by M. Djibo Alfari, Niger, March 1998
THEME = POLITICS
Many Nigériens seem to be looking for
a certain amount of decentralisation
in the system of government.
But there are varying ideas and untold difficulties
Well before Niger held its Sovereign National Conference in 1991, there was talk about the urgency of achieving a certain amount of decentralisation, so that the ordinary citizens could have his or her say in the running of their country's affairs at both local and regional level. During the time of President Seyni Kountché and his political party, the National Movement for a Society of Development (MNSD), decentralisation meant "development from the grassroots". Things took shape, starting at the village/hamlet level right up to the main district level. Rather like a tree where everything develops from the roots upwards. With decentralisation, everything begins with the people and not necessarily with the political masters at the top. As the democratisation programme in the political life of the nation got underway, the MNSD always kept to the initial concept of local development upwards.
Then came the National Conference and with it the official and unanimous recognition that decentralisation must come about in the nation's political and economic life. This being so, it was high time to get away from the easy way of excessive, unproductive and anachronistic centralisation. By 1992, the much-delayed constitutional process finally got underway with a referendum and an overwhelming vote in favour of the new Constitution. In 1993, Mahamane Ousmane was elected President. The new Constitution underlined what was involved in Niger's systematic decentralisation - a process which would lead to the country's real development. But there was a wide gap between what was intended and the political will to carry it out - for three main reasons:
- 1. Decentralisation means that the local population must be involved - they must come first in decision-making and actually carrying out the projects. This means that local boundaries have to be re-drawn - no easy matter when one considers that people are attached to their native soil.
- 2. Secondly, and this is a major handicap, the question of red-tape and bureaucracy. Civil servants are so accustomed to everything being centralised, that when it comes to deciding on a regional situation, most of them are incapable of taking urgent and helpful decisions for themselves. For them, it's always better to refer back to the central authority!
- 3. The third reason is even more limiting. There's not enough money and this can cancel out, or at the very least, make very uncertain any true yearning for our country's development. There are glaring priorities which can't be carried through, for fear of stirring up all kinds of social unrest.
So, decentralisation seems to be, at least for the moment, wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the governments of both the Third and the Fourth Republics have each in their own way worked towards decentralising the state apparatus.
A lot has been said in Niger about the dual concepts of devolution and decentralisation. What kind of administrative system is best for our country, keeping in mind the overriding necessity of preserving the country's unity?
Devolution means delegating the powers presently held by the central governing authority, to regional authorities possessing clearly defined roles and authority. In other words, off-loading jurisdictions which can function better at a local level. Regional authorities will be well-placed to take decisions concerning regional matters requiring urgent solutions. There'll be no reason to refer matters back to a central governing authority situated hundreds of kilometres away from the local population concerned.
Decentralisation is another administrative and political concept. In this case it's not just a simple transfer of well- defined jurisdictions, rather, it involves the people deciding for themselves how they wish to be governed at a local level. This means free and democratic elections must be held at a local (regional) level.
The main difference between devolution and decentralisation lies in the voting system approving the people's choice. A candidate must be elected from the "grassroots" if he/she is to be truly a local/regional representative. Such a candidate must obviously have a working knowledge and experience of local conditions - what people really need - their problems. It's no longer a question of simply appointing and then sending an administrator from the capital to an area which isn't his own and which he knows nothing about.
Thus, devolution and decentralisation are two different but interrelated concepts - one complementing the other. This must be so in a country such as Niger, where the state is still not firmly established and where nation-building is still the order of the day. The powers-that-be are aware of this, because the Constitution (suspended on 27 January 1996, following Colonel Baré Maïnassara Ibrahim's coup d'etat) declared that "decentralisation and devolution are fundamental principles of the Republic of Niger's territorial administration".
It must be remembered that one of the main complaints of the Tuareg rebels in Niger, was the country's centralised system of government which did not permit its citizens to freely take part in the running of public affairs. That's why a rebel leader, such as Rhissa Boula (presently Secretary of State for Tourism), has always said he's in favour of a federal system of government for Niger.
He's not the only one. Political parties such as the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS-Amana) and the Party for National Unity and Democracy (PNUD) have never hidden the fact that although they hold to Niger as one nation, they are in favour of a country made up of individual states, each with its own internal political agenda, but forming an integral part of the whole nation, Niger. In other words, decentralisation is not enough. They want federalism.
"Look", they say, "Niger's made up of a people coming from a multiplicity of ethnic and religious backgrounds, which means that when it comes to development, due respect must be shown to each section of the population, as regards both traditions and religion". They are convinced that a federal system of government is the only way to provide an answer to everyone's individual wishes and aspirations. They deny that federalism means the break-up of the country. Obviously people are thinking of their immediate neighbour, Nigeria, an enormous country which is run along federal lines. Nigeria seems to have managed to kept secession in check by creating numerous autonomous federal states.
It must be recognised that many rebel Tuareg groups within Niger are of the opinion that if federalism is "out", decentralisation can be one way of solving the country's present problems. They have, then, surreptitiously given up the idea of a federal state (at least, that's what they say!), in order to accept a real form of decentralisation. One of the main points ending the armed conflict in the north, and waved about by the armed rebellion at the time of the latest version of a peace agreement signed in Algiers on 28 November 1997, between the government and the rebel Union of The Forces of The Armed Resistance [Tuaregs] (UFRA) together with the Armed Revolutionary Forces of the Sahara [Toubous] (FARS), was precisely the effective application of a decentralisation process.
Niger has had its fair share of vague theories and promises concerning decentralisation. But the many current political problems and other urgent preoccupations besetting the country, have easily relegated this desire to decentralise the administrative life of the country, into the background.
However, the Third Republic's Constitution (26 December 1992) clearly states that decentralisation and devolution are fundamental principles of the country's territorial administration. These principles were repeated by the National Commissions established on 3 January 1995, and enshrined in Laws numbers 96-04 and 95-05 of 6 February 1996.
Three main aims led to this decision:
- 1. To have close links between those who are administrated and those who administer. The overall results will be far better.
- 2. To strengthen local democracy and ensure that the people participate fully in the running of their own affairs.
- 3. To respond better to the 24 April 1995 Agreements drawn up between the government and the Organisation of Armed Resistance (ORA) [Tuareg], providing for disarmament and demobilisation of combatants.
There are untold difficulties standing in the way: Where on earth is Niger going to find the 40 billion CFA francs needed to get this project off the ground? Niger's numerous problems and varied difficulties means that in no way can the country even begin to carry out the decentralisation programme.
There's also a certain reticence among some of the people who don't seem to appreciate that times have changed. During the transition period, they were against any splitting up of the national territory. True, there has been a remarkable change in recent years in their way of thinking, but there is always fear of the unknown.
Many people, even among the intelligentsia, don't seem to believe in real decentralisation. The reason lies perhaps, in the fact that for a long time they've lived and worked under a strongly centralised system, where local initiative is hardly ever encouraged or even sought after. They've grown up under a system where everything is decreed at "the top", and where decisions are carried out without those in authority having a clear idea what it's all about!
In conclusion: It's clear there are very real difficulties when it comes to decentralising authority in Niger. However, this doesn't mean to say that in the long run, decentralisation can't be achieved.
The main problem is the lack of political and social stability in our country. And no development project can be carried through without this stability. But with the recent signing of the Algiers Agreements, perhaps a new era of peace has arrived which will help in Niger's regional development.
However, there's still the problem of Niger's present government and its institutions which makes for an insecure administration.
END
CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 1998 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement