adminThe group opposed to devolution of power is headed by Zanu-PF and the other by the two MDC parties, with the one led by Professor Welshman Ncube sounding as if it attaches greater importance to the concept than Morgan Tsvangirai’s.
Apart from these three political parties, and they are actually involved in the drafting of the constitution; there are other organisations whose pro-devolution stance is well known. These are Zapu led by Dumiso Dabengwa, Mavambo of Dr Simba Makoni, MDC-99 of Job Sikhala, Mthwakazi Liberation Front of Paul Siwela and the Patriotic Union of Matabeleland led by Bancinyane Ndiweni.
Zanu-PF says that devolving power to the provinces would divide Zimbabwe tribally, and would be tantamount to turning the country into a federation. The pro-devolution groups contend that the measure would give power to the people to decide and implement at grassroots level and that devolution has nothing to do with federation.
The pro-devolution groups say that the current highly centralised system is inefficient, corrupt and extremely inconvenient to people who live far from Harare, the centre of power.
A historical look at the issue shows us the following facts:
l Colonial authorities confined power to decide and implement issues in their hands, giving no power to those they governed to make decisions about matters affecting their social, economic and political lives and destiny.
l The liberation struggle was waged to give power to the oppressed and exploited so that they can make decisions about their social, economic, political and even cultural fate.
This, in a nutshell, is what we call “independence” one of whose objectives is the elimination or (at least) the alleviation of poverty, disease and ignorance.
The elimination of poverty leads to that of hunger, lack of accommodation, that of clothing and to the acquisition of material comforts, some of which are easy means of transport, bedding, modern residences, accessible sources of consumer commodities and reliable sources of livelihood (employment).
In a community where poverty has been effectively eliminated, people eat for pleasure and not for basic survival, and their self-esteem is enhanced, and so is their sense of morality. They have a much greater feeling of personal sovereignty which is an integral part of that of the nation as a whole.
Disease is eliminated if the community has adequate food, accommodation and clothing, bedding and morally sound forms of physical, visual and oral entertainment.
Medical facilities, medical personnel, and equipment, curative as well as prophylactic medicines are components of a healthy community. Ignorance is a negative factor whose opposite, knowledge, is acquired generally through formal education which may involve learning from Grade Zero up to university level. We should not forget about the cultural type of education which involves how to look after our bodies as well as how to keep and cook our food and beverages.
Narrowing down the above scenario brings us to mundane things such as employment creation through community projects, educational and health awareness campaigns.
These are community needs that are best identified by the people themselves and then provided for by themselves.
That simply means that it is a part of good governance to empower each community to identify and administer its own needs and projects just as it is most advisable for every constituency to be represented in Parliament by those who are indigenous to their respective constituencies rather than by extraneous individuals.
Devolution of power implies in effect, merely localising both the decision making and the implementation process.
Advantages of that type of governance are:
l People feel that they are actually governing themselves and are, therefore, masters of their own destiny
l Employment and other social economic opportunities such as scholarships are awarded locally, that is to say, by the local people to deserving local beneficiaries.
l Cases of corruption can be dealt with promptly by the local people themselves via the use of their own local legal and customary practices and values.
l Equality in social, economic and political terms can be easily enhanced by various checks and balances locally administered by the people themselves on themselves. That is, in effect, egalitarianism at its best.
l Apathy and pessimism towards the Government is greatly reduced if not entirely eliminated by this grassroots type of governance.
l Exploitation of local resources is equitably rationalised to benefit the local community rather than extraneous investors and pseudo-investors, some of whom may be after raw materials and cheap local labour without any wish whatsoever to protect the local environment or to develop the basic local infrastructure.
l Devolution of power leads to the training of local technicians, professionals and technocrats, a process that may involve the hiring or contracting of extraneous personnel or expertise.
l Devolution of power results in an efficient husbanding of natural resources such as timber, minerals, game, water, fisheries and the maintenance of infrastructure such as roads, schools, dip-tanks, clinics and the postal and telegraphic means of communication.
It is misleading, deliberately so, to claim that devolution is tantamount to the federalisation of the state. Devolution means decentralisation, that is to say giving the power to decide and implement (power to rule) to the masses.
That means in practical terms giving the masses (the povo) the power for which they fought. That (devolution) is independence (kuzvitonga, ukuzibusa) in practical democracy.
In an opinion article of this magnitude, it is impossible to get into finer dimensions of devolution of power.
We can say, however, that it is a generally recognised social fact that communities, exactly the same as their component families and households, would like to govern themselves.
That wish is achieved by democratically decentralising political power to enable people to have and use power or authority to decide issues of immediate value and interest to themselves as citizens of the state.
That political power may be constitutionally given to provinces or district councils, or to some other convenient local authorities.
The school of thought that holds the opinion that devolution would result in or is caused by tribalism is faulty. Why and how?
Because it is absolutely nonsensical to think that the people of, say, Masvingo Province would behave tribalistically against themselves if they were running their own affairs in their own tribal area.
Tribalism occurs in a situation where one or two tribes monopolise political power, financial and other resources (such as land) plus socio-economic opportunities to the detriment of less privileged tribes right across the breadth and length of the country.
To avoid that occurring, good governance is obviously devolution of power as that results in each more or less ethnic administrative territory making and implementing its own decisions.
If we honestly wish to eliminate poverty, ignorance and disease from Zimbabwe, we should take the devolution route.
The present system breeds and sustains politico-economic elitism, an obvious danger that could lead to ethnic socio-economic dynasties, a development that could utterly negate the original objectives of the founding fathers of the liberation struggle of Zimbabwe.
l Saul Gwakuba Ndlovu is a Bulawayo-based retired journalist. He can be contacted on cell 0734328136 or email [email protected]
Online Reporter