Over the past three years, I have had the privilege of training local government councillors and officials from Nigeria on policy development and delivery as part of a week-long capacity-building programme run by a UK-based organisation involving training, workshops and practical engagement with some of London’s top councils.
My interaction with each group of these councillors was very enriching as it gave me first-hand insights into local politics and governance in Nigeria. However, I was always saddened by their lamentations. Although the councillors came from different local governments and attended the course at different times, they were united in the stories they told: of local government councils lacking genuine freedom to direct their own affairs; of state governments abusing the joint state/local government account and starving councils of funds; and of democratically-elected council chairmen tied to the coattails of political godfathers and party cabals.
These power-grab and control freakery, of course, fly in the face of normal democratic values and defy global trends. In many parts of the world, power is being dispersed more widely to the lowest practical level. For instance, in 2011, the UK introduced the Localism Act, which grants significant freedoms and flexibilities to local governments. Even in the US, where local government is a matter of state law under the so-called Dillion’s Rule, 10 of the 50 states have constitutionally granted “home rule” to their local governments, allowing them to govern themselves as they see fit, within the bounds of state and federal constitutions. Another 29 states operate a dual system, whereby they grant “home rule” to their local governments in some matters and limited authority in others. As for developing countries, decentralisation is at the heart of the development efforts of countries, such as Chile, Bolivia and China. Nearer home in Africa, South Africa’s constitution protects the rights of municipalities to administer specific matters.
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s low revenues block chances of spending way out of recession
In recent months, there have been mixed signals about whether Nigeria would now protect local autonomy. First, the National Conference proposed measures to guarantee the independence of local governments; then, in October, the National Assembly approved constitution amendments to grant them full financial and administrative autonomy. However, in a remarkable intervention, all the state governors vowed to oppose autonomy for local governments, asserting the right to exercise close oversight over their operations.
This is special pleading, of course. It is hard to believe the governors are motivated by anything other than a concern to protect their political and administrative fiefdoms. That may sound cynical, but the evidence of their interferences to date, including arbitrary removal of democratically-elected councillors and chairmen, points glaringly to that conclusion. Yet, the value of local government and the role it plays, or can play, in fostering a healthy democracy and engendering social and economic development at the grassroots are far more important than the political calculations of the state governors. In other words, the greater good should trump self-interest.
John Stuart Mill, a strong defender of local governance, warned that the concentration of power in central hands is a danger to a free society, and posited that local government is valuable in itself because it promotes local democracy. Indeed, the values that justify democracy also justify strong local government. Thus, as two Swedish scholars, Gissur Erlingsson and Jorgan Odalen, put it in a recent paper: “If we value democracy we must also value strong local government.” This is a strong normative justification for strengthening local government in a liberal democracy.
Local government, of course, also serves an important expediential role: it provides local public goods in a way that state and central governments cannot. According to Alexis de Tocqueville, another 19th century champion of local autonomy, this local specificity, as opposed to the uniformity of central or state government’s provision, is the clearest functional rationale for the existence of local government. And nowhere is this more pertinent than in relation to local economic development and poverty reduction. As the tier of government with local proximity and knowledge and the one closest to local bodies and the people most in need, local government has the potential to stimulate the local economy and help reduce poverty. The World Bank said in one report that “poverty is best tackled at the local level”. However, local governments cannot play these crucial roles if they are emasculated financially or hobbled administratively.
That’s not to say that all is well with local government. Some are inefficient, unresponsive and poor at delivering effective services. Some opponents of local autonomy would also point to abuse of power and even corruption. Yet, these weaknesses cannot be tackled by replacing one form of government failure with another. Of course, state government intervention may be justified if there is a fundamental breakdown of governance in a council; but, often, such interferences are tendentious and politically motivated. We need a better approach to safeguarding democracy and good governance at the local level. In this sense, a tried-and-tested approach is to strengthen local democratic scrutiny and accountability, and stimulate the kind of local-level interactions and relationships that can engender better performance and more responsiveness in local government.
In a research paper, Jean-Paul Faguet, a scholar at the London School of Economics, argued that the effects of local government are the sum of the effects of local dynamics in which community and civil society organisations interact with councils to make policy decisions. According to him, “The organisational dynamic of civil society is intrinsic to the process of local governance.” This is the thinking behind the UK’s Localism Act, which gives freedoms to local government but also gives rights and powers to communities and individuals in the local policy-making process, including the right to challenge, and seek to take over, the running of a local authority service.
Modern local governance is, indeed, a community affair. It is about local government partnering with local businesses and community organisations, and delivering services with and through them. This means, for example, that instead of transferring their functions to the state government because of lack of capacity, as some councils are said to be doing, local governments should contract out more services to private providers under a competitive process. It is wrong to assume that local authorities have to be the direct provider of services; they should rely more on private providers and act as enabler and facilitator. Indeed, the more they can rely on local social enterprises, community groups and local businesses as delivery partners, the more they will be able to perform the overarching and universal local government roles of providing community vision and leadership, building social cohesion and shaping local identity, promoting economic prosperity and improving the quality of people’s lives.
So, what Nigeria needs is a system of autonomous local government that also enables local people and organisations to participate in local governance. Such interactions will unleash local-level political and institutions dynamics that will promote local democracy and governance as well as stimulate the local economy.
Olu Fasan
