Welcome to module five. We are now in decentralization territory. This module is focused on what we had called federalism's less flashy sibling in our very first video lecture. We have talked about how decentralization devolves some responsibility for the lower levels of government, but without the constitutionally entrenched autonomy we see in federalists. We have also talked about how the two concepts, while being closely related, principals were conceptually distinct from one another. Federalism granted regions autonomy vis-a-vis the center. Decentralization is about devolving the center's powers to the regions. Conceptually then, the two are indeed different. But, as you might recall from module one. The practice of the two often blend into one another in Africa. As we have discussed back then both federalism and decentralization arrived together. As part of the big bang of democratic reforms of the 1990s. They were often part of the same constitutional settlements. They have been put in place at the same time. So in their functioning, they've often become inseparable from one another, especially in federal countries. South Africa has federalism, so in addition to its central government, it also has strong regional states called provinces. But South Africa also has decentralization. So, there is a local level below the regional state. And the same goes for the two other federal states of Africa, that is Ethiopia and Nigeria. These are all federal systems, who also happen to have decentralization within their regional states. That is to say they have a local government level below the regional one. But, even in the constitutionally unitary states of Africa, where there is no regional level between the center and the local governments. The practice of decentralization and federalism often blend into one another. Decentralization was part of the same territorial reorganization of most African states. During the same large-scale, top-down institutional constitutional reforms of the 1990s. Now, regardless of the mixed practice, however. In this module we will focus on the notion of decentralization. Now, just before we proceed into discussing decentralization Africa, it might be need for a very quick reminder here. Some scholarly literature's conceptualize decentralization in broader terms, beyond the territorial angle we are pursuing. For them, there are also other ways to decentralize political power. Powers at the center could be shared between different branches of state bureaucracy. Also known as de-concentration. Powers of the center could be temporarily transferred to semi-public bodies or third parties, also known as delegation. The decentralization we are talking about in this course is the territorial devolution of political power to regional and local levels of government. Now, with that reminder out of the way, let's continue. The regions and their autonomous powers are constitutionally guaranteed in Federalism. They cannot be created merged or abolished by ordering legislation passed by the central government. Decentralization on the other hand is by definition an act of the center, as it devolves some of its powers to the regional and local government. The existence and the autonomy of the subnational units are not individually enshrined in constitutions. Their numbers, their borders, their powers could be determined and changed by central government. We have discussed this is module one, but since it is an important conceptual benchmark. Let us unpack this last point a little more. Now starting with the 1990s, decentralization reform started to change the political architecture of Sub-Saharan Africa. And decentralization was often part of democratic reforms introduced through constitutional change. So indeed, decentralization owes its origins to these constitutions. Or more precisely these Constitutional reforms. But here is the key. Constitutions often refer to decentralization across the board, as part of the comprehensive overhaul of the entire political architecture. While doing this, constitutions do not specifically acknowledge individual local governments, and their spheres of autonomy. Decisions made at the center can increase the number of local government unit. It could decrease the number of local government units, merge existing ones into bigger ones, or indeed, create new ones by breaking up older ones. Constitutionally, yes, the center could do all this, but politically, things are not always that mechanic. The practice often tends to be much softer. Throughout the African continent, decentralization is definitely more widespread than federalism. Federalism as you will recall often carries with it politically sensitive connotations. Decentralization on the other hand is generally seen to be a rather technical term. Associated with public administration and public management, best left to experts. But by now it should be clear to you, that there is indeed a great deal of politics in and around both federalism and decentralization. So it is not an accident that decentralization is seen as the more technical one. The label decentralization allows democratic reforms to circumvent the minefield of debating Federalism, and the political foundations of the country. Federalism tends to have a higher political visibility, and questions like, is this the breakup of our country? Are we splitting up? Are we not one nation anymore? Why do you want to leave us? Type of questions can come to define the terms of the debate. Pushing towards the polarization of different points of view. In contrast decentralization rarely invites the same degree of political interest and involvement. And it rarely brings in the degree of polarization. Decentralization appears as a technical tool to reorganize public administration. And its design and implementation is overseen by international experts, and without the high political visibility that attends federalism. But this is not only because of the desire to avoid political controversy. They're are also substantive reasons for this. Federalism is about the designation of a country's entire political architecture. With implications for the legislative, executive and judicial distribution of power. Decentralization on the other hand could be more partial and selective. Now you remember in module 2 that we had looked at the Trias Politica. We looked at the distribution of power in legislative, administrative and judicial functions. The who does what, in other words. And we had talked about how the legislative branch was the most visible reflection of the autonomy of regions that we see in federalism. Regional states decide how they want to do things with their autonomous sphere, and then they legislate to the set. And this autonomy of course tends to have a rather high visibility. And who implements the legislation that is say the executive element Is a reflection of decentralization. But carrying out or overseeing the implementation of legislation is not often that interesting to most citizens. Not that interesting, of course, as long as the job gets done. So for this reason, the decentralized administration of policies does not illicit the same political sensitivities that Legislative self rule brings. And sometimes, this can become helpful in trying to manage seemingly intractable ethnolinguistic divisions. We have discussed how federalism could carry with it negative connotations, creating fears of disillusion. And as a result in some countries, an explicitly federal solution might not be a viable one due to potential reactions and potential opposition. There might also be a geographic and demographic barriers to giving ethnolinguistic minorities territorial self-rule. Not all minorities live in geographically compact, neatly demarcated, economically viable subregions. The community might lack territorial concentration. Rendering the demarcation of new regional states impossible. Communities might not have the numbers to form sustainable regional states. Different communities might have competing historic claims to the same region. Furthermore, the very creation of new, autonomous regional states. In order to give territorial self-rule to minorities, can create new minorities who suddenly find themselves marginalized. Within the new regional state, controlled by a regional majority. Which is to be a national minority. One might call this the problem of minorities within minorities. Decentralization often presents an indirect and pragmatic way to empower such ethnolinguistic communities. Without the outward appearance of federalism and the prerequisite constitutional changes. But Within a fairly small local government district. And this is not full-fledged territorial self-rule, of course. The neo-local government administers national or regional policies enacted by other orders of government. Now that being said, one should not underestimate the symbolic elements in acquiring self-rule. Even if it makes little difference in the contents of policies themselves. Local government might not come with comprehensive legislative autonomy. But control of the local administration can satisfy some of the desire for self-rule. But where decentralization has mattered more to Africa is in economic development. That is the topic for our next video. I'll see you then.
