There has been much mention of governance
“decentralisation” with regard to Ukraine – often with a nod to Kremlin designs
to enforce “federalisation” upon the nation, which simply won’t happen as those
in the Kremlin may have initially hoped – officially or otherwise.
Yet “decentralisation” is quite necessary for
Ukraine. It is an understatement to state that the nation is far too
centralised when it comes to governance and power. It is also beyond time
that Ukraine actually made a genuine attempt to meet (at least some of) its
obligations under the European Charter for Self-Government.
Shifting budgetary governance, some tax raising
powers and administrative responsibilities and accountability from the centre
to the periphery however, appears to be all that is talked about – and is of
course this has been the driver behind the interest of those behind the
national political curtain. Bigger provincial financial troughs to
control and from whence to gorge cannot be ignored.
Nevertheless, such things aside, how will it
work?
By greedily accepting additional budgets and
powers, local responsibility and accountability increases far beyond finding more
subtle ways to bleed the budgets and insure networks and patrons are suitable
compensated/rewarded.
he local authorities, will also be assuming far
more accountability to their local constituents, but beyond that, as the
regional drivers (to varying degrees) of the local economies, regional
government will (quite rightly) take upon itself the expectations of its
citizenry – and that means creating and/or facilitating jobs, sustainable
development, and many other such demands for which much local government has no
experience, nor plan, for doing – particularly in the small towns and villages.
What is to be the role of entrepreneurship? Of
new business? How will local governance, used only to doing as it was
told by its local patriarchy and the centre, together with fleecing budgets
where it could, create a culture of cooperation and recognise that any local
economics and development is dependent upon a bottom-up approach for which they
will be in no small part responsible for nurturing?
Has local governance fully understood the
concept of the “principle of competence” that it is about to undertake?
If so, is it capable of effectively dealing with it? Is it prepared
to act as the conduit between its citizenry, and their businesses, in shaping not
only the local, but national policy? Will it even cross the minds of many
new and empowered local governments to carry out impact assessments prior to
any national governmental bowel movements legislatively – and inform the centre
of the results? Without the support of the cities and the oblasts and the
people and businesses within, diktats from both central and local governance
will continue to fail as they often have historically.
Cities (primarily) are the drivers of
development, but also where the face to face tackling of prickly and difficult
issues occur between the constituency and governance. Cities (primarily)
are the drivers of entrepreneurship and social mindsets. Central
government will never be effective (and has not been in Ukraine) without the
collaboration of the cities and their constituencies – nor will local
governance be any more successful unless it be driven bottom-up instead of
trying to act as a micro-Kyiv top-down.
How will not only central government, but the
(soon to be) newly empowered local governments initiate meaningful interaction,
particularly with entrepreneurs and SMEs, that will drive business and societal
development? How and where will it direct newly acquired budgets?
At a time of few lenders (at unaffordable rates) where finance matters
far, far more to SME’s than being able to set up a business within 24 hours at
a one-stop-shop, where accessible and affordable finance matters more than
negotiating complicated tax systems, and money matters more than generally
burdensome bureaucracy – how can local government facilitate organic and
sustainable development driven by local business and entrepreneurship?
(EU SME grants are fine – but even the Ukrainian
NGOs tasked with dealing with SMEs are unsure how such grants are actually spent
once delivered .)
Who decides what is “value for money” or “best
value”? Which local governance entities, particularly in the small towns
and villages have any idea about public administration, let alone a genuine
desire for public service, when it is about to be dumped into their laps?
Will small town mayors/town and village council chairs collaborate upon
mutually beneficial issues, or will it be every small town mayor/village
chairperson for themselves?
How genuine will local governance be, and how
prepared for local governance is local government? How prepared are the
citizens to work with, rather than in spite of, newly empowered local
governance when it appears (from recently concluded local election campaigning)
none have the slightest clue about how they are going to energise job creation,
local economies and sustainable development.
If and/or when “decentralisation” is facilitated
by constitutional change, is it likely to have one of the ever-more frequent
“delay clauses” whereby “decentralisation” takes effect from “date X” at some
distant time in the future, whilst the questions above and many, many others
raised by this necessary democratic step, are wrestled with?
Perhaps it will simply happen, ill-prepared or otherwise,
and there will be a few years of rampant theft and/or stupidity and/or
well-meaning naivety – or any variations thereof – but Ukraine and Ukrainian
local governance will eventually muddle through (somehow).
By (necessarily) empowering local governance, is
local governance able to empower sustainable local development?
No comments:
Post a Comment