The new National Decentralisation Policy and Strategic Framework

Local governments play a critical role in the governance architecture of any country.

It is the reason why Ghana continues to make efforts to strengthen its local government system.

However, our efforts over the years have not yielded the desired results of a truly decentralised governance architecture.

There is a new local government framework designed to guide efforts towards “advancing Ghana’s decentralisation agenda” and covers the period 2026 to 2030.

This comes on the back of three previous plans, which covered the periods 2010-2014; 2015-2019, and 2020-2024.

I reflect on the areas that caught my attention in reviewing the features of the new policy and strategic framework.

The New Plan – Key Highlights

First, the importance of fiscal autonomy for local governments.

Strong decentralised government systems have fiscally autonomous local governments, especially in revenue generation.

Yes, they must operate within the boundaries of national fiscal policy, but autonomy moves them away from being overly reliant on transfers from central authorities who may use such reliance as tools of administrative and political control.

In such an environment, local government units simply became extensions of the central government without independence.

Second, the shift of some administrative responsibilities from the central government to the local government is a step in the right direction, although they have yet to be specifically identified.

I have often wondered why the central government have traditionally chosen to shoulder the governance burden disproportionately.

I can understand the incentive of taking credit for solving local problems, but the weight of governance, in my view, makes it a prudent choice if the central government takes the approach of sharing in both the burdens and rewards of governing with local government.

Third, the objective of aligning development planning with local needs is strategically on point.

Who is better placed to understand the needs of local communities – the central authority or local community leaders in partnership with their residents?

This is not to suggest that political and administrative actors in Accra cannot fully appreciate the challenges of local communities.

However, if there is a choice between centralised and decentralised planning, it is prudent to choose the latter.

This is because decentralised development planning is better able to recognise the dynamics of local conditions and proffer the kind of policy solutions that address them comprehensively.

The last important highlight is the role of citizens in both participatory and accountable governance at the local level.

In furtherance of this, the plan is to bring back to the table the election of MMDCEs on a non-partisan basis.

Again, along the same lines previously argued that the shift of certain administrative responsibilities to local government helps with sharing the burdens and rewards of governance, and so also does the election of MMDCEs help with the sharing of the political burdens and rewards associated with accountable governance.

Cautionary Notes

The plan is well designed and holds good prospects for moving the country’s decentralisation efforts further ahead.

But as is always the case, policy design, in my view, has never been the country’s challenge. It is the implementation.

This is why it is very important to have the full commitment of all stakeholders who will play a role in ensuring that this new framework is successfully implemented.

If not, we stand the risk of another decentralisation framework that remains a good abstract idea.

The political willingness of central government actors – elected and non-elected- will be very critical as well.

A truly decentralised governance architecture requires the centre’s willingness to “let go”.

That is not always easy because of the feeling of a sense of loss of political and administrative power.

However, if one looks carefully at the incentive structure – sharing in the burdens and rewards of political and administrative governance – then it is my hope that central government actors will be willing to “let go”.

The monitoring and evaluation piece of the strategic framework must avoid the pitfall of assessments becoming a compliance checklist exercise.

For any monitoring to be meaningful in assessing the effectiveness of implementation, the indicators used must be clear and measurable in a way that allows for the regular collection of reliable data.

Most importantly, the data collected must help answer this question – are our efforts making a difference – and if not, where are the opportunities for further growth and risk mitigation.

Lastly, I hope that there will be a political consensus this time around on the way we want our MMDCEs to be elected.

The last time the effort failed, it was not for lack of consensus that they must be elected.

Rather, the agreement fell apart over whether the election must be partisan or non-partisan.

Citizens have made it clear that their preference is for a non-partisan election.

Hopefully, the political elites will build a consensus that aligns with citizens’ aspirations. 

The writer is Director, 
Democracy Project