Understanding devolution

Devolution can be mainly financial, for example, giving areas a budget, which was formerly administered by central government.
The power to make legislation relevant to the area may also be granted.
Often times, people have confused the concept of devolution with that of federalism. Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the sub-national authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains; de jure unitary meaning it exists both in law and in reality.

However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control.
Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute.
Meanwhile, federalism is a system of government in which power is shared between the central or federal government and the provinces or a form of government in which power is divided between the federal or national government and the provinces.

I believe out of ignorance, people have been screaming and shouting for federalism, while calling it “the devolution of power”.
They are confusing devolution, self-determination and separatism, wanting more than just empowerment and popular participation.
As it is, a form of devolution already exists in most parts of the country with local authorities already running independently. How much more devolved do people want the country to be and to what effect?

If it is about the equal control of national resources, it should be noted that the country does not have an equal distribution of resources therefore the need to use central government to manage the available resources for the benefit of the whole country.
Some people think the lack of development in some areas has been caused by the centralisation of power but the problems surrounding centralisation did not emanate from the concept itself but they were caused by individuals.

To think that the problems caused by centralisation can be solved by devolution is far fetched because devolution will, no doubt come with its own challenges.
Focus should be on the bigger picture, the pixel of the national agenda rather than narrow regional interests motivated by separatist paranoia.
The lagging behind of some provinces in the country has not been because power is centralised, it has been sometimes because of the incompetence of the leaders in those provinces.

For example, if people say they now want power to elect their own governor — how different would it be from electing MPs who still fail to deliver even after people have entrusted them with their welfare?

There have been reports of MPs who abused the Constituency Development Fund, a fund which was meant to spearhead development in the constituencies around the country.

This happened after these MPs were given the “power” to administer the fund and use it in their constituencies as they saw fit.
It is disappointing to note that some of the money never reached the intended destination but ended up in the pockets of some greedy individuals.
How then will voting for a governor, like is done with an MP, avert the problems caused by individuals? How different would an appointed governor be from one that is voted for? If we were to flip the coin and MPs were appointed rather than elected — would there be any difference? No, the difference would be the same. It still comes down to individuals.

People should be agitating to do away with corruption and ensuring that those entrusted to lead people do that instead of introducing a new concept where there is already conflict.
Devolution is a divisive factor that would worsen our already fragile political landscape.

I guess the question to ask though is, if there is the devolution of power will there be any real change or is it just a hope that something would be different?
Devolution only works in countries that have the capacity because the devolution of power with no resources does not make sense. In any case, what would happen to the people who do not have resources in their provinces?

Even in provinces that are endowed with resources, would the local leadership be able to govern those resources efficiently?
It is unfortunate that resources appear to be on one side of the country and because of this, there remains the need for all provinces to contribute to the national cake, ultimately report to one body and be governed by one power and one law.

Centralisation is meant to create control and unrestricted access for everyone and it should not be viewed as the catalyst of underdevelopment in other parts of the country.

Because devolution is a relatively new and often ill-understood concept in public discourse, people believe that some things that are already existent will take shape when the devolution of power is implemented.

Some believe devolution will enable poor regions to spearhead their own development projects without having to rely on central government yet this is already happening.
Others believe that women are going to assume positions of authority and actively participate in the development of their regions by virtue of devolution but are they not already involved in national and regional politics under centralisation?

The devolution of power will not bring with it anything new. It is purely psychological and a figment of a lot of people’s imagination that it would bring development or change.

I have observed, from a distance, how the debate on this subject has become debased: uninformed, distorted, misleading and deeply polarising.
It is important to note that devolution would balkanise the country, and could promote ethnicity and ignite land clashes and it would tear the country apart.
Devolution would lead to the disintegration of the country and the State and it could be the first step towards secession, as it would provide disaffected communities with resources and structures of government for collective action, which would be focused on a breakaway.

Devolution weakens national authorities and thus threatens the achievement of national objectives, such as economic development, and law and order, which require a strong government.

A strong government is one which is centralised and in which extensive powers are vested, preferably in a few people.
We cannot assume that governments at local levels will not reproduce the selfishness, corruption and inefficiency that people say characterise central government.

Devolution would greatly increase the costs of government. In a country where the poverty level is high, this is an important consideration.
The costs of a new system of government and comparison with expenditures of a previous system are exceedingly hard to estimate, as devolution would require the re-allocation of resources.

A matter of great concern when a country moves to a federal or devolved system is that minorities within the devolved areas may suffer discrimination or oppression, especially when the devolved area comes under the dominance of one ethnic group.
A paradox of devolution, established for the protection of a national minority, is that it can put other groups in the devolved area under risk.

Moreover, it is said 52 percent of the national population is against devolution, seven percent does not know what devolution is, six percent does not understand it and 35 percent support the devolution of power — with 60 percent of them drawn from the Matabeleland region. Why is Matabeleland so keen about devolution?