DEVOLUTION OF POWER ENTAILS FISCAL FEDERALISM

The justification for a decentralised system embodying provincial and other sub-national decision-making powers tends to be political. In Zimbabwean politics, as Bogdnor, V (2001) aptly puts it, “The issue of devolution has often been for polemic rather than reasoned analysis”. This has been the case with the Zimbabwean politics where perennial under achieving opposition parties have played the devolution card hoping to gain autonomy in regions where they thought their supporters reside. Not until ZAPU presented it. ZAPU presents devolution in a way that intends to benefit all Zimbabweans regardless of their political affiliations and tribal/ethnic background. In his earlier book Devolution, Bogdnor (1979) claims that devolution has three parts to it:
1.The transfer of power to a subordinate elected body.
2.The transfer of power on a geographical basis; and
3.The transfer of functions at present exercised by Parliament
In ZAPU literature, devolution essentially involves the setting up of an elected regional assembly/parliament whose powers are carefully and clearly defined by national government. The present system of government fears that autonomous provinces would decrease its ability to govern unchallenged and has used its repressive powers to entrench provincial disparities and divisive tribal politics: beg the dissident provinces policy. Puppet provincial leaders incapable of making autonomous rational decisions have been arbitrarily appointed and led by wimp ineffective ceremonial provincial governors.
Devolution of power includes division of public sector functions and finances amongst the different tiers of government, in short, fiscal federalism. The main emphasis being the need to focus on the necessity for improving performance of the public sector and the provision of its services by ensuring proper alignment of responsibilities and policy instruments.

FISCAL FEDERALISM AND ECONOMIC WELFARE
Fiscal federalism seeks to guide devolution by focusing on allocative efficiency and welfare maximisation. One of the arguments advanced for fiscal federalism is that the preferences and the needs of citizens and taxpayers for public sector goods and services are better known to the local government officials than to those who represent the central government. Therefore, local governments have more information about the needs and priorities of the citizens. While some services like defence are definitely national in nature, there are some which are local in nature like street lighting and a local radio station. Rural people should be able to utilise their local radio station to make announcement, look for their cattle or find a market for their garden produce.
This level of devolution enhances public participation in decision-making since provincial and local governments are closer to the communities they serve and this fosters fiscal accountability. Decentralisation places restrictions on the central government which, in Zimbabwe, has tended to exhibit monopolist tendencies by amassing political and economic power in a few hands and in one geographic area. Other regions and societies have been sustainably exploited and bagged since independence from Britain in 1980.
Centralisation forces a uniform mix of taxes and public spending; even though tastes and preferences in Beitbridge vary considerable from those of Nyamapanda. Bureaucratic inefficiency which emanates from large programmes being implemented in diverse geographic areas is also magnified by centralisation.
FISCAL FEDERALISM AND TAXATION
Fiscal federalism also looks at the abilities of sub-national governments and how the fiscal instruments are allocated across the different layers of government. Decentralisation of taxing and spending powers places a disciplinary check on the size of the government by forging a closer link between raising funds and spending funds. Deciding what the responsibilities of the national and sub-national governments is called assigning expenditures. It involves deciding which taxes, levies and licences should be collected by the central government and which ones should be left to the provinces. These decisions are never, and can never be precise or final. As a consequence, responsibilities and duties will always overlap. This means that the economic analysis of devolution should focus in determining the optimal jurisdictional authority. This, in practice, goes beyond purely economic considerations. Sub-national governments are politically or historically determined and may not coincide with the benefit areas of public goods and services. Spatial externalities exist between sub-national government boundaries. This raises the argument that the formation of provinces and districts should be informed by economic ability and need.
Studies and historical evidence does not provide clear guidelines as to which taxes and expenditures should be assigned to central or sub-national governments. Balance need to be struck between the need for efficiency and economies of scale and the harnessing of spatial externalities.

FISCAL FEDERALISM AND CORRUPTION
Poor governance and corruption are some of the thorny issues in Zimbabwe. Fears of corruption under a decentralised system are grounded on lack of capacity and transparency in government. ZAPU, as a government in waiting, is leading the way in capacity building, conducting workshops and training programmes in various leadership positions. Empirical evidence suggests that corruption is more widespread at provincial than at national level. This may be due to lower salaries, less prospects for advancement and the like, at local government level.

CONCLUSION
Fiscal federalism is relevant for all kinds of government – whether the government is unified as in the French model or decentralised as in the American model. The constitutional right of citizens to move and settle anywhere within the borders of their country should never be compromised. Tribalists and opportunists should never be allowed to usurp the noble concept of devolution and use it to form the basis for tribal politics which intend to take Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans two hundred years back.

Mpumelelo Ndlovu
hlosukwakha@gmail.com
(South Africa)

Link

Google Apps highlights

Official Google Blog: Google Apps highlights – 8/12/2011

The Dawn of Zimbabwe’s Independence

In a cynical way, 2011 resembles the eve of Zimbabwe’s political independence, 1979. Three harsh African dictators fell in 1979: Idi Amin Dada, Macas Nguema Negue Ndong and Emperor Bokasa I.
Idi Amin, the infamous Ugandan President of eight years was deposed in April 1979 by an invasion force from neighbouring Tanzania consisting of Ugandan exiles and regular Tanzanian troops. The guy has gone down into the dust bins of history as the cruelest ruler to ever come of Africa. In this category, of cruel rulers from Africa, competition is quite stiff, believe me. It estimated that close to 300 000 Ugandans fell through executions, torture and other actions of his regime. After being deposed in 1979 where did he go? He was reported to be living in Libya.
In August 1979, Equatorial Guinea’s President, Macias Nguema was deposed by troops loyal to his nephew. He was arrested in a jungle hideout after his opponents accused his government of being responsible for the deaths of up to 50 000 equatorial Guineans. At that time Equatorial Guinea had a population of about 340 000. He was found guilty and executed.
The Emperor Bokasa I of the Central African Empire was overthrown in a bloodless coup. The guy had killed school children who refused to buy uniforms from a store belonging to his wife.
After these dictators had been uprooted, and Ian Smith had played out his puppet show with Muzorewas, Zimbabwe gained its political independence. Today, over 30 years later, winds of change are again sweeping over Africa. Dictators have fallen in Egypt, Tunisia and in Ivory Coast. Dictators are fast becoming an endangered species in the mother continent. Which dictator will be uprooted next?
How did Africa fall into this trap of dictators? So much hope had been aroused by the rise of nationalism and fight for democracy throughout Africa after the Second World War. Disappointingly, the first class of African politicians turned out to be worse devils than the White man. Most turned the office of the President into chiefdom or monarchy and repressed any dissenting voices and brought a reign of terror in their respective countries. Assassinations and coups became the order of the day and the only way up the political ladder. It was into this dirty scenario that the young nation of Zimbabwe was born.
The African Union has been a great disappointment. It has failed to put interests of Africans first, but has only protected dictators. Africa’s democracies and economies have failed to grow and develop because too much power has been vested in a single individual. Some of the African leaders have ruled for over 40 years!
What can be done to put Africa on track and salvage the motherland’s dignity? Devolution of Power and proportional representation

ZAPU in Government

ZAPU in Government

We have an identity only in Jesus

Jesus Saves

Jesus Saves

A certain nondescript donkey couldn’t believe its fortune once when it entered Jerusalem carrying Jesus. People started laying leaves, carpets and choice cloths for it to step on. Wow!. However, the haughty donkey, suffering from severe hubris returned the following day alone expecting an even warmer welcome only to get the shock of its life.

The same people who had held it in high esteem the previous day pelted it with stones and chased it away. Then it dawned for the poor asinine creature. The pomp of the previous day had not been meant for it. Yes, it galloped away braying! 

We have an identity only because of the name of Jesus we bear. Without him our righteousness is only filthy rags which belong to the dumpsite – Gehenna (a dumpsite outside ancient Jerusalem). With Jesus we are rulers forever; needless to say without him we are eternal losers.

It’s not by accident that only Jesus could walk on water and Peter could do it for only as long as he was still in one accord with him; the moment he thought he could walk the walk alone he sank. If water represents many people, then only Jesus can rule everyone forever. Many dictators, throughout history have tried to bring everyone under one dominion to no avail. Only the name of Jesus can unite everyone. Darius, the Mede, tried to protect his throne by handing Daniel over to his enemies, but he could not protect it from death.

All through history, one name remains prominent: the name of Jesus. Many people have died defending it and many more have sank into oblivion despising it. There is no other name so dear to men than the name of Jesus.

Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.