Decentralisation policy review long overdue

The question of poor service delivery remains a thorn in the flesh of policy makers in Uganda. To address this teething challenge, government adopted the decentralisation policy in the 1995 Constitution, which it thought would be the magic wand to the chronic problem of poor services. It should be pointed out that one of the major reasons for embracing decentralisation was to take services nearer to the people through local governments. The policy was also meant, among others, to empower local governments and create jobs for locals away from the centre, which was already congested and could not absorb all job seekers from across the country.
Now 23 years down the road (1995 to 2018), the policy seems to have registered a less than impressive record. No doubt, this has prompted the Speaker of Parliament, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, to call for a review of the policy, which should seek to make local governments more effective. The Speaker also proposes that the review should consider increasing funding to local governments. (see Saturday Monitor of June 23).
We support the Speaker’s call for a review of the decentralisation policy. However, it is critical that the review takes seriously the concerns of the First Deputy Prime Minister, Gen Moses Ali. The premier is quoted as saying decentralisation had contributed to the high levels of corruption among district officials.
“We realised that funds which are sent for development are diverted by district officials. These officials own beautiful buildings and this is questionable because we know how much they earn,” Gen Ali said. It is good to worry about councils, which cannot even sit because they have no capacity to pay councillors. That could be true. But where do members of some of these councils get money to build palatial houses for themselves as the prime minister pointed out?
In all fairness to the taxpayers, the government, and the nation, the proposed review, if it eventually takes off, should start with demanding for a full accountability of funds that are disbursed from the centre to local governments as well as the local revenues they collect. This, not forgetting that some local governments, receive donations from development partners, which they must also account for. The dashing of the high hopes that service delivery at the grassroots would improve must be roundly investigated.
Nevertheless, we should not ignore complaints by leaders that lack of political will to fund local governments is partly to blame for poor service delivery. Even claims that money disbursed from the centre sometimes reaches the districts late should be addressed.

The issue: Decentralisation policy
Our view: The proposed review, if it eventually takes off, should start with demanding for a full accountability of funds that are disbursed from the centre to local governments as well as the local revenues they collect.