Graduate School of Development Studies
A Research Paper presented by:
LUCIA MANHOKWE
(Zimbabwe)
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Specialization:
LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
(LRD)
Members of the examining committee:
Supervisor: Dr Nicholas Awortwi
Reader: Dr Joao Guimaraes
The Hague, The Netherlands
November 2010
Disclaimer:
This document represents part of the author’s study programme while at the Institute of Social Studies. The views stated therein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Institute.
Inquiries:
Postal address: Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
Location: Kortenaerkade 12
2518 AX The Hague
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 70 426 0460
Fax: +31 70 426 0799
Dedication
To Lucia 1 & 2
Manhokwe family
Dzidzai
Henry
Chirongoma family
Mutambara family
Motivator-Rufaro
Friends
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the almighty God for giving me the strength to complete my study. Ndomurumbidza She.
I owe special thanks to Dr Nicholas Awortwi, my supervisor and Dr Joao Guimaraes my second reader for their overwhelming support and constructive criticisms, comments and guidance that kept the study going smoothly.
Special thanks to all the LRD 2009-10 lectures and the programme administrator for the knowledge, skills, and the experience i acquired at the institute. My LRD classmate you are so great.
I also have to express gratitude to Nuffic for offering me a scholarship package that took me to another level of my academic qualifications.
Back home VamaMoyo; Mhofu makaita i owe you special thanks my loving parents.
Contents
List of Tables vii
List of Figures vii
List of Maps vii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: General Introduction 11
1. 1 Introduction 11
1.2 Research problem 12
1.3 Research Objective 13
1.4 Research question 13
1.5 Methodology 13
1.6 Limitations 14
1.7 Organisation of the research 14
CHAPTER TWO: DECENTRALISATION AND PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING 16
2.1 Introduction 16
2.2 The concept of Decentralisation 16
2.2.1 The rationale for Decentralisation. 17
2.2.2 General Problems of Decentralisation 17
2.3 A link between decentralisation and participation 18
2.4 Community Participation 18
2.4.1 Nonparticipation level 19
2.4.2 Tokenism 19
2.4.3 Citizen control 20
2.5 A discussion on Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation 21
2.6 The structure of an effective participatory planning process 22
2.6.1 Stages of a bottom up planning process 23
2.7 Analytical framework 25
2.7.1 Indicators of effective community participatory planning. 25
2.7.2 Wide coverage of consultations 25
2.7.3 Good leadership 25
2.7.4 Women Representation and active involvement 26
2.7.5 Local Government attitude towards community participation 27
2.7.6 The Presence and awareness of the grassroots committees. 27
2.7.7 Community and local government personnel training. 27
2.8.8 Autonomy in decision making 28
2.9 Conclusion 29
CHAPTER THREE: STRUCTURE OF DECENTRALISED PLANNING IN ZIMBABWE 30
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Decentralized planning in Zimbabwe 30
Background 30
3.2.1 District Councils Act of 1980 (DCA) 31
3.3 Participatory structures /Committees of the Rural District Councils 31
3.3.1 The Village Development Committee (VIDCO) 31
3.3.2 The Ward Development Committee (WADCO) 31
3.3.3 The District Development Committee (DDC) 32
3.3.4 THE VIDCOs and WADCOs as channels of community participation 32
3.4 The Planning Process in Zimbabwe based on the LGAs. 32
3.4.1 Publicity in connection with the local plans 33
3.5 The Profile of Mudzi District 33
3.6 Analysis of the planning structure in Mudzi District 34
3.6.1 Role played by field officers in the planning process 34
3.6.2 Membership of the VIDCOs and WADCOs 35
3.6.3 Representatives of various groups and their roles. 36
3.6.4 Programme implementation and monitoring 36
CHAPTER FOUR: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION TOWARDS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN MUDZI’ S FIVE WARDS 37
4.1 Introduction 37
4.2 Women representation and Resource Mobilisation 37
4.3 The District bureaucrats dominating the planning Process. 38
4.4 Meeting attendance and the stock piling of projects. 40
4.5 The coverage of consultation by the council bureaucrats 42
4.6 The existence and awareness of the community organisations 43
4.7 Lack of trainings in the community 44
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 46
5. 1 Introduction 46
5.2 Summary of the findings 46
5.2.1 VIDCOs and WADCOs have few women representation. 46
5.2.2 Local Authorities over reliance on the CG transfers and domination of the field technocrats 46
5.2.3 Lack of resources hindering consultations and inadequate time for proposal plans publications. 47
5.2.4 The VIDCOs and WADCOs creating a communication channel. 47
5.3 Conclusion 48
References 50
Appendices 53
List of Tables
Table 1: The total number of the respondents from the 5 wards 14
Table 2: Women representation in the five WADCOs 37
Table 3: Five meetings held in each of the 5 WADCOs in 2009 39
Table 4- Views of the community on the developmental roles of VIDCOs and WADCOs 43
Table 5: Community participation ratings 45
List of Figures
Figure 1: Structure of new decentralised local government. 12
Figure 2: The Ladder of Citizen Participation 21
FIG 3: The planning process 22
List of Maps
Map1: The location of Mudzi District in Zimbabwe 33
List of pictures
Picture 1: Women representatives in the Goronga WADCO 38
Picture 2: A certain NGO dominating at a VIDCO meeting 40
List of Acronyms
DA District Administrator
DCA District Councils Act (1980)
CG Central Government
CEO Chief Executive Officer
DDC District Development Committee
DDP District Development Plans
HODs Heads of Departments
MDC Movement for Democratic Change
MRDC Mudzi Rural District Council
MLGURD Ministry of Local Government Urban and Rural De velpoment
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
LG Local Government
LGAs Local Government Acts
PDC Provincial Development Committee
RDCA Rural District Councils Act (chapter 29; 13)
RDC Rural Development Committee
RTCPA Regional, Town and Country Planning Act (chapter 29; 12)
TLA Traditional Leaders Act (chapter 29; 17)
VIDCO Village Development Committee
WADCO Ward Development Committee
ZANU-PF Zimbabwe African National Union Political Front
Abstract
In this paper an assessment is made on the level of community participation towards the district development planning in the five wards of Mudzi district, in Zimbabwe.
The paper discusses the concept of decentralisation, planning and community participation. Decentralisation is argued to result in the achievement of higher levels of participation in decision making, development plans, and the implementation as well as the maintenance of political stability. Decentralised planning is discussed in the Zimbabwean context, starting with a clear outline of the policy reforms which led to the creation of the grassroot participatory structures.
The paper uses wide coverage of consultations, good leadership qualities, local government attitude towards community participation, women involvement, awareness of the organisational structures, autonomy in decision making and trained community and local government personnel as indicators of effective participatory planning to analysis what is practiced on the ground. The findings of what is practiced on the ground and what is stipulated by the Local Government Acts and policy reforms contributes to the debate that the VIDCOs and WADCOs are promoting Central Government programmes rather than being channels for facilitating bottom up initiatives.
Relevance to Development Studies
This study aimed on assessing the level of community participation towards Rural District Development Planning. Community participation in development planning is desirable since it makes plans more relevant to local needs and also increases the sense of ownership of the programmes, which is an essential ingredient of effective implementation. It also facilitates a wide variety of groups in the allocation of national resources for development, thus enhancing equity. Decentralised planning facilitates the acquisition of more accurate information on conditions or situations at the peripheries, thereby making development more relevant to the needs of the people in various communities.
The VIDCOs and WADCOs main objective amongst others is to involve local communities both horizontally and vertically in the process of planning and effecting their own development, thus enabling government to assess the development needs and priorities at all levels. This topic becomes relevant since it contributes to the debate that VIDCOs and WADCOs appear to be only receiving information and directives from the above rather than being channels for bottom up initiatives, thereby raising questions on the functioning of these structures as channels or instruments of community participation towards district development planning. In short Brand (1991:79) also contributed to the debate questioning whether decentralisation in Zimbabwe enhanced local participation.
Keywords
Local Government, Central government, District development planning, Community participation, Plans, VIDCO, WADCO and Community
ii
Chapter 1: General Introduction
1. 1 Introduction
Decentralisation has acquired a prominent place in the development policy debates but the questions whether it enhances local participation still remains. Decentralisation is defined as a process of state reform composed by a set of public policies that transfer responsibilities, resources or authority from higher to lower levels of government in the context of a specific type of state (Falleti 2005:328). The rational for the drive towards decentralised planning is based on the two fold assumptions that implementation of development projects will be improved through better coordination by decentralising government structures to a district administration and the relevance and sustainability of the projects will be improved and self help contributions towards peoples own development increases.
For the case of Zimbabwe, the colonial structures of local Government were never meant to facilitate meaningful participation in development. They were largely created in order to improve the colonial regimes ability to maintain law and order and to collect taxes (Makumbe1996:19). Therefore after Independence the Central government of Zimbabwe introduced institutional framework for local development in order to enhance participatory planning.
Decentralisation in Zimbabwe has two main aspects; first the central ministries are spatially decentralised and now represented at Provincial and District level and secondly a local government was created which is relatively autonomous from central government for a limited range of functions. Local authorities are charged with the powers to prepare annual development plans and monitor the implementation of the development plan and policies within the council area (Rural District Councils Act (chapter 29:13) section 74. Community participation is the direct involvement or engagement of ordinary people in the affairs of planning, governance and overall development programmes at local or grassroots level (Williams 2006:197). Participation of people in development in Zimbabwean rural communities is expected to be channelled through the lower administrative structures (villages, wards, and district level) which in fact are the lower local government structures.
Village development committees (VIDCOS) are designated as the fundamental planning units and it envisages that each VIDCO would represent 1000 households and it is chaired by a Village head in accordance with the Traditional Leaders Act (Chapter 29:17) section17. The VIDCO submits plans annually to the Ward development committee (WADCO) representing six villages. The WADCO would then coordinate the proposed plans from all VIDCOs in its jurisdiction and submit these ward profiles to the District Development Committee (DDC) which would incorporate ward plans together with government departments plans into an integrated district plan for approval by the District Council and subsequent submission to the Provincial Development Committee to the Ministry of Local government Urban and Rural Development (MLGURD) for approval (Clayton et al 2003:41).The MLGURD is responsible for the Management of Local Government. This process is illustrated by Fig 1below showing the participatory planning structure of the new decentralised local government.
However, decentralised planning becomes successful when there is genuine participation or citizens control (Collins and Ison 2009:2). This research assesses and reviews the level of community participation towards the formation of the District Development plans drawing on the findings of the research conducted in August 2010 in Mudzi District. The analysis of the research will be used to classify the degree of the Mudzi community participation into the three categories, non participation, tokenism, and citizen control as stated by Arnstein (1969:216-224).
Figure 1: Structure of new decentralised local government.
KEY
Formal top down and bottom up
Informal communication
Source: Mangiza et al, 2004:58
1.2 Research problem
Most of the decentralised District councils fail to have anticipated impact because they do not have all the powers. On paper district development planning is bottom up but on practice it appears top down. For instance, Districts in Zimbabwe are given the authority to plan (to decide what they would like to do) but there is no guarantee that these plans will be implemented since the allocation of resources and approval of plans remains the responsibility of the Central Government. The district councils rely much on Central government transfers to their sectorial ministries which in most cases are tied funds. The tied funds reduce the autonomy of the district councils in decision making. This resulted in no meaningful positive change in the rural communities since the creation of the VIDCOs and WADCOs. These structures were intended to provide the grassroot in rural areas the opportunity to participate in the decision making process for development planning and implementation in their areas but in reality people driven development programmes have thus been largely rhetorical and not substantive.
The VIDCOs and WADCOs were expected to enable the local people to influence development policies pertaining to their specific communities but as argued later there are too many barriers that beset the proper functioning of the VIDCOs and WADCOs in the execution of their development roles. This has resulted in many programmes and projects in many rural districts in Zimbabwe failing as the community feel that in most cases, programmes were just imposed on them. The final district development plans are hurriedly produced. Therefore, the process of consultation and sequence of submission from one committee to another is not followed properly thereby reducing a sense of ownership of the programmes and projects by the community. And even if community participation does occur, the planning bureaucracies do not consider the participation with the requisite seriousness and respect as guaranteed in the local government acts. Usually there is no clear documentation of the VIDCOs and WADCOs inputs towards the final draft of plans.