BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The Government of Ghana has for several years pursued a decentralization reform as part of wider effort for enhancing good governance. The objectives of decentralization reform are enshrined in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana which stipulates that “Parliament shall enact appropriate laws ensure that functions, powers, responsibilities and resources are at all times transferred from central government to local government units in a coordinated manner”. This constitutional requirement was further articulated in local government legislation.

The Government has over the years implemented various activities and progammes in support of the decentralization process. The latest and overall guiding programming document is the National Decentralization Action Plan (NDAP). The NDAP has initiated a transition process towards the development of a comprehensive, well-sequenced and
costed approach to decentralization with initial emphasis on practical issues such as harmonization of development funding and capacity building targeting the local governments (MMDAs).

However, it is acknowledged that further real progress of the decentralization reform will require a more coherent and coordinated approach which in turn will require policy clarification to guide implementation, particularly the linkages between the local government reform in a narrow sense and the overall decentralization linkages with the sectors. Thus the Government and its development partners have to agree to include the “formulation of a comprehensive decentralization policy” as trigger in the MDBS policy matrix 2006. In preparation of this policy and related strategy it was agreed as part of NDAP activities to undertake a “Decentralization Policy Review”. This review will deliver strategic input to Government’s policy formulation process.

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

There is substantial divergence between Government intentions for decentralization – including the intentions as stated in the constitution- and the actual practices in the country. This divergence is buttressed by the variety of laws, which give legitimacy to the divergence practices, especially in the choices made by sectors that tend to define decentralization as “deconcentration”.

The divergence may in part be explained by lack of clarity of the LG Act itself. The Local Government Act does not adequately deal with a range of issues further debated in the report, including
• The assignment of functions to different levels of government- which may be the single most important aspect to clarify in the ongoing review of LG Act .
• The overall local government structures and their relationships. The Act pays very limited attention to sub-district levels just as there is substantial un-clarity regarding the extent to which the region level should be considered a fledged local government.

While planning laws confer a strong jurisdiction to MMDAs, budgeting arrangements, funding flows and functional assignments continue to limit the authority and autonomy of the MMDAs to enforce harmonization and prioritization in line with the Local realities, capabilities and needs. Sector priorities, including sector programmes and projects are defined substantially by the MDAs, with implementation targets set by the MDA head quarters and resources allocated to meet these targets by the head quarters. A vertical reporting and accountability system for the attainment of results still persists; between the District MDA and the central level MDA. While reporting to the local government is taking place, then this reporting is less binding in terms of accountability than the relation within MDA

Progress is recently been made by the Local Government Service Council (LGSC) regarding the creation of a Local Government Service and related effective establishment of decentralized department, which in turn implicate the assignment of functions under MMDAs. However, this process risks being negated by adjustments within the key sectors, such as health and education, which still hold substantial mandates for providing “services” and have the financial means, through existing budget arrangements to do so.

2.2 Main Recommendations on Overall Policy & Legal Framework

It is recommended to prepare an overarching Decentralization Policy that clearly defines the overall Government Vision for decentralization as one, based on decentralization by devolution: the transfer of powers, functions and resources to local governments
(MMDAs) and policy choices associated with Devolution of authority, for planning, budgeting and accountability for development results at the level of MMDAs. Such a policy will overcome the current situation in which every level of Government is claiming authority in various aspects of existing legislation.

A key element of the policy will be statements regarding precise functions to be assigned the local government and consequently transferred from central government institution. The functional assignments as stated in the recent LGS Report on Integration of Decentralized Department into MMDAs are considered as sound point of departure. The Policy should clarify that the continued process of decentralization by devolution and related assignment of functions to be based on the principles of subsidiarity as elaborated in the main report.

Following the policy, a Decentralization Strategic Framework, elaborating specific priorities over a given time frame will need to be prepared. This would as a core element include a process of legal harmonization of sector legislation to ensure alignment with the policy. The main sectors with local service delivery responsibilities need adjust and align their policy, strategic framework, legal framework, human resource, organization, funding system and capability building support within the new overall strategic decentralization framework. A sector decentralization policy and strategy aligned with the overall strategy and guidelines for each sector needs to be clearly defined.

POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

3.1 Main Issues and Challenges of the Political and Administrative Framework

Consideration progress has been made in the establishment of political and administrative institution to implement decentralization. However, this review has revealed substantial key challenges with the framework of representation, the lines of accountability and the viability and long-term sustainability of the sub-district structures.

The mixed model of representation in MMDAs (70% election and 30% appointment of members) was originally introduced in order to enhance “technical skills” of the MMDAs. However, evidence abounds of the central government of 30 % may have compromised democratic representation in many instances.

Currently the lines of accountability are confused at MMDA level. The Presiding Member, District Chief Executive and the Members of Assembly are all politically representatives and all draw authority, legitimacy, and their constituency from different sources. The central appointment of the DCE who effectively guides the MMDAs- not as a civil servant, but as a political appointee ultimately establishes the local government as an arm of the central government rather than a semi-autonomous layer of local government.

The local government system is supposed to operate on a non-partisan basis within a multi-party democratic arrangement of Central Government. While this is feasible under certain circumstances and jurisdiction, in Ghana, the authority of Central Government is so overwhelming that, in the exercise of its appointing prerogatives for DCEs, 30% of
Members of the DAs and other sub-district institutions, such as Unit Committees, Town, Urban and Zonal Councils, partisanship consideration are becoming more paramount than the claim of stakeholder participation and gender balance.

All of the above significantly limit the degree of local accountability through MMDAs and also impact on the extent to which NALAG can be termed a true representative of local authorities. Its leadership is mainly upward accountable to the same central government that it is supposed to challenge and negotiate with.

The sub district local government structures are not viable; there are too many, they are too small, they have too many members and they are not fully elected. The functions of sub-district structures are unclear and they have virtually no personnel or financial resources to perform.

Traditional authorities are widely recognized as playing a legitimate and useful role on management of local affairs. Yet there is at present no clear framework for their involvement in MMDAs or in the interlinkages between MMDAs and traditional authorities.

The regional level is in various legislation and policies indicated to be part of the local government system. However, it does not have an elected council and since its role appear to be one of coordination, oversight and support to MMDAs on behalf of central government; it appears that it may be useful to clarify its role as one of deconcentrated layers of central government rather than proper local government.

Credit: Joint GoG and Development Partners Decentralisation Policy Review