Relationship between central government and local in tanzania

A new relationship between central and local government | Society | The Guardian

relationship between central government and local in tanzania

New public service agreements give councils an unprecedented degree of flexibility, says Local Government Association policy officer Tony. Government was abolished and replaced with a direct central government rule. In relation to the Local Government in the mainland the main. Introduction The history of local government in Tanzania starts officially with the . system the relationship between central and local governments is based on.

But the agreements are allowing councils and the government to recognise problems and to commit to working together - as part of the deal - to find solutions. In Kent, this sort of commitment may help alleviate problems of differing VAT regimes for local and health authorities, which are currently inhibiting the take up of powers to pool their budgets.

In Middlesbrough, it may help to simplify and speed up the payment of disabled facilities grants for home adaptations for older people. As the first local PSAs are agreed, much will be made of the financial rewards that they offer to councils. The government is negotiating tough targets with authorities in areas such as social care, education, transport and recycling, because an authority that meets its targets for stretched achievement - over and above its best value performance plan - will be rewarded financially.

Performance reward grant - a payment potentially amounting to 2. The financial rewards are substantial for the authorities involved. But from the national point of view, we must recognise that a key benefit of local PSAs is that they offer a way to open doors, and create movement on previously intractable issues. Where the person has been declared unfit to dispose of property and where such declaration has not been rescinded. Where there are events that calls for suspension of authority and discharged from his position as stipulated by this Act.

Where there are other events that calls for suspension of authority and discharged from his position in accordance with other laws. In the event of any of the following, if the original term has yet to expire and the election agency has yet to announce the supplementary election, the punishment to suspend authority or discharge from position shall be rescinded: Where the rehabilitative disposition is rescinded in accordance with law and where reformatory education is rescinded after re-judge if the authority is suspended or if the person is discharged from position in accordance with the preceding paragraph 5.

Where the declaration that the person is unfit to dispose of property is rescinded by the court if the authority is suspended or if the person is discharged from position in accordance with the preceding paragraph 8. The resignation shall become effective once the letter of resignation is submitted to the council. Where the mayor of a special municipality is suspended from his position, the deputy mayor shall become the acting mayor. If the position of the deputy mayor is vacant or if the deputy mayor is unable become the acting mayor, the Executive Yuan shall appoint an acting mayor.

The winners of the aforementioned supplementary election shall take his oath of office within ten days from the announcement of the successful election. The term of office shall be until the expiration of the current term and shall be counted as one term of office.

The resignations as stipulated in paragraph 1 shall be carried out in writing. Resignations shall take effect on the day the resignation is approved. There are 3 E. Babeiya various definitions of local government as a concept which however share common characteristics.

Structure of Local Government

In one hand, local government is seen to be a territorial, non-sovereign community possessing the legal right and the necessary organization to regulate its affairs Robson, The concept is also described as that part of the whole government of a nation or state which is administered by authorities subordinate to the state authority, but elected independently of the control by the state authority Gomme, Local Government is also described as government by popularly elected bodies charged with administrative and executive duties in matters concerning the inhabitants of a particular district or place and vested with powers to make by-laws for their guidance1.

It is also viewed as an authority to determine and execute measures within restricted area inside and smaller than the whole state2. It thus entails the management of local affairs by the people of the locality3. Local government is said to be based on the principle that local problems and needs can be looked at by the people of the locality better than by central governments4. Similar views are advanced by Agagu who construes local government as the government at the grassroots level of administration meant for meeting perculiar needs of the people.

Echoing the same conceptualization, Lawal regards local government as the government close to the people which is vested with certain powers to exercise control over the affairs of people in its own domain.

The above definitions share the same root- that local governments are grassroots organs charged with the responsibility of performing various public functions with minimal involvement of the central government. Nevertheless, the extent to which they have the mandate and authority to undertake various functions will depend on a form of decentralization that a particular country opts for.

It is worth-noting that there are four main forms of decentralization namely deconcentration, delegation, privatization and devolution. Deconcentration as a form of decentralization involves relocating and geographically dispersing the agents of central control Sayer, et al. In this form of decentralization, decision-making and financial management responsibilities are under local government but there is no real transfer of authority between levels of 4 Local Government in Tanzania government Gregersen, et al.

relationship between central government and local in tanzania

It is thus the least extensive type of administrative decentralization UNDP, The third form of decentralization is privatization in which units external to the formal government structure such as NGOs and private corporations and companies perform specific functions.

Nevertheless, the nature of power transfer under this form of decentralization is not level-specific and thus transfers can take place even at the central level UNDP, The last form of decentralization is devolution. UNDP points out that this is the most common understanding of genuine decentralization. Devolution involves an intergovernmental power transfer from the central government to geographical units of local governments Mutahaba, It entails having local governments performing specific functions with relative autonomy.

Through devolution, decision-making and implementation powers, functions, responsibilities and resources are transferred to legally constituted and popularly elected local governments ICJ, In principle, the success of devolution depends mainly on the willingness of the central government to grant autonomy to local governments.

This willingness can be expressed by various aspects namely: Babeiya Under decentralization by devolution, local governments are also expected to have legally recognized geographical boundaries within which they exercise authority and perform public functions UNDP, These units have a corporate status and powers to raise resources for funding various development projects Mutahaba, ; UNDP, Furthermore, local governments remain autonomous institutions perceived by the people as belonging to them Mutahaba, Nevertheless, devolution does not entail federation and thus local governments remain linked to the central government and other units through arrangements of mutual support and reciprocity Mutahaba, The analysis of local government autonomy in this paper is based on devolution as one of the forms of decentralization.

Besides its appropriateness due to its emphasis that local governments have to operate as autonomous units, the choice of devolution is based on the fact that since independence there has been a reiterated commitment especially from the central government to have devolved local governments. Despite some developments in Tanzania that have sometimes diverted from devolution, this form of decentralization continues to be seen as the best option for effective functioning of local governments.

The legal and operational framework for local governments in Tanzania Local governments in Tanzania are legal entities whose existence is provided for under articles and of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania.

The legal framework under which local governments have been operating has for many years faced criticism for constraining local government autonomy Liviga, ; Mutahaba, The challenges to the legal framework have tended to focus on several aspects. For instance, despite providing for the existence of local governments, the constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania does not clearly define the boundaries between the central government and local governments.

This weakness is said to have paved way for the central government to infiltrate into the functioning of local governments. Likewise, several local government acts are blamed for denying local governments their political, administrative and financial autonomies. The weakness of the legal framework is also pointed out by the policy paper on local government 6 Local Government in Tanzania reforms of which underscores the necessity of amending and repealing local government laws that were made in early s.

Two important features marked the local government structure introduced by the laws. One was the close identification of local governance, and overlap with the ruling party i. Thus, local governments were not strictly autonomous and only partially participatory. At best, therefore, the legal reforms of could be described as decentralization by delegation REPOA As Utomo correctly observes, under unitary system the relationship between central and local governments is based on the subordination of the latter.

Since independence to date, local governments have been the victims of centralized controls exercised by the central government. Despite several reform interventions meant to increase local government autonomy, the central government has for many years maintained an upper hand in the functioning of local governments.

The central government has been reluctant to grant more autonomy to a body which it considers to be its tributary.

A new relationship between central and local government

Therefore, while local governments are expected to be under the control of citizens at the grassroots, the history of local government in Tanzania shows that citizens have had limited participation in local government affairs.

Even with the recent local government reforms, the legacies of limited involvement of citizens still characterize local governments in Tanzania. Babeiya Lack of space for effective functioning of local governments in Tanzania is mainly attributed to the political trends that this country has passed through.

Since independence in to the reintroduction of multiparty politics inthe state of democracy was poor as the single-party regime controlled all socio-economic and political aspects. Such atmosphere was not conducive for the existence of autonomous bodies such as local governments. Such deep-rooted control tendencies have had dire effects on the functioning of local governments in Tanzania as the proceeding sections will show.

However, prior to discussing local government in Tanzania, the next section provides an experience from South Africa as a relatively well-functioning local government system in Africa. Local Government in South Africa: This infancy is largely attributed to slow pace among most African countries in implementing decentralization reforms. Decentralization in the continent has for many years varied across countries in terms of regional spread and aspects of decentralization Ndegwa, For instance, a study conducted by the World Bank in indicated that out of 30 countries analyzed, less than half had high or moderate levels of overall decentralization Ndegwa,Commonwealth Local Government Forum- CLGF, ; Brossio, Despite these variations, some African countries particularly South Africa, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya have demonstrated exemplary commitment in ensuring the existence of effective local government systems.

Nevertheless, of all African countries, South Africa has at least stood as the leading country in the continent in terms of commitment to decentralization reforms.

A survey by the World Bank in indicated that South Africa had high scores in all aspects namely: The country also had a lead in both downward and upward accountability.

relationship between central government and local in tanzania

Downward accountability is said to be bolstered by the involvement of traditional Authorities in the management of local governments Steytler, Specifically, South Africa has distinguished itself from most of other African countries in terms of championing decentralization in several aspects as shown below.

For instance, while local governments in other African countries such as Tanzania have been complaining over the lack of administrative autonomy, those of South Africa have significant autonomy in hiring, disciplining and firing their staff. Likewise, while in most of African countries such as Tanzania the central government has remained influential in determining staffing structures, local governments in South Africa have freedom in determining their staffing structures.

Likewise, local governments in South Africa are to a great extent self financing. The constitution of South Africa grants the powers to local governments in raising revenues from various sources Steytler, The main sources of local government finances include: The constitution provides that all revenues collected nationally must be divided equitably between national, provincial and local government Cronje, South Africa has also been exemplary in terms of political decentralization as the three spheres of government namely central, provincial and local are seen as equal, distinctive, independent and interrelated UNECA, Mutual relation among these spheres is affirmed by the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act of Siddle, The existence of autonomous local government in South Africa is partly attributed to an enabling legal and regulatory framework.

The other contributing factor for local government autonomy is the fact that while in most African countries local governments were imposed from above, those of South Africa are said to have emanated from the grassroots as black communities were pushing for the end of injustices and inequalities that were created during the apartheid era CLGF, Babeiya Pre-colonial governance systems As pointed out in the introduction, pre-colonial societies in Tanzania had their systems of local governance.

Such systems had some common characteristics that were ubiquitous in most of these societies. The first characteristic was over-centralization of the management of societal affairs. These traditional leaders had various roles in their respective societies such as leading their people in battles, disputes adjudication but also had spiritual and magical powers Bryant, ; Redmayne, It is on this basis that Bryant argues that all chiefs had magical and religious powers to the extent that only bold persons could dare challenging their authority.

For instance, in Nyamwezi Kingdom, chief Mirambo was the main priest responsible to his kingdom physically and spiritually Matambanadzo, n. The second feature was that there was no clear distinction between the centre and local levels as all levels were running in accordance with the directives from the kings.

For instance, in Nyamwezi Kingdom, chief Mirambo created an organization system that had a well-defined centralized authority of unified people Matambanadzo, n. Such system of local governance was quite different from modern local governments that advocate for relative autonomy in which local governments and central government operate on mutuality and reciprocity.

The third feature was that citizens had either no awareness of the need to have autonomous local governments or if they were, they might have been engrained in the fear of the repercussions of challenging the status quo. As earlier shown, apart from having political, legal and administrative powers, kings in most of pre-colonial societies in Tanzania also had spiritual and religious powers.

Kings were so powerful to the extent that challenging them was tantamount to a personal sacrifice. It is imperative to note that up to the time of the coming of colonialists, Tanzania was yet to witness democratization movements challenging the monarchy as it was in Britain where such movements led to the birth of the Magna Carta of On this basis, any attempt to establish effective local government system had to do away with these features.

Unfortunately the colonialists did very little to change the manner of governing people at the grassroots as the next section will attempt to show. Under the Germany colonial rule, Tanzania witnessed the formation of local governments that was accompanied with the enactment of various local government laws. Despite the fact that measures were taken to establish local governments, such creation proved to be of no value to the general public, as the established local government meant to serve the colonial state than serving the citizens at the grassroots.

It is worth-noting that following the colonization of Tanzania, the German colonial state took some measures to establish local structures. Through the imperial decree of local communal unions in districts such as Dar es Salaam, Kilwa and Lindi were formed.

Chapter 4. Relationship Between Central and Local Governments - Hualien County Government Website

However, their functional autonomy was very limited. Specifically, local government system created in Tanzania during the Germany colonial rule had three main features. The first one was that it was centralized and did not seem to recognize the existence of local governance systems and structures.

The existence of animosity between the German colonial rule and natives began especially during the wars of conquest in which the Germans used brutal means to overcome local resistances. It is worth-remembering that resistance to German conquest broke along the coastal strip from after the agents of the German East Africa Corporation DOAG occupied coastal ports in order to control and tax caravan trade as well as the establishment of cash crop estates Sunseri, Indigenous resistance movements against the Germans along the coast were led by Abushiri bin Salim and Bwana Heri bin Juma Sunseri, These movements were brutally crushed by the German forces.

For instance, in the German government dispatched Hermann Wissmann to control 11 E. Babeiya contentious areas in coastal areas. Any voice against the colonial state was a breach of law and was a punishable act. If any, such voice had to be in support of effective implementation of colonial policies.

Likewise, there were no exit options and thus the colonial superstructure was the beginning and the end. The last feature was that local governments were to serve as agents of the colonial state and never were the two seen operating as partners of development.

On the basis of the nature and functioning of local governments, there was no any indication of the existence of a local government system seeking to serve the interest of the majority at the grassroots. Despite the fact that the Germans created new chiefs whose responsibilities included, among others, tax collection and organizing for cheap labour, they were directly accountable to German colonial offices Gewald, African chiefs were thus the link between the colonial state and the people.

Following the end of WW1 in which Germany was defeated thus losing its colonies, the then German Tanganyika fell in the hands of British colonial rule. The British colonial state took various measures to establish its own system of local governance. Borrowing from the Nigerian experience, the British colonial state introduced indirect rule in which it used traditional chiefs and other appointees to govern their societies.

Unlike the German colonial state that believed in a centralized control using its own created structures, the British at least gave an impression of a recognition of an existence of functional local governance systems that could be used to facilitate meeting colonial needs. This was testified by the decision of the British colonial state to introduce indirect rule system Crowder, This system involved identifying the local power structure, the kings, chiefs or headmen, who were then invited, coerced or bribed to become part of the colonial administrative structure while retaining considerable political power over the people in their own areas Khapoya, Under indirect rule system, designated traditional rulers were used by the colonial state to 12 Local Government in Tanzania undertake various functions such as tax collection, maintenance of law and order, and acted as a link between the colonial state and the people Mutahaba, This decision was effected by the enactment of the village headmen ordinance which provided for the appointment of the chiefs.

Nevertheless, like its predecessors, the British colonial state fell in the same trap. What seemed to be like granting autonomy to local levels to manage their own affairs was indeed not. It was rather one of the strategies employed by the British colonial state to maintain peace and order for effective realization of the goals of colonialization Liviga, The established local government system was therefore an organ for facilitating effective implementation of colonial policies.

It never took as its core value issues such as participation, autonomy, transparency and accountability. Chiefs and kings were hence figureheads who served as agents of the colonial state as it was the colonial state that remained supreme in all governance matters at the local level. Local governments were therefore created to act as instruments of control not for self-rule at the grassroots Liviga, ; Mutahaba, They were meant to legitimize colonial policies before such policies could be pushed to people at the grassroots Liviga, Even with the taking of measures such as the enactment of the local government ordinance Cap seeking to introduce autonomous local government using the British Model, there were no significant changes Mutahaba, Therefore, there was no room for people at the grassroots to challenge colonial policies.

Even the choice of the use of chiefs had a hidden logic behind. As earlier pointed out, pre- colonial African kings were very autocratic and never served as advocates of democratization.