- File
Residents demonstrating in an inner-city community. Local government is not only important because of its proximity to the daily lives of local residents, but the results of the elections provide an opportunity to address the local-community disconnectedness.
Dr. Eris Schoburgh, Contributor
IT IS WITH much interest that I read the various offerings on local government published in your paper.
The general theme running throughout each article is the symbolic association of local government with democracy, which motivated me to present a synopsis of the theoretical groundings on the subject.
My central argument is that local government and democracy have a vicarious relationship and it would best suit our purposes to pursue its functional value most vigorously.
THE EARLY ADVOCATES
The traditional orthodoxy of the value of local government can be traced to the work of John Stuart Mill who, with Jeremy Bentham, shared similar views about the 'systematic hierarchy of administrative bodies' but raised the importance of local political institutions as being elemental to democracy.
Mill's claim rested on two main points. First, that local political institutions expand the opportunity for participation and provide a context in which the local citizenry can be educated in the art of practical politics.
Second, that local political institutions have the capacity to achieve efficient and effective service provision due to their scope for local administration and the belief that oversight functions are performed by local interests with the requisite knowledge.
The Fabian and Guild Socialists also argued in favour of local government emphasising the notion of local self-government as a medium through which to empower the proletariat.
Accordingly, Fabians such as The Webbs (Sancton 1979) expressed the belief that representation and social reforms would not result from the voluntary actions of the bourgeoisie but through the pursuit of a programme of municipal socialism.
For them, municipal socialism meant local self-government based on majority rule and a wide range of services municipally provided (publicly owned).
Guild Socialists such as G.D.H. Cole (Sancton 1976) focused on functional democracy, promoting local government and regional self-government, not only as a framework for participation but as a mechanism for coordination and service provision.
There were also the 'mid-Victorian' romantics who viewed local government as 'a cherished tradition' to more efficient and democratic government as against the centralist tendencies that existed. The value of localness was in its function as a bulwark against centralism.
Essentially the early advocates of local government conceived of a local political system that was relatively autonomous and multi-purpose, had tax-raising capacity and was controlled by popular elections.
POST-WAR THEORIES
The development and expansion of the welfare state had the immediate impact of incorporating local government into more areas of service provision. The justifications for local government were now tested in countries such as Britain, the United States and Holland where greater demands were being placed on the state.
The capacity of local government was implicated and triggered a spate of reform activities which sought to reconcile local government with the requirements of the welfare state. The result was substantial rethinking about the democratic and functional values of local government.
Clearly, the notion that local government 'was necessary' or promoted democracy was less an area of consensus. One of the earliest writers to contest the democratic value of local government was Georges Langrod (1953) who posited that there was no evidence to support the claim that "there exists an inevitable tie of reciprocal dependence between democracy and local government."
He further contended that: "democracy does not come into being where local government appears nor does it cease with its disappearance."
Local government assisted with the dismantling of the absolutist state by aiding the 'spread of the psychological bases and structural forms of democracy' but for Langrod, it was nothing more than a technical arrangement characteristic of the adaptation of traditional forms of management to the varied needs of modern administration.
The functional value of local government while not totally debunked received its fair share of criticism. So much so that the discourse fed into policy debates in Britain and informed the deliberations of the Herbert Commission on London's Local Government (1960). Studies done on local government in Jamaica during this period also drew on some of the ideas emanating from Britain.
One notable contributor to this debate was L. J. Sharpe who, using the realities of British local government, attempted to construct a functional case for local government as an efficient provider of services was demonstrated in the varied roles it performed.
These were "as a coordinator of services in the field; as a reconciler of community opinion; as a consumer pressure group; as an agent for responding to rising demand and finally as a counterweight to incipient syndicalism."
He concluded that local government, even in its most basic form was legitimate." He concluded that local government, even in its most basic form was legitimate, particularly in the 'new' conditions of the welfare state but must be modernised to increase its technical and functional capacity.
THE LOCALISTS AND PUBLIC CHOICE THEORISTS
The localists of the 1980s were less convinced about local government's functional value, especially as an efficient provider of services in the context of widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of local service delivery. They instead raised its political value to new heights insisting that local government was an expression of the diffusion of power.
For example, Jones and Stewart state "that local government is no passing luxury." "It should be a guardian of fundamental values. It presents first and foremost a spread of political power." Chandler, too, justifies local government on account of its value of local autonomy.
Public choice theorists, in my view, present the most revolutionary ideas in the local government debate starting from the position that public bureaucracies and representative democracy are both seriously flawed.
Specifically, public bureaucracies are seen as budget maximisers who replace collective goals with self-interested goals. The 'vote-seeking' politician who has limited information on service needs and costs is sympathetic to the process of budget-maximisation.
The stage is thus set for bureaucrats to 'capture' politicians given the former's monopoly on important policy information. The result is an over-supply of inadequate services.
Consequently, public choice theorists assert that the market is the optimal mechanism for achieving efficient allocation of goods and services and effective decision-making. The remedies proposed by public choice theorists to alleviate the democratic deficit are: performance contracting, fragmented, multiple-provider service structures to assure competition and citizen choice, and the introduction of user fees/charges for services. (King and Stoker 1996).
The central thrust of public choice arguments is that the democratic value of local government will be discernible only when public goods and services are congruent with local community preferences. In sum, the market is the appropriate tool to enhance the democratic value of local government. Needless to say no thought in political science is a 'sacred cow'.
LOCATING JAMAICA IN THE DISCOURSE
The debate on the value of local government has come full circle. However, one issue remains clear, that is, there is a natural tension between the democratic and the functional values of local government.
My position is that despite the fact that local government's pro-democracy stance predominates in the literature, the presumption that local government promotes democracy is not self-evident.
Contemporary writers such as Beetham argue that the "subordination of local authorities to Parliament challenges the proposition that there is a meaningful localised form of
citizenship."
If the empirical link between local government and democracy appears to be fragile then the legitimacy of local government is undermined and its decision-making power is easily obliterated.
The operations of local government in Jamaica validate much of the unease about its democratic credentials. There is ample evidence on which to argue that: (a) local government serves the political interests of one group or party, challenging the notion of the 'popular will'; (b) its structural anachronism and overly high degree of internal functionalism limit its capacity to adapt to changing local needs; and (c) the power of the local professional (bureaucrat) in comparison to the elected representatives in local policy formulation stymies the process of democratisation.
More importantly, the fact that an electoral system exists does not necessarily equate with the presence of democracy. Central Government's treatment of the local electoral process confirms that 'elections can constitute a facade pure and simple, with no real content". (Langrod 1953)
Admittedly, universal elections introduce the democratic element but the extent of political rivalry negates democratic gains. The manipulation of Local Government elections, particularly since 1947, merely serves to engender a disengaged local citizenry that exhibits limited knowledge of local affairs; a systemic distrust of collective strategies and growing political antipathy.
Even where there is a modicum of interest in, or knowledge of local affairs it is not enough to penetrate one's sensibility of what is conceived as the 'public good.'
If reformers in Jamaica wish to achieve any level of success in the local government reform process they must dispense with the sentimentalism about local government's association with democracy.
The issue has not been resolved and will never be in light of competing alternatives for democratic apprenticeship in the local state especially in the 21st century. The point is that civil society is coming into its own, even in Jamaica, and brings new sources of political consternation for local politics.
Without this recognition, we will continue to experience 'half-hearted' and 'abortive' reforms as policy makers grapple with trying to achieve democracy and functionality, simultaneously.
WHY DOES IT STILL EXIST?
Since local government is unable to vindicate its democratic credentials, why does it still exist?
I will confine my response to the Jamaican context and suggest that if one were to develop a theory on the value of local government to our society, several issues must be explored a few of which are:
Functional identity: Contrary to popular belief, my research revealed that an appreciable contingent of persons in rural communities still feel that local government, if given a chance has the potential to address local needs.
Psycho-social factors: There is a strong attachment to 'communities of place' evidenced by the high stability of residency status. Thus I concur with former Prime Minister Michael Manley (1975) that 'where people identify with a section of a country in such a manner that it distinguishes them from the country as a whole, there is a basis for local government.'
The 2002 General Election: Local politics played an integral part in the outcome of this election. Thus local government is not only important because of its proximity to the daily lives of local residents, but the results of the elections provide an opportunity to address the local-community disconnectedness.
The final point I consider to be relevant to both here and elsewhere. That is, even though the existence of democratic institutions pari passu Local Government does not mean the creation of a democratic climate, the continued association of the two is an acknowledgement by policy makers that the alternatives may prove to be dangerous. (Phillips 1994).
The 'apprenticeship for democracy' thesis or the educative role of local government in the Mills tradition is severely challenged in Jamaica and can only be reified if a certain environment exists.
This environment must be characterised by a process of decentralisation that is real and citizens have substantial influence on the 'formation of the body of local leaders.'
Dr. Eris Schoburgh is Director of Community Outreach at the National Council on Education and a Tutor in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
