CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1. 1 Background and Introduction to Ghana’s Decentralization

Since its maiden appearance in social and political discourse in the 1820s, and becoming a subject of much concern for Alexis de Tocqueville and Pierre – Joseph Proudhon in the middle of the 1880s (Schmidt, 2007), decentralization has become a subject of great interest to many from diverse backgrounds for varied reasons.

Furniss (1974:958-959) in Rees and Hossain (2010) observed thus:

“Decentralization is rapidly replacing God, country and motherhood in popular favour, the popularity of decentralization was due in part to its adoption by people from across the political spectrum including the revolutionary left, the utopian left, the reformist right, and the status quo right: All major shades of opinion seem to ascribe to decentralization’s great powers of social and or moral regeneration.The counterpoint “centralization” is associated with most of the evils of the modern polity: delay, red tape, constraints on individual initiative, restraint of spontaneity”.

Similarly, Bardhan (2002) observed that the potential benefits of decentralization had attracted a diverse range of supporters from free-market economists who tend to emphasize the benefits of reducing the power of the overextended or predatory state, to social thinkers who are both anti-market and anti-centralized state, and who energetically support assignment of control to local self-governing communities.

The source of the popular appeal of decentralization may lie mainly in the fact that it provides some way out of the negative social, economic, political and administrative consequences inherent in the concentration of power, decision making and resources in the hands of a few within the body politic. In the 1980s in particular, many countries,

especially in the developing world, subscribed to decentralization reforms. “Since the 1980s decentralization and

Globalization are major topics in politics in most European and developing countries”(World Bank, 2001; BIZA, 1980).

In the context of the foregoing, it may not be difficult for one to understand the motivations of the general wind of decentralization that had blown over many developing countries including those in Africa and Ghana during the 1980s. Commenting on this trend, Cummings (2002) stated that decentralization had become a “revolutionary megatrend” in the 1980s. Conyers (1983; Ribot, 2002) referred to it as “latest fashion”, while the United Nations Development Programme (1999) described the phenomenon as a “trend”.

Although the 1980s witnessed a unique global interest in decentralization, Ghana’s decentralization programme begun over a century and a half ago before it became a global trend and fashion. Schmidt (2007) for example asserts, “Ghana is unique among developing countries in the longevity of its decentralized government which was formally acknowledged in 1878″(p.22). Even before this time, in 1859, under the British colonial government, the Municipal Ordinance Act was passed which created municipalities for the coastal areas of the Gold Coast. Also, in 1943, a new Ordinance set up elected town councils for Accra, Kumasi, Sekondi – Takoradi and Cape Coast”. In 1953, the Municipal Councils Ordinance was passed, only to be followed after independence, by the Local Government Act, 1961, Act 54 (Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLDRD), 1996).

Since these pioneering efforts, several other attempts to develop decentralization were made before and after the country attained political independence in 1957. Despite the strong suggestions the assertions that Ghana’s quest for decentralized governance begun even before most of the so-called economically advanced nations did, the results of all these efforts to decentralize never met the expectations of the Ghanaian. The popular dissatisfaction with the state of local government led to the establishment of several Commissions and Committees of enquiry that were tasked with the search for answers to Ghana’s decentralization aspirations. In a report compiled by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (1996) ”the reports of these bodies made conclusive recommendations for the devolution of central administrative authority to the local levels”. Foremost among the commissions and committees of enquiry were the Watson Committee (1949); Sir Coussey Committee (1949); Sir Sydney Philipson (1951); Sir Frederick Bourne (1955) and the Greenwood Commission (1957). The others include the Regional Constitution Commission (1957), the Akuffo-Addo Commission (1966); the Mills Odoi Commission of 1967 and the Constituent Assembly (1969). The reports concluded among others that: “in spite of the far reaching nature of the recommendations, most of which were accepted, attempts at decentralization could not materialize until 1974”. Some of the weaknesses identified with the previous models of decentralization were: undue centralization of decision-making powers, lack of accountability and participation of the local populace in governance, undue allegiance of local officials to their head offices rather than to the districts they were working in, and lack of electoral legitimacy of local representatives, among others.

1. 1. This material content is developed to serve as a GUIDE for students to conduct academic research work
2. 2. As a source for additional understanding of the subject.
3. 3. As a source for ideas for your own research work (if properly referenced).
4. 4. For PROPER paraphrasing (see your university definition of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrase)
5. 5. Direct citing (if referenced properly)
Thank you so much for your respect to the authors copyright.