兴安时空,比熊犬多少钱一只,珍珠奶茶配方
1.2 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF DECENTRALIZATION IN GHANA The history of decentralization and local government in Ghana is traced back to the British colonial rule in the then Gold Coast, (Ghana) between 1878 and 1951 through the indirect rule. During this era the British colonial Administration governed indirectly through the existing chieftaincy institution, by constituting the chiefs and their elders in a particular district as the local authority, with powers “to establish treasuries, appoint staff and perform local government functions” (Nkrumah 2000: 55). As the first country in the sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence in 1957, successive governments in Ghana have searched for a vibrant local government system to support the country’s development. However, the most comprehensive and ambitious local government policy was initiated by the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) military regime in 1988,代写留学作业提供代写Essay，代写Assignment，请联系QQ：949925041 the Local Government Law (PNDC law 207), through which the then 65 local authorities were reviewed and restructured into 110 district assemblies. In 1983, Rawlings’ PNDC government announced a policy of administrative decentralisation of central government ministries, together with the establishment of People’s Defence Committees (PDCs) in each town and village. The PDCs, made up of local PNDC activists as self-identified defenders of the ‘revolution’, effectively took over local government responsibilities, though often restricted to mobilising the implementation of local self-help projects (Nkrumah 2000: 58). The rationale for the local government reform as stated by the PNDC regime was to transfer functions, powers, means and competences from the central government to the local government, and to establish a forum at the local level where a team of development agents, representatives of the people and other agencies could discuss the development problems of the district and/or area and their underlying causative factors. On an ideological level decentralization was expected to support democratic participatory governance, improve service delivery and also lead to a rapid socio-economic development (Pinkney 1997, cited in Map Consult 2002: 35). Functionaries of the then PNDC government at different occasions justified the significance of the local government policy in Ghana. For example, in reacting to the criticism that the district assemblies were nothing but a move by the PNDC to consolidate its position, the chairman of the regime, Jerry John Rawlings stressed that the PNDC strategy and the rationale behind the decentralization policy was to take steps towards more formal political participation by every Ghanaian through the district-level elections which was to take place nationwide in that year. He said, “If we are to see a sturdy tree of democracy grow, we need to learn from the past and nurture very carefully and deliberately political institutions that will become the pillars upon which the people's power will be erected. A new sense of responsibility must be created in each workplace, each village, each district; we already see elements of this in the work of the Committee for the Defence of the Revolution (CDRs), the 31st December Women's Movement, the June 4 Movement, Town and Village Development Committees, and other organizations through which the voice of the people is being heard”. In other words, a democratic local government was supposed to be the foundation for future national level democracy. Before the advent of the 1992 republican constitution in Ghana, the erstwhile PNDC government’s implementation strategy of the decentralization and local government policy encountered stiff opposition from strong democratic forces both within and outside Ghana as the regime’s legitimacy was quizzed. As a result of this legitimacy crisis of the regime, the PNDC government quickly finalized the implementation of the decentralization programme in 1987 to legitimize the regime through the District Assemblies (DAs) which were setup in order to “democratize state power and advance participatory democracy and collective decision making at the grassroots” (District Political Authority and Modalities for District Level Elections 1987:2). This paved way for the existing Local Authorities to be reviewed and restructured into District Assemblies and also new electoral rules such as common platform for all candidates vying for seats in the Assemblies to present their manifestoes to the public at no cost, right of the electorate to recall their Assembly-member before his/her tenure is due, the performance of Assembly’s business in both English and any other local language that was common in the locality, the abolition of property qualification right to stand for elections and non-partisan basis of the elections were among other things that were introduced into the new electoral process. |
