In a decentralized system, the essence of the central government’s top to bottom approach becomes an unrealistic variable for governance as it is based on uniqueness and service delivery mechanism. As the political paradigm shift from a centrally controlled government with strict controls, the need to engage development in the local structures of government becomes imminent. The decentralized governance has been observed among officials in the central government that is not participatory and can breed corruption and leads to abuse of power since only few citizens enjoy more of the benefits from the total wealth of the country.
By Romeo D.N. Gbartea, Ph.D., Governance Specialist
When the government is brought closer to the people through a decentralized mechanism, it enables a democratic local government system that promotes the equitable distribution of resources that foster accountability and transparency. It eliminates bureaucratic red tapism and allows political power and responsibility to be shifted to the lower echelons of governance. When the goods and services are delivered according to the preferences and needs of the local people, the full complement of decentralization is enhanced to the advantage of the people. (Smoke &White, 2005; Smith & Revell, 2016).). Most African countries have adopted the decentralized structure in order to respond to the demands of the local people (World Bank, 2011; Yilmaz, 2009).
Decentralization is designed in a way that assigns public functions to local government to assist the local leaders to implement their programs and projects. This process of devolution empowers the local people to elect their leaders who are accountable to them, and provide the pattern of resource allocation and promotion of service delivery in prudent fashion to create better and efficient government system. It has been revealed in many literature that such approach gives the local people to have control over their local leaders. It promotes productivity and discourages corruption (Smoke 2015).
Decentralization can stimulate negative effects when the sub local political dynamics undermine accountability. Its promotion of expenditure and revenue assignments set the basis for service delivery and the enhancement of accountability. It therefore becomes difficult for local dwellers to hold the local leaders accountable when assignments are not properly executed within the spirit of accountability. In such instance, the process of accountability weakens service delivery. (Smoke, 2015). Furthermore, when local citizens pay taxes and other fees for social services, the level of contacts and involvement also shows the level of mutual relationship that the local leaders and could guarantee how their satisfaction can be measured. And when taxation functions are shared in a decentralized structure, it helps in the delivery of services and promote greater commitment in the raising of other rates and revenues (Faguet, 2014).
Decentralization is a good initiative for local service delivery especially when rooted in the local environment. When there is no implementation of development initiatives in the local government, it makes the local people to show little interest in the government as they are unable to access basic social and health services. They will, therefore, be unwilling to pay local taxes or revenues. But when the local people pay their proper revenue, it helps the political economy and promote more ideas for development in the rural areas. The payment of local revenues helps in sustainable social development and empowers the basis employing accountability over every responsibility. But, however, when their government services are not provided, it makes revenue collection difficult because the people are reluctant to pay. When the driving forces of decentralization does not encourage developmental objectives, then efforts to support accountable local services may not get serious attention (Vazquez and Vailancourt, 2011).
When accountability is assured, it will create limited opportunity for corruptive practices when government decentralizes its structures (Ribot, 2010; Olum, 2014; Dickovick and Wunch, 2014; Caldeira, 2015). Decentralization also sets the basis to grant more direct access for the people to govern themselves; thereby stimulating the whole nation to get involved in their programs and projects. This suggest that decentralization makes a practical reasoning and point for national priorities that can enhance economic development. Kauzya (2007) observes that one of the essential components of decentralization is voice representation. This means is the opinions of the people must be heard. This initiative shows the uniqueness of decentralization in basic content and outputs (Devas, 2005). These variables enhance the empowerment of the people’s voices and shows how their preferences for governance and service delivery mechanism are manifested (Makara, 2017).
When service delivery is managed properly, it eliminates negative public perception of government. This is because corruption creates discouraged citizens and diminishes the importance oftax payments as a civic responsibility that goes with service delivery. The capacity to engage in corruption is higher under the centralized government system when compared to the structures at the local government. This is so because the level of capacity for accountability and transparency in the local government is lower than in the central government. For the accountability and transparency to be enhanced, there must be clearly defined roles for members and staff of national legislative houses and the representative of the people at the local government. The accounting officers should have independent responsibility and come under a legal mandate that penalizes errors and omissions. This will enable them to purely establish their actions in a productive way. The lack of transparency always raises concern in the public sector governance (Volintiru and Osuna, 2018).
Accountability depends on the process of election and shows the level of upward movement of public officials who rely on the mandate of those who elected them into power. In spite of this, local leaders show more concern to the demands of local environment as a gesture for better performance; and an opportunity to re-present themselves for election in another election season. This is different from the top-down hierarchical governance structures where appointed politicians are accountable to the central government. The situation therefore creates a problem of accountability when priority projects from the center and at the sub national structure are considered. This situation enables decentralization to strengthen the use of accountability among all spheres of departments and units who produce public goods and services and the final consumers. (Faguet, 2014).
Smith and Revell (2016) stated that by politically organizing the local government structures, it helps reduce the problem of information dissemination and communication irregularities that is the bone of contention between the centralized government and the local governance structures. In centralized governance structures, there are many levels of governance that stand as barriers to the flow of information as a result of poor coordination, lapses and frequent changes among public administrators (Treisman et al., 2009). In decentralized systems, the officials are well-suited to correct issues as they relate to the needs of the electorate based on the increased closeness of the government to the people and the economy of ensuring the disseminating correct information. These fundamental formats helps in service delivery, accountability and corruption (Leeson, 2013).
