journal of Contemporary Africa Studies focuses on the relationship between decentralisation and local democracy through a case study of Ghana. Increased democracy through decentralisation has not occurred, and there are significant democratic deficits in decentralised government. These findings suggest that the key to enhanced local democracy is the strengthening of downward accountability mechanisms, although such reforms will not be easily achieved.
A broadening and deepening of democracy through decentralisation has not occurred in Ghana. The explanation for such a converse outcome for local democracy is summed up in the notion of the ‘politics of (de)centralisation’. National governments may implement decentralisation for a variety of reasons, including attempts to extend and strengthen their control at local level or as a means to mobilise support for the ruling party in peripheral areas. The Ghana case indicates that, while the rhetoric of decentralisation talks of making democracy a reality, the actual reality is about the maintenance of central government control.
Partially democratic structures have been created at both district and subdistrict levels in Ghana, with the potential to facilitate local political participation and enhance local government accountability. However, elements of retained central government control are evident.
- Empirical findings from two rural districts show that on the one hand, there was enthusiasm for the principles of decentralisation and relatively high levels of political participation, and local citizens have taken advantage of opportunities to have some input into local political decision making.
- However, a corresponding increase in the downward accountability of local government was not evident, with various shortcomings identified at the local level that undermined and weakened the accountability of elected representatives.
- Local level shortcomings were significant but did not provide a full explanation for the delinkage between participation and accountability. At times they were more symptomatic of wider, national, issues.
- Nationally, democratic decentralisation has been thwarted by a number of structural obstacles in the form of legal, political, administrative and fiscal constraints.
The downward accountability of local government could be strengthened by undertaking various reforms of the national structure of decentralisation. However, this will be difficult given central government’s reluctance to relinquish control over its powers.
- First, the removal of presidential powers of appointment at all levels, and thus the establishment of fully elected representative bodies at district and subdistrict levels.
- Second, the introduction of competitive party politics at local level, removing the current anomaly of partisan national elections and nonpartisan local elections.
- Third, a realignment of the powers of the District Chief Executive (DCE) and of Assembly members, including the presiding member, to strengthen the accountability of the executive to elected representatives.
- Fourth, greater representation of women on district and subdistrict bodies is necessary if there is to be greater accountability to half of the population.
- Fifth, two reforms are needed for fiscal decentralisation. One is the untied transfer of a larger proportion of government revenue, while the other entails an increase in the revenue raising powers of local government through the ceding of higher-yielding taxes.
- Finally, these national level structural reforms could then facilitate changes in local practices to strengthen accountability mechanisms and counter the centralising tendency within the district itself.
