Implementation of devolution that is provided for in Section 264 of the constitution is under serious threat amid reports that there is serious bickering and imposition of devolution projects on local communities. In provinces such as Matebeleland and Mashonaland East for example, there are widespread reports of clashes among various stakeholders that include legislators, councillors and local Zanu Pf leaders particularly on the distribution of disbursed funds. In all this confusion, the media particularly state media continues to report “progress” on devolution yet there are serious misgivings about the way the process is being rolled out. While provinces have received devolution funds, there remains a dearth of information on how the process will be rolled out, the various roles that local communities must play for the smooth implementation of the process.
How is devolution being rolled out?
According to official information from most Rural District Councils, local government structures such as Village Development Committees (VIDCOs), Ward Development Committees (WADCOS), Ward Assemblies and District Development Committees will spearhead the rolling out of devolution. These structures are for popular participation in development planning and were outlined in the Prime Minister’s Directive of (1984 & 1985) which provided the basis for a hierarchy of representative bodies at the village, ward, district and provincial levels.VIDCOs are elected bodies with responsibility for defining local needs. VIDCOs present village needs to WADCOs, which cover about six villages and consist of VIDCO representatives. They oversee and prioritize local needs and forward these to the District Council. Each ward is represented by a district councillor. District Development Committees (DDC) are planning and co-ordination committees composed of two local councillors, together with several central government officials from the sectoral ministries. Membership is dominated by representatives of the central government. They are chaired by the District Development Coordinator formerly known as the District Administrator (DA). The main planning functions of the DDC are to formulate District Development plans (short and long term), based in part on the plans forwarded from the VIDCOs and WADCOs. These are forwarded to the Provincial Development Committee The DDC also submit annual estimates to the Public Sector Investment Program (PSIP) via the Provincial Development Committees. The DDCs permit horizontal co-ordination of the activities of sectoral ministries and local authorities.
Do these structures still exist?
Political polarisation is most rampant in rural areas where the struggle for resources determines one’s political affiliation. Added to this rural areas are the most hit by the vicissitudes of climate due to lack of climate adaptation and preparedness. Off farm activities that have in the past acted as a buffer against incessant droughts have been dealt a heavy blow by climate induced factors as well as the crippling economic meltdown of the past decades. At the end of the day, rural communities are left at the mercy of unforgiving gatekeepers such as Traditional leaders and Councillors who use government handouts such as inputs and food aid from multilateral donors and Ministry of Social welfare to drum up political support. In all these, local government structures especially VIDCOS and WADCOs have not been spared. Membership into these local government structures is now partisan based. This has greatly inhibited local participation by citizens in the formulation and identification of development projects that can be undertaken by devolution. In some areas where these structures exist, it’s either the majority of members in these structures have little knowledge on the important roles that they must play. In some areas, these structures are no longer meeting to discuss developmental needs in communities but rather have been turned in structures for political parties responsible for mobilisation and partisan exercises.
Challenges associated with devolution
There is no doubt that Zimbabwe ethnic conflicts especially those that were brought by the disturbances experienced in the 80s in the Matebeleland and Midlands provinces are a time bomb waiting to explode. Among some of the concerns from these regions are issues of marginalisation and underdevelopment. Some of these regions are home to natural disasters such as droughts hence the marginalisation of these provinces is constantly exposed to the fore. According to a report released by the World Food Programme in 2019, nearly 8 million in Zimbabwe face hunger. Provinces mostly affected include those in Matebeleland. The deep seated problems in these regions must have at least prompted government to thoroughly ensure that devolution is implemented effectively. Some of the strategies that government was supposed to adopt before disbursement of resources to the provinces include raising awareness in local communities on devolution and conducting robust needs assessment for communities given that the existence and effectiveness of local level structures such as WADCOs and VIDCOs is questionable. Such a bottom-up approach to devolution would have greatly addressed issues of ownership of the whole process and improve on the participation of local communities.
In the final analysis, government must demonstrate sincerity on the full implementation of devolution by being sensitive to needs of various communities. Adopting a blanket approach that is top-down on devolution will deliver compromised outcomes. Added to this, communities must be at the centre of devolution by actively participating in the process and identifying unique projects that can be undertaken under devolution.
Rawlings Magede is Development Practitioner who writes here in his personal capacity. Feedback on vamagede@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment