Exploring the Role of Local Governance in Conflict Prevention and Recovery
11 November 2004: As conflicts continue to undermine development efforts around the world, and as countries emerge from debilitating wars, the United Nations is looking at how governments recover from wars and how they can help prevent conflicts from erupting in the future. The UN Capital Development Fund is contributing to this approach to Conflict Prevention and Recovery (CPR) through its work with local governments.
On 26-27 October, the UN Development Programme and the UN Office of Project Services hosted the 13th annual CPR Network Meeting in Geneva. The meeting brought together representatives of donors and international agencies supporting conflict prevention and recovery in developing and transition countries. The two-day discussion focused on: (i) conflict assessment practices and their potential impact on the programming of external aid and (ii) challenges and opportunities for developing governance programs that support CPR.
One session was dedicated to "Local Governance in Conflict Prevention and Recovery" and was facilitated by Leonardo Romeo of UNCDF. The UNCDF presentation (i) stressed the differences in the rationales of donors and governments promoting decentralization, (ii) called for a recognition of the potential contribution of decentralization to state-building and (iii) outlined the "local governance approach" to conflict prevention and post-conflict recovery implemented through the UNCDF-supported "Local Development Programs" in a number of conflict-prone or conflict-recovering countries.
In "weak states", decentralization reforms are being promoted as a state-building strategy, by leaders who find the strengthening of State legitimacy consistent with their strategic political interests and have the margins of maneuver to pursue such objective. Decentralization reforms are then not the result of a "bottom-up" process, but are centrally driven by the political self-interest of the country leadership. They commonly aim at (i) translating the command of state resources into wider political legitimacy of the party in power, (ii) neutralizing potential ethnic-based rivals and co-opting or displacing traditional powers and (iii) strengthening the presence of the state administration at the periphery.
As for the democratic and developmental rationales of decentralization (participatory democracy and greater allocative and productive efficiency of public expenditures) which donors commonly advance, they often provide only a "façade" for reforms that essentially pursue the strengthening of dominant political forces via an increase of the State legitimacy.
As a consequence, decentralization reforms in "weak states" often suffer from the same "premature closing" syndrome highlighted by recent studies of democratic transitions, i.e. once political reforms are enacted, they are not followed by the necessary fiscal and administrative decentralization arrangements and neither the democratic, nor the developmental benefits of the reforms can actually be realized.
Should then donors withdraw their support to decentralization reforms in weak states? UNCDF experience, from Cambodia to Yemen, from Uganda to Angola, suggests instead the need for a continuing and pragmatic commitment. Donors supporting decentralization reforms should learn to recognize, and live with, the tension between the normative prescriptions (which emphasize participatory democracy and efficient public expenditure management) and the political priorities (which emphasize State-building and political legitimacy) of the reforms
The interdependence of the local and the central in the process of reconstructing States should be given more attention than it has actually received so far, as (i) the State itself cannot be reconstructed on solid grounds without addressing and resolving the issue of central-local relations and (ii) the State presence must be re-established throughout the country to provide the legal and security environment which will make it possible for newly empowered local institutions to address and manage local conflicts.
In summary, donors need to realize and accept that decentralization can contribute to state-building and conflict prevention, well before its potential for democracy and development is fully realized. At the same time, they should be aware of the inherent and dynamic contradictions of state-building through decentralization, and take advantage of them to further the democratic and developmental objectives of the reforms. Early engagement and partnership in state-building may provide the best chances to deepen the reform process, prevent its "early closing" and realize the potential of decentralization for local development and poverty reduction.
Download the attached PowerPoint Presentation for the full presentation and examples of the UNCDF-supported "local governance approach" to conflict prevention and conflict recovery in Cambodia, Yemen and Angola.
A UNCDF concept paper on "A local governance approach to conflict prevention and recovery also is available for download as a pdf file.
