Talent Network

In the Netherlands mayors are not directly elected by the people. Participants of courses at The Hague Academy are often surprised by this fact, especially because they view the Dutch example of strong local governance as a best practice.

The first reaction “well that’s not really democratic, is it?” is understandable.

And of course in a sense this is true, the most democratic way to elect a mayor is to hold direct elections and let citizens decide which person in their view is most suitable for the job. The advantages of a directly elected mayor are quite clear; the mayor has a strong democratic legitimacy and can be held directly accountable if promises made during his election campaign are not being realised.

This is how ever not the way Dutch mayors get their job. Dutch mayors are indirectly elected by the municipal council and appointed by the Crown. This has everything to do with the historical background of Dutch local governance but if it is not democratic then why has it not changed untill now? Because there are also some rational reasons to indirectly appointed Dutch mayors. It could for example be the case that a directly chosen mayor is elected because he or she is quite popular for different reasons like for being an artist or actor. Popularity does not mean this person is qualified for the job. Another reason to keep the status quo is that mayors in the Netherlands will actually not be powerful enough to realise promises made during direct elections, because most power on the local level resides by the municipal council. Furthermore by involving the city council in electing the mayor a good cooperation between the mayor and the council can be assured, which cannot be guaranteed if a mayor is directly chosen by the citizens.

The issue remains a subject for debate in the Netherlands but until now the procedure has not been changed. At the moment efficiency is clearly favoured over democracy but this might change in time.

Question of the Month: Are there cases in your country on the local level where it is hard to find a good balance between efficiency and democracy?

 December, the last month of the year. A good time to look forward and make new year’s resolutions,  the yearly budgets, plan career moves and set new targets for 2013.

Talent for Governance aims to strengthen the capacities of young local government practitioners all over the world. This by providing you with the chance to attend one of the Talentprogramme in The Netherlands, but also by connecting you with colleagues from all over the world in this online Talent network. Our Talent programmes are based on exchange of experiences of all participants in the training courses of The Hague Academy for Local Governance and also the exchange of knowledge and ideas with the people working in the Dutch decentralised internship organisations.

Exchange is also what we aim to do with this last ‘Question of the month’ of 2012!

Tell us and your fellow local government practitioners what your best local government experience was the last year.  Did something big happen in your organisation, what was the best lesson learned? Did you finish a big development project? 

Comment on this post and let’s learn from each other! 

Dear members,

The last two weeks, talents Chris (Uganda), Fuseini (Ghana), Atem (Cameroon) and Ghislain (Burkina Faso) have been attending the Talentprogramme on Local Service Delivery (LSD).  They first came to The Hague Academy for Local Governance to experience the two week practice oriented training course on Local Service Delivery &MDG’s. Then they followed a short internshp programme in the municipalities of Zwolle, Amstelveen, Steenwijkerland and the waterboard of Reest and Wieden.

They all had an increadible experience here in the Netherlands, not only experiencing the Dutch local government system and policies, but more importantly exchanging with one another ( either with the other partcipants in the training course, the experts and trainers and of course with the local government practitioners they met during the internship).

During their last evaluation day session  at Talent for Governance they prepared together a question of the month for November.  They would very much like you, their colleagues from all over the world to think about this question and comment on it. They will then also comment on your comment…and there you go….an online exchange of knowledge has taken place! This is what we are trying to achieve with this professional network!

Question:  What local/national opportunities and strategies are available for local governments in developing countries to achieve effective local service delivery?

This month we are trying something different. Talents Mark, Benjamin and Michael are in the Hague at the moment competing their Talent programmes on Local Economic Development. They first attended a training course on ‘Local Economic Development’ at The Hague Academy for Local Governance and then followed an internship week at the province of Drenthe, the municipality of Westland and Meppel. 

What better then to ask them to come up with the questions of the month for October! So we will have three questions to which you all can response this month! Feel free to comment and contact the talents through the network to ask more about their experiences in the Netherlands!

The questions:

Benjamin asks: Municipalities are considered to be centres of pushing local economic development, yet their succes is often minimal.  How do you make the municipality competitive?

Michael asks : What roles can young talents (managers) bring in the transformation of their local governments, particularly in developing countries?

Mark asks: How can emerging local governments  avoid doing a little of everything and instead focus on one realistic goal?

Please let them read your comments and start up the discussion!

This month we’re following up on the Question of the Month from last month. That Question dealt with the success stories of decentralisation. The cases mentioned last month defended the argument that decentralization was the golden ticket for development.  Most of you agreed that Decentralisation is the key to development if, in the words of one of the repliers “It is nurtured well” or in the words of another, “if power at the top is actually deflated”. But not everyone sees decentralization as the ultimate key for development. So for this month I would like to ask your opinion on a few writers who mention considerable constrains to the concept of decentralisation as a tool for development. We think this is useful for the following reason; if decentralization is to be used as an effective tool for development we should know its pitfalls so we can avoid them. We have chosen two writers that mention some pitfalls of decentralisation.

Anand N. Asthaha has researched the link between corruption and decentralization.  He made a case study of piped water supply in two regions of India.[1] What the research shows is that corruption grows in the short and mid-long term after the process of decentralisation. This finding is contrary to the thought that decentralization increases accountability. His study shows this increase of corruption only in one particular instance but nonetheless gives food for thought.
A Public Policy Consultant studies decentralisation in the case of Uganda.[2] He writes in the Daily Monitor that the question that should be raised is: “why does central government relinquish responsibilities?” Is it to relinquish responsibilities they cannot fulfil? Another point he raises is that if power is relinquished to local authorities it is more likely to be captured by local elites and local interest groups. He thereafter states that the case for decentralisation has often been made uncritically and without systematic empirical support.

Our questions this month: Do you recognize these pitfalls? Can you mention some other pitfalls? And what are potential solutions?

Decentralisation for development

In the last few weeks, decentralisation was a term often mentioned in the international media. The term was globally utilised as a key process for development. In Rwanda the Umbrella Organisation of Local NGOs in Development (CCOAIB) launched a guide to decentralisation policy. The Minister of Local Government, James Musoni, welcomed CCOAIB’s contribution to the process, and stated that ‘this guide will also strengthen and enlighten policy makers and local authorities how best the third phase of the decentralization policy can be implemented’.

In the largest city of Thailand, Chiang Mai, residents were pushing for decentralisation of the province, which they believe will help solve the country’s political paralysis. Sawing Oudtan, a member of the Decentralise Chiang Mai movement, stated that ‘decentralisation will also allow Chiang Mai to spend money on provincial development’.

While presenting a state government’s position paper, the State Governor of one of the administrative divisions of Nigeria mentioned that decentralisation of power would help develop the country. He explained that when the population gets correct information about the policy, they will also be in a position to hold their leaders accountable when it comes to public service delivery.

There was also a headline online with ‘World Bank organises dialogue on decentralisation and local government’. The importance of decentralisation in development was emphasised, and World Bank Country Director for Pakistan, Rachid Benmossaoud, stated that decentralisation is an important process for establishing a participatory model of governance. ‘Global experience shows that decentralisation can lead to significant improvement in overall governance, and can enhance the quantity and quality of public services delivered to the people, as it establishes a higher level of accountability to the stakeholders’.

With all these voices promoting decentralisation, one would almost immediately assume that this process is the golden ticket to achieve development. However, is this truly the case? We would like to know your opinion on this matter. Is decentralization the golden ticket for development. Perhaps it is not the golden ticket but at least either a necessary factor or a contributing factor for development. Or perhaps you consider it neither of the aforementioned, but consider decentralisation as a process endangering development. Let us hear your opinion and please also vote for our monthly poll!

Sources:

http://www.brecorder.com/money-a-banking/198/1206884/

http://www.thenationonlineng.net/2011/index.php/news-update/51554-why-nigeria-must-decentralise-by-fashola.html

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/299519/chiang-mai-residents-in-push-for-provincial-decentralisation

http://allafrica.com/stories/201206240201.html

City Diplomacy

City diplomacy may be a new term, but the phenomenon has a longer history. Local governments  seem to feel a responsibility to contribute to dialogue and peace, to create a secure environment for  their citizens. They have a history in international engagement, and they also have a history in dealing  with conflicts at home. They are the layer of government that often feels the consequences of conflicts  most directly, that is, in the streets of the city. Local governments have gained experience in projects  and programmes involving international co-operation. They have long-term relationships with partner  municipalities outside their own countries, and they work together in international platforms and associations.

The understanding on how local governments can potentially contribute to peace-building is growing.  Many local government organizations are already working on the issue in practice, and platforms have  been established. It is up to local governments worldwide to continue working with the existing  practices and to explore further possibilities.

We would like to know your opinion about this: Do all local governments have the (moral) obligation to actively participate in these platforms in order to contribute in making this world more peaceful?

Arne Musch and Alexandra Sizoo. ‘City Diplomacy: The Role of Local Governments in Conflict Prevention, Peacebuilding and Post-conflict reconstruction’. Available at: http://www.psdnetwork.nl/documenten/publications/20090202_city_diplomacy_the_role_of_local_governments_in_conflict_prevention_peacebuilding_and_postconflict_reconstruction.pdf.

Photo: Representatives from Myanmar’s government and the Karen National Union at peace talks at Hotel Zwekabin in Pa-an, capital of the Karen State in eastern Myanmar on Thursday. The talks are aimed at ending the country’s longest-running rebellion as part of a drive to strike ceasefire deals with all its ethnic separatist groups (Featured on www.thestar.com)