"Local Government, Communitarianism

Local Government and Citizen Participation"

Organization of American States

Copyright@1999 by OAS. All rights reserved. This publication may be reproduced provided credit is given to the source.

Introduction

PART I
Summary of Workshop Proceedings

PART II
Exploring the Issues

1 Background Discussion Papers

a. Caribbean Local Governance: Re-examining the Building Blocks
b. Caribbean Local Government: Development and Economic Issues
c. The Ombudsman and Effective Local Public Administration

2. Fundamental Themes

a. Decentralization
b. Development
c. Communitarianism
d. Capacity Building
e. Ombudsmanship

3. Main Messages from the Discussions

PART III
Conclusions and Recommendations

I General Needs
2. Priorities for the Program of Cooperation in Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation

PART IV
Annexes

1. List of Participants 

2. Address by Professor Dr. Elsie Le Franc, Director, Institute of Social and
Economic Research, Mona Campus, University of the West Indies, UWI

3. Address by Ambassador Christopher R. Thomas,
Assistant Secretary General, Organization of American States

4. Address by Professor Rex Nettleford, Deputy, Vice-Chancellor, UWI

5. Address by Mrs. Barbara James, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development of Jamaica

6. Background Discussion Paper: Caribbean Local Governance:
Re-Examining the Building Blocks, by Professor Edwin Jones

7. Background Discussion Paper: The Ombudsman and Effective Local Public
Administration, by Dr. Derrick McKoy and Dr. Yvonne Stone

8. Background Discussion Paper: Caribbean Local Government:
Development and Economic Issues, by Dr. Neville Duncan

This report summarizes the deliberations and conclusions of the Workshop for States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) on the theme "Local Government. Communitarianism and the Citizen: Opportunities and Challenges" held in Kingston, Jamaica on June 8 and 9, 1998. This sub-regional Workshop initiated the "Program of Cooperation in Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation" of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD), General Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS), a program aimed at supporting relevant mandates of the Second Summit of the Americas by helping to strengthen decentralization efforts, local government institutions and the promotion of citizen participation at the local level. The current Workshop was organized with the collaboration of the Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of the West Indies (ISER/UWI) at the Mona Campus in Kingston, Jamaica, and was greatly facilitated by the support of the Government of Jamaica.

The Workshop took place against the backdrop of increasing attention, in the Caribbean as in the rest of the hemisphere, to decentralization and local governance issues, as well as to empowering local communities for participation in decision-making on public policy. Indeed, local governance and the delivery of local services, citizen participation, the protection of citizen rights and the institutional arrangements through which these are managed are increasingly of interest to regional policy-makers. This Workshop focussed on policy considerations and effective strategies, mechanisms and instruments for dealing with key issues in decentralization and local governance with community participation in the Caribbean sub-region. Permanent Secretaries and other senior officials exchanged information on processes underway in their respective countries, and concluded by outlining an agenda of issues for collaboration by countries of the sub-region in the areas analyzed. The Workshop's conclusions and recommendations defining important priorities in the areas examined will be the basis for the Caribbean component of this UPD Program of Cooperation

Summary of Workshop Proceedings

The Workshop was inaugurated by Mrs. Barbara James, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government, Youth & Community Development of Jamaica, on behalf of the Minister, the Honourable Arnold Bertram. The Permanent Secretary pointed to the firm commitment of the Government of Jamaica to creating a strong and vibrant system of local administration, through local government reform and the empowerment of local communities and civil society. Mrs. James also emphasized the Government of Jamaica's support for regional cooperation on issues relating to local governance, and noted that the hemisphere-wide Program of Cooperation initiated by this sub-regional event in Jamaica was seen as an indication of the OAS' strong commitment to supporting activities to strengthen governance in the region, and as a recognition that such initiatives are most likely to succeed if approached on a regional basis, by sharing experiences and developing common policy initiatives and strategies for meeting challenges.

The featured speakers at the opening ceremony were:

• Dr. Elsie Le Franc, Director of the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), Mona Campus, University of the West Indies (UWI).

In her opening remarks, Dr. Le Franc observed that the global political economy, driven by philosophies of globalization, the market economy and a minimalist approach on the part of the State, carried powerful implications for vulnerable regional States. Regional cooperation on issues such as local government was one possible response. Collaborative efforts would yield benefits if they concentrated on network-building and collegiality, institutional strengthening, development of regional expertise and knowledge base, and promotion of endogenous solutions to development problems.

• Ambassador Christopher R. Thomas, Assistant Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

The Assistant Secretary General emphasized that it was essential for peace, stability and development that lessons learned about governance and social management be channeled into meeting present challenges. In establishing strong and stable democracies in the face of such challenges, it was important to institute mechanisms and instruments which would advance the process of decentralization and re-empower local government institutions. He considered that such arrangements for local governance must promote the interests of the entire community; draw on social networks and traditions of neighborliness, community based involvement and volunteerism; promote transparency and confidence in public institutions; build community leadership. The Assistant Secretary General noted that effective participation is essential to democracy.

• Professor Rex Nettleford, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of the West Indies.

Professor Nettleford advised that strategies to make local government work for and through the people must be firmly rooted in a culture of partnership, forged by the State, the private sector, and the people-at-large mobilized for people-based thought and action. Strategies must also draw on community action models developed across the region. He emphasized that local government must be consonant with the aspirations of participatory democracy, the optimization of productivity and the creation of a well educated, highly skilled and culturally confident human resource base on which the future of the entire Caribbean depends.

In the course of its deliberations, the Workshop analyzed three background discussion papers, prepared with the objective of stimulating an exchange of views:

• "Caribbean Local Governance: Re-examining the Building Blocks" by Professor Edwin Jones of the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus in Jamaica, who also served as local technical coordinator for the Workshop.

• Caribbean Local Government. Development and Economic Issues by Dr, Neville Duncan, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus in Barbados.

• The Ombudsman and Effective Local Public Administration co-authored by Dr. Derek McKoy and Dr. Yvonne Stone of the Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus.

Complementing the presentation of the above paper by Dr. McKoy, the Workshop heard from Ms. Lawrence Laurent, the Parliamentary Commissioner (Ombudsman) of Saint Lucia, on issues related to the Office of the Ombudsman and its role in promoting efficient public service delivery and good governance, including at the local level. Ms. Laurent also provided information on the Commonwealth Regional Workshop "Strengthening National Ombudsman and Human Rights Institutions in the Caribbean" held in Antigua and Barbuda, March 9-12, 1998, which decided to establish the Caribbean Ombudsman Association, of which she is interim Secretary.

These presentations and background discussion papers promoted lively debate, providing a backdrop for the rich exchanges of information and experiences among the participating Member States, each of which shared information on national developments in the areas of decentralization, local governance and citizen participation. Interspersed with the e plenary presentations and discussions, informal micro workshops facilitated greater in-depth examination of specific issues and cases.

The Workshop also heard a presentation from Ms. Anne Marie Blackman, Senior Specialist, Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, on the overall objectives of the "Program of Cooperation in Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation". The general Program orientations had been recommended by government officials of OAS Member States at the Seminar on "Support to Processes of Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation" held in Caracas, Venezuela in May 1997. Ms. Blackman stated that the UPD is committed to implementing the Program of Cooperation in accordance with priorities designated by the participating countries of each sub-region, and within available resources. She noted that the UPD is particularly interested in collaboration and coordination with other institutions and agencies working on similar issues.

Mr. Charles Skeete, Senior Advisor in the Strategic Planning and Operational Policy Department of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) also addressed participants on IDB operations in the region and the approach of the IDB to the issues under discussion. Mr. Skeete noted the importance attached by the Bank to consensus and capacity building activities, given the objective of assisting the region to identify priorities in terms of strengthening civil society in general, and implementation capacity in particular. He also observed that, in 1997, the IDB had made several loans or grants to countries in the region to fund projects designed to improve governance, strengthen civil society, build solidarity networks, assist small businesses and protect vulnerable groups.

The Workshop concluded with a session at which participants identified shared priorities as a basis for collaborative action within the UPD Program of Cooperation. In closing the proceedings, brief votes of thanks were offered by Dr. Elsie Le Franc, Director, Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI, and Ms. Anne-Marie Blackman, Senior Specialist, Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, OAS.

a. Caribbean Local Governance: Re-Examining the Building Blocks by Professor Edwin Jones, UWI, Mona

This paper focussed on the author's conceptualization of a new orientation for local governance in the Caribbean to help to meet present regional governance challenges. The social and political history of local government development in the sub-region were reviewed, with the observation that such reform as had obtained in the past had primarily been concerned with creation of bureaucratic structures, rather than with processes designed to foster accountability and good local governance. Meaningful local or community governance was defined as "people power" which thrives on arrangements for co-management, using government as one instrument, and looked outward to the community served, rather than inward to the bureaucracy and elected officials.

The presenter considered that there was a need to re-examine local governance structures, re-furbishing them with new building blocks. In recent years, this need was also recognized by international agencies which had become aware that the mobilization of civil society was a critical imperative in democratization. It was observed, "that a vigorous local government system is essential for the flourishing of a strong civil society and equally, a strong civil society is critical for the existence of a creative democratic local government system."

A review of the doctrine and practice of "new public management" showed that these new management techniques focussed on output and results. Thus the success of this approach depended on effective performance monitoring and control, capabilities which tend to be in short supply in local level structures throughout the region. New public management systems may be of benefit depending on context, but they are most effective where civil society is alive and vigilant, and where people function as active citizens rather than as passive subjects. The presenter further observed that "market mechanisms do not necessarily resolve central problems of politicization, accountability, participation and capacity building. If anything, Caribbean local government systems may require a mix of management approaches".

Workshop participants were urged to "rethink" their approaches to local governance. They should, the presenter advised, think "dangerously", "in opposites" and in "upside down" fashion since, in his opinion, conventional approaches had not worked. Thinking should be visionary, long term and critical. This form of thinking, he noted, carried powerful policy and management implications for governance at the local and community level.

b. Caribbean Local Government: Development and Economic Issues, by Dr. Neville Duncan, UWI, Cave Hill

This presenter argued the point that Caribbean local governments or local governance structures should have a special mandate to help eradicate poverty, food insecurity and joblessness. The aim should be to provide local work for local people in local areas and communities.

The view was expressed that the State in the Caribbean had a vital role to play in seeking to achieve the collective good of society, and that local State institutions also had a critical responsibility to undertake some of the functions which currently bog down state actors operating at the national level. In the opinion of the presenter, local government is well situated between central government and non-state actors and their organizations to play a meaningful role in community development and poverty reduction, effectively contributing to the wealth of the nation. Thus the point was emphasized that local government should not be bypassed in the haste to create parallel institutions.

A central argument of this presenter was that local government in the Caribbean should be given financial autonomy, as well as status in national constitutions. They should likewise be explicitly regarded as community development agencies. In commenting on the role of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), the presenter noted that most do not have the resources or capacity to undertake major projects on a sustained basis. As such, they must be regarded as co-partners with State and local government bodies rather than as their competitors.

The critical role identified for local government bodies in the context of the new international economic order was as a component of a new economic system, designated "the third economic way". It was considered that there was much scope for this in the Caribbean, where the focus of local government activity should be to generate internally directed initiatives which create employment and help eradicate poverty.

The presenter concluded: "The reformed state, it is hoped, would recognize the necessity to transfer a significant proportion of the national revenues to villages and rural areas and adopt a third sector economic development approach which would provide local work for local people in local communities. In all of these processes, non-state sectors will find an appropriate place with central and local government to defend and realize national sovereignty, achieve social equity and protect human rights in the face of the awesome changes occurring in a rapidly re-structuring world yet to become, in any significant measure, globalized."

c. The Ombudsman and Effective Local Public Administration, by Dr. Derrick McKoy and Dr. Yvonne Stone, UWI, Mona

This presentation and accompanying paper outlined advantages and disadvantages of local government as well as the benefits to be derived from the institution of the Ombudsman as an effective arbiter in public administration, including at the local level.

In listing advantages of local government, the presenter mentioned: leadership training; provision of outlets for broader or unique expressions of views and behavior than might be accommodated at national government level; ownership of the policy-making processes at the community level. On the side of disadvantages, while local government could and does breed venality, corruption and the abuse of power, it was considered that its positive potential outweighs these possible drawbacks.

The presenter considered that the powers and function of the Ombudsman, including: powers of investigation, commanding information, bringing contentious issues to public attention, interceding on behalf of citizens, were invaluable services in public administration, and could even be viewed as a type of legal aid. The manner in which the institution operates is free of the constraints posed by courtroom procedures such as rules of evidence, considerations of locus standi, among others.

The presenter was of the view that the Ombudsman institution has not realized its inherent potential, and, in several countries in which it has been established, suffers from chronic difficulties such as shortages of human and financial resources and public ignorance of the role and functions of the Ombudsman, among others.

2. Fundamental Themes

An important aspect of the Workshop was the exchange of state-of-the-art information among the Permanent Secretaries and officials present on policies and innovations in the areas of decentralization, local governance and citizen participation in their respective countries. Presentations were followed by the commentary of a discussant, usually from among the other senior officials present, who elaborated on areas of particular interest, expressed agreement or disagreement with specific points, cited additional examples or cases, and generally complemented the presentation. Taking into account the information obtained from the national presentations, background discussion papers and the views expressed on these, as well as deliberations in the micro-workshops, it can be said that the Workshop focussed on the following key themes:

• Decentralization;
• Development;
• Communitarianism;
• Capacity building
• Ombudsmanship.

Against the backdrop of the numerous local governance and community participation experiences in the Caribbean, there was not always consensus nor clear-cut conclusions on these themes by Workshop participants. Nonetheless, it was generally agreed that they are among the major themes to be taken into consideration in policy formulation for decentralization, strengthening local governance and promoting community participation.

a. Decentralization

Participants generally agreed with the point in the paper of Professor Jones that successful local governance requires that decentralization go beyond a simple transfer of power and responsibilities from central to local levels. It would involve the re-design of structures, procedures and practices that change the orientations of stakeholders, and deliver appropriate needs-based goods and services. Decentralization should be accompanied by systems of multiple accountability reinforced by appropriate audit devices. Such systems would require direct answerability downward to clients for performance, use of resources, enforcement of rules of the game, and protection of personal rights. There was general agreement that institution of policies aimed at strengthening civil society and community participation is essential for successful local governance. Social capital, reflected in the willingness and ability of communities to work together for common purposes, is vital to all of these processes.

b. Development

A major challenge in the sub-region is promotion of sustainable local development. Successful local development must spring from local initiative, official or State facilitation and market principles; it was considered that this process was achievable through the local government framework. The process must be oriented to achieving economic growth, social equity, organizational capability and community empowerment.

It was considered that certain strategies could effectively promote a nexus between local governance and sustainable development. One such strategy was advocated by the academic sector, namely legislating local governments as economic development agencies, mandated to help eradicate poverty, food security and unemployment. This type of strategy emphasizes a "third sector" approach to development, that provides "local work for local people in local communities". In this model, primacy would be given to micro project development as policy experiments. The special challenge noted by proponents of the model would be to impart project management skills, protect against the capture of these economic units by external forces and ensure that NGOs, the State and communities work as genuine partners.

c. Communitarianism

The Workshop analyzed a definition of the term "communitarianism, which was, in essence, understood to be community empowerment. Communitarianism seeks to confront and resolve problems by community discourse and action. It recognizes that the community is the essential stakeholder and must be ultimately responsible for its own development processes. The communitarian approach requires sound leadership, a community development mission and action programs, dedicated resources and institutional connectedness with the people.

d. Capacity Building

It was generally agreed that local government and local governance systems in the sub-region suffer "capacity gaps", and that capacity building is a major priority. It was agreed that capacity building could be defined, in the terms presented in the background paper of Professor Jones, as a process through which individuals, groups and institutions increase, over time, their ability to comprehend and deal with their development needs. In this respect, it involves a process of personal, social and organizational change that depends on individual, local and institutional energy, commitment and ownership. In other words, capacity building is an action-based, continuous learning process in which stakeholders shape their own development, building appropriate commitments. This requires certain institutional, normative and human resource pre-conditions which, might be termed "building blocks".

e. Ombudsmanship

The Workshop agreed that local governance and community-based development are only possible within a framework of rights and justice. The institution of the Ombudsman could help to strengthen this framework. It was considered that Ombudsman institutions, both at the national or local level, could review cases of local level mal-administration and generally contribute to ensuring ethical and transparent public administration. The Ombudsman institution could, within the limits of its jurisdiction, assist in developing a somewhat less formalized justice machinery, capable of providing some measure of legal aid within local communities.

Minimum conditions seen as necessary for a supportive environment for effective ombudsmanship included:

1. An alert and informed public, sensitive to its rights and oriented to collective community action;

2. An institution adequately resourced in terms of finances, personnel, physical infrastructure and public accessibility;

3. Powers to enforce decisions;

4. Parliamentary review and debate of Ombudsman reports.

3. Main Messages from the Discussions

Workshop participants identified several factors presenting challenges to the development of effective local governance in the Caribbean. These include:

• Strong centralization. Participants felt that local communities needed to recoup the capacity to make an input into decisions which affect them. This would help to counteract a sense of community alienation and apathy, often reflected in low turnout at local government elections, and in the reluctance on the part of citizens to take part in community development activities. Over-zealous party politics at the local level could also have a negative impact on local governance.

• Lack of human and material resources. While local governments need to be equipped for effective operation, exclusive pursuit of the goals of efficiency and cost reduction would ran the risk of leaving local authorities severely underresourced. This approach was felt to be in need of re-assessment in favor of more sustainable solutions.

• Reluctance on the part of some central bureaucracies to relinquish what is seen as their turf and power. There seems to be only a dim perception that the role of central authorities is not diminished, but rather transformed, by decentralization and local governance processes. Central authority is essential for overall national cohesion and general policy coordination, particularly in certain sectors such as the environment, health, education, among others.

• Lack of dynamism in local government bureaucracies, some of which may prefer to adhere to the status quo, contriving to discourage community participation and input into local public policy issues and priorities.

• Pressing need for partnerships between local government officials, the private sector, NGOs and other community stakeholders, for the benefit of community development.

Notwithstanding these challenges, there was general agreement on the positive potential of local governance and community participation, particularly if given a supportive operating environment. The following elements were seen as essential in fostering such an environment:

Civil society must be mobilized, not only in support of local governance, but also as the hub of its operation. Local authorities require training in this respect, given that effective local governance encompasses not only the management of physical infrastructure (water, electricity, garbage, roads, among others) but also demands vision, creativity and dynamic leadership to energize the community which it serves.

• The potential for community empowerment needs to be demonstrated by positive reinforcement. Communities themselves need to be convinced, inter alia by positive example and experience, that their efforts will redound to their own benefit.

• Decentralization efforts should be accompanied by greater fiscal autonomy and the capacity to access or generate resources; absent such financial support, there is little scope for meaningful local government. One suggestion put forward was that a proportion of property taxes and licenses, among other revenue sources, should be transferred to local governments for their own use, subject to proper mechanisms of accountability and transparency.

• Constitutional or other legal entrenchment of local government and local governance mechanisms could contribute to avoiding radical policy changes or the shelving of reform which often follow a change of regime.

• Continuous civic education would greatly assist in sensitizing civil society to the operations of local governance systems and the means of accessing services and satisfying needs.

• Closer collaboration and consultation among and between all levels of national and international agencies must be fostered, given the key role of such coordination in avoiding duplication and wastage of human and material resources.

• Documenting and sharing information about which "best practices" obtain regionally and internationally would provide much needed positive reinforcement in support of local governance. Information on the various successful experiences should be analyzed and disseminated.

Several important points were also made with regard to the Ombudsman institution in the Caribbean:

• It was agreed that the Ombudsman institution has much potential for strengthening communities in their interface with officialdom, and for strengthening good governance.

• Regarding the need for an Ombudsman at the local level, it was noted that Ombudsmen are not now prevented from investigating local government issues, and that many in fact do. Some participants were of the view that creation of yet another regulatory body at the local level was probably not warranted in small states, and that it would be more feasible and economical to strengthen existing Ombudsman institutions, rendering them more sensitive to concerns at the local government and community level. It was likewise suggested that a complaints desk should be established in local government bodies, as is already the case in some countries.

• It was also felt that the Ombudsman's activities should not be complaint driven and that even more pro-activity was needed, through recommendations aimed at alleviating any systematic or systemic injustices.

1. General Needs

The deliberations of the Workshop indicated that while the Caribbean sub-region was making positive progress in strengthening local governance and promoting community participation, there are numerous needs and priorities in this area which could benefit from technical assistance and horizontal cooperation. Some of the general needs articulated in the Workshop are as follows:

• The potential economic and social impact of local government and local governance in the individual contexts of small States is an issue requiring careful analysis and consideration.

• Several countries with local government structures require development of strategies to strengthen the framework, and to support institution and capacity building, both in the political and administrative sectors of local government bodies.

• There is also a need for more information dissemination on the legal and regulatory framework for local government and citizen participation, as well as on successful strategies, models, innovations and experiences which could increase the range of options available to, and support the work of, regional policy-makers in local governance. Information and analysis of such areas as community mobilization, citizens' advisory councils, participatory methodologies, revitalization of community life, etc., would be helpful, as would information on other technical aspects such as fiscal decentralization. A publication such as an analytical manual of "best practices" would be useful, as would civic education materials on local and community governance.

• Assistance is also needed in the area of mechanisms and strategies for building partnerships for local and community development, such as partnerships between local government and the range of community stakeholders, including the private sector.

• Professional and management training are priorities. Training in some of the newer management technologies is urgently needed at the local level, but in general ongoing education and training activities, which include the necessary research and the development of procedural and operating manuals, are required for all participants in the local governance process.

Specifically mentioned in relation to training were workshops on local development; local project formulation, implementation and management; management of local facilities and infrastructure; workshops for new mayors, councilors and other officials working at the local and community levels; workshops for regional Ombudsmen; short term courses in local governance issues for all actors at the local government and community levels.

Notwithstanding the importance attributed to all of the above, the Workshop agreed that, for the purposes of the UPD "Program of Cooperation in Decentralization, Local Government and Citizen Participation" a focussed approach would be most appropriate in light of present resources. Participants thus indicated that, for the Caribbean component of this Program, the following areas should be priorities for attention:

• Dissemination of information and research on decentralization, local governance and citizen participation, including information on successful experiences, models and "best practices" in the sub-region;

• Aspects of local governance relating to economic and social development;

• Capacity and institution-building which would contribute to equipping all the actors of the local governance process to more effectively formulate and implement policy;

• Assistance to the newly formed Caribbean Ombudsman Association.

The UPD was requested by the Workshop to formulate a program of activities, in collaboration with other agencies, based on the discussions and recommendations of the Workshop, to assist in meeting the needs of CARICOM/OAS Member States in decentralization, local government and local governance and citizen participation; to report periodically on progress made; and to consider a follow-up meeting at an appropriate time.

Participants at the meeting formed the nucleus of a network of officials and resource personnel working on issues of local governance and civil society participation, a network which will be expanded as the Program of Cooperation is developed.

ANNEX I

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

Mrs. Victorine George-Alexander Acting Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs

State Insurance Building

Redcliffe Street

St. John's

Antigua and Barbuda

BAHAMAS (COMMONWEALTH OF THE)

Mr. Harrison Thompson Undersecretary

Department of Local Government

P.O. Box N 3040

Nassau

Commonwealth of the Bahamas

BARBADOS

Mr. Carlyle Carter Permanent Secretary

Prime Minister's Office

Government Headquarters

Bay Street

St. Michael

Barbados

CANADA

Mr. Stephen Blais Country Representative

Canadian International Development Agency

(CIDA)

Canadian High Commission

30 Knutsford Boulevard

Kingston

Jamaica 5

Ms. Carol Kerfoot First Secretary (Development)

Canadian International Development Agency

(CIDA)

Canadian High Commission

30-36 Knutsford Boulevard

Kingston 5

Jamaica

DOMINICA (COMMONWEALTH OF)

Mr. Alfred Leevy Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Community Development

and Women's Affairs

Government Headquarters

Roseau

Commonwealth of Dominica

GUYANA

Mr. Roshan Ali Regional Executive Officer/C.L.G. & R.D.0

Triumph Government Compound

East Coast Demerara

Guyana

Mr. Gerard Rutherford Regional Executive Officer

5 Yorkshire Hall

Mahaicony

East Coast Demerara

Guyana

HAITI

Mr. Paul Harry Voltaire Director of Local Collectivities

Impasse Bellevue #2

Port-au-Prince

Haiti

JAMAICA

Ms. Anne Marie Bonner Principal Director

Policy Analysis and Review Unit

Office of the Prime minister/Cabinet Office

1 Devon Road

Kingston 10

Jamaica

Mr. Lincoln Evans Director

Administration and Human Resource

Management

Kingston and St. Andrew Corporation

24 Church Street

Kingston

Jamaica

Mrs. Barbara James Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Local Government, Youth and

Community Development

85 Hagley Park Road

Kingston 10

Jamaica

Mrs. Schatzi McCarthy Senior Project Specialist

Ministry of Local Government, Youth and

Community Development

85 Hagley Park Road

Kingston 10

Jamaica

Mr. Keith Miller Consultant on Local Government Reform

Ministry of Local Government, Youth and

Community Development

85 Hagley Park Road

Kingston 10

Jamaica

Ms. Collette Robinson Programme Officer

Planning Institute of Jamaica

8 Ocean Boulevard

Kingston

Jamaica

Ms. Patricia Snow Director

Ministry of Water

6 St. Lucia Avenue

Kingston 5

Jamaica

SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS

Mr. Elvin Bailey Chief Secretary

Premier's Ministry

Administration Building

Charlestown

Nevis

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Mr. Joseph Edmeade Chief Secretary

Government Headquarters

Church Street

Basseterre

Saint Kitts and Nevis

SAINT LUCIA

Mrs. Jacinta St. Helene Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Community Development,

Co-operatives, Local Government and Culture

Government Buildings

The Waterfront

Castries

Saint Lucia

Ms. Lawrence Laurent Parliamentary Commissioner

Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner

Corner. Micoud and Bourbon Streets

P.O. Box 1139

Castries

Saint Lucia

SAINT.VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES

Mr. Noel Cooke Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Housing, Local Government,

Youth, Sports and Community Services

Kingstown

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

SURINAME

Mr. Paul Rogers Deputy Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Regional Development

Van Roosevelt Kade #2

Paramaribo

Suriname

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Mr. Joseph-Allard Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Local Government

Kent House

Long Circular Road

Maraval

Port of Spain

Trinidad and Tobago

Mr. Terrance Jurawan Local Government Planning Officer

Ministry of Local Government

Kent House

Long Circular Road

Maraval

Port of Spain

Trinidad and Tobago

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr. Charles Skeete Senior Advisor

Strategic Planning and Operational

Policy Department

Inter-American Development Bank

1300 New York Ave., N.W.

Washington D.C. 20577

USA

INTER-AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE

Dr. Chelston Brathwaite Country Representative

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation

on Agriculture

Hope Gardens

Kingston 6

Jamaica

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

Ambassador Christopher R. Thomas Assistant Secretary General

Organization of American States

17 th and Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

USA

Ms. Anne-Marie Blackman Senior Specialist

Unit for the Promotion of Democracy

Organization of American States

1889 F Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

USA

UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES

Professor Rex Nettleford Deputy Vice-Chancellor

University of the West Indies

Mona Campus

Kingston 7

Jamaica

Dr. Neville Duncan Senior Lecturer

Department of Government, Sociology

and Social Work

University of the West Indies

Cave Hill Campus

P.O.Box 64

Bridgetown

Barbados

Dr. Elsie Le Franc Director

Institute of Social and Economic Research

University of the West Indies

Mona

Kingston 7

Jamaica

Professor Edwin Jones Professor of Public Administration

Department of Government

Faculty of the Social Sciences

University of the West Indies

Mona

Kingston 7

Jamaica

Dr. Derrick McKoy Lecturer in Law

University of the West Indies

P.O. Box 148

Mona

Kingston 7

Jamaica

Professor Gladstone Mills Emeritus Professor of Public

Administration

University of the West Indies

Mona

Kingston 7

Jamaica

AND

Chairman

National Advisory Council on Local

Government Reform

Jamaica

Dr. Bishnu Ragoonath Lecturer

University of the West Indies

St. Augustine

Trinidad and Tobago

Professor Selwyn Ryan University Director

Institute of Social and Economic Research

University of the West Indies

St. Augustine

Trinidad and Tobago

Ivan Cruickshank Graduate Students,

Denise Hunter Department of Government

Maxine Jackson University of the West Indies

Norma Williams Mona, Kingston, Jamaica

ANNEX 2

Kingston, Jamaica, June 8,1998

Ambassador Christopher Thomas, Assistant Secretary General, Organisation of American States; Professor Rex Nettleford, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UW1; Mrs. Barbara James, 'Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development, Permanent Secretaries, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First, let me welcome everyone to this workshop on Local Government, Communitarianism, and the Citizen. I believe that it is the first time that the Institute of Social [and Economic Research will host a workshop of this nature; that is, one which will speak to the issues of local government, and one which has been able to pull together such a distinguished [collection of technical experts as we have here today. When the OAS approached us to ask for [our collaboration in this venture, the speed of our positive response was probably almost indecent. But we agreed to be involved as the principal executing body because we consider the topics to be discussed over the next two days to be of such tremendous importance.

For those of us old enough to remember, there was a time when it was commonly believed - at least in our part of the world - that if the political kingdom were sought first, all else would be added. Harsh experience has shown otherwise, and now that we must confront the current fascination with, and belief in, the minimalist state, the imperative of the market, and the all-embracing character of the wider global forces, it is necessary to examine - in as frank and realistic a manner as possible - the appropriate role and functions of the state at central and local levels. This should be done while always bearing in mind the resource limitation of the countries 'in the region, and the importance of maintaining and even revitalising the democratic traditions to which we have all become accustomed.

It is now quite obvious to most of us that the development process in the Caribbean is in a bit of a quagmire at the present time. Some countries are more bogged down than others, and in a few cases, movement would appear to be backwards. However, gone are - or, should be - the days when a blaming finger could be easily and quickly pointed at the terrible colonials and imperialists. As Lloyd Best asked some years ago, "What is the problem? We are in charge!" We really need therefore to look more closely at ourselves in the mirror, and as we seek to find 'institutional arrangements that will better facilitate the development process, we need to try to identify those forms of governance that are relevant and workable in the Caribbean region. As we seek to identify and implement these, it is also necessary to hope that the fact of being "in charge" will by now enable us to have the confidence to - without guilt, anxiety and misplaced bravado - learn from others and reject what may not be considered appropriate.

It is because of our belief in the importance of this topic that we at ISER have incorporated this whole area as a vital part of our research portfolio. In this regard, I wish to pay special tribute to Dr, Neville Duncan, who - during his tenure as Acting Director of ISER (Mona) - was responsible for initiating and promoting this activity in the Caribbean. We are therefore really delighted to be able to collaborate with the OAS in this endeavour.

However, having stated what I consider to be some of the general issues and needs in respect of this particular matter of local government, let me quickly emphasise that a workshop of this kind has, of necessity, to be more modest in its aims and objectives. Modesty is also required precisely because this is one of our first ventures in this field. This workshop must then be considered to be a "first step" exercise for Caribbean local government policy leaders to extend the discourse on democratic renewal in the Caribbean region. The workshop will also seek to go beyond that, in that it aims to build networks and collegiality within the region's local government sector. Joint action - including the deepening and broadening of relationships with the international agencies of aid and advice will be pursued. Another important aim will be the extension of the mutual learning process by directly focusing on "best" and "worst" practices, and on critical development and implementation issues in the different countries in the region.

The expected outcomes of these two days of deliberations are specific. It is hoped that possible solutions and options in priority areas will be identified, and that participants will be able to design a "next steps" agenda from the range of ideas to be presented and discussed at this workshop. Some possibilities that can be considered are as follows:

a) The design and promotion of a programme of institutional strengthening and capacity building for national government decentralisation agencies, and civil society institutions;

b) The increased availability of regional expertise in certain areas;

c) The identification of possible projects for social and economic development at the local level; and

d) The development of regionally focused training methodologies.

From these aims and objectives, the overall idea will be to develop a programme of work, and a body of knowledge that can serve as a basis for policy formulation and teaching. It is further hoped that out of this exercise will come clear indications about the research priorities that should inform the ongoing work around these topics and issues. One important start in the effort to advantageously integrate research and teaching may be seen in the involvement of graduate students from the Faculty of Social Sciences, UWI, as rapporteurs and resources persons. We consider this to be a very important aspect of their training process.

In closing this very brief welcoming note, let me wish you a very productive two days, and we certainly look forward to the outputs of your deliberations at this Workshop.

ANNEX 3

Kingston, Jamaica, 8 June 1998

The question of citizen participation in government has always been a driving force for change. It is a question that has created social upheavals and even revolutions at the national and community levels in many parts of the world. The history of humankind is strewn with examples of feudal societies yielding to more open and participatory democracies, passing at times through oppressive non-participatory monarchies and dictatorships.

Much of the violence of the twentieth century at the global level and the regional, subregional or national levels - in the form of armed conflict, trade wars, civil unrest, social upheavals and destabilization -has taught humanity some important lessons. We have learnt many things. In the realm of governance and social management, we have learnt that informed and broadbased participation founded on principles of justice and concern for the common good are ultimately essential to peace and stability. We have also learnt, especially in these last years of the twentieth century, that social and political structures cannot be static, that as a society, or rather the very culture of humanity itself, they are evolutionary and in constant need of adaptation, review, and reform.

The Caribbean is a different world today from that of the colonial period, which established the foundations of Caribbean social structures, governments, and administrative and legislative institutions. The globalization that we are experiencing has left all our communities open and vulnerable. It has also provoked mutations not only in our social fabric, but also in the way we think and act and interpret events around us. We can even dare to speak of the "new Caribbean person" who must confront a new age, a new reality and, indeed, a new future. Such are the challenges which, as individual nations and as a collective sub-regional entity, the Caribbean must confront in its efforts to preserve and foster the true democratic ideal. That is why the conference that begins here today on the theme Local Government, Communitarianism, and the Citizen: Opportunities and Challenges is so important.

I congratulate the government of Jamaica for its role, in conjunction with the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy of our Organization of American states, in organizing this conference. I note with appreciation the role played by Jamaica, in conjunction with Uruguay, in the preparation of the theme on Civil Society for the recent Second Summit of the Americas in Santiago, Chile, in April 1998.

This conference is a follow-up to the meeting held in Barbados in September 1997, on the topic Governance, Democracy, and Civil Society in the Caribbean Community. At that conference a number of conclusions and recommendations were adopted which, we hope, this present conference will serve to advance. Since the last conference in Barbados, the Second Summit of the Americas has engaged new responsibilities in the area of 'Civil Society and the Democratic Process.' Today's conference, the first since the Summit, is particularly important from two perspectives: it challenges the Caribbean to confront its own realities in the light of evolving circumstances, and it can also set the pace of things to come for the rest of the Hemisphere where similar exercises will follow.

The theme of this conference focuses on local government. The thrust, therefore, can only be the identification and development of mechanisms and instruments, which will advance the process of decentralization so as to re-empower local government institutions to execute certain basic functions within the community. In strengthening the structure and function of local government, civil participation in the democratic process will be broadened beyond the ballot box at a general election. A more immediate sense of responsibility for, and involvement in the political and democratic process will be introduced and an environment will be created to reverse the increasing indifference, which is affecting most modem democracies.

At the recently concluded general elections in the Dominican Republic, the Organization of American States called attention to the political authorities of that country at the very low turnout of the general electorate. This is one illustration of the increasing indifference of our population to the democratic process.

Douglas Payne, in his recent paper on Democracy in the Western Hemisphere into the Next Century, identifies other reasons for disillusionment with the democratic process. He cites a lack of the rule of law, compromised judiciaries, systematic corruption, poverty, and the increasing pervasiveness of the use of illicit drugs.

In a world that is rapidly intensifying the nature of "virtual" relationship at every level of social interaction, the tendency is for people to establish deeper contact with their computer and those who have access to one, than with the immediate environment in which they live. For example, anyone in any of our villages and any part of our cities for that matter, who has access to the Internet, can be more in tune with what goes on farther afield than be concerned with developments around his immediate geographical area. In a situation where responsibility for these developments are extremely removed for those directly affected, the indifference that this can generate can be dangerous for the future of the entire country.

With globalization and the technological revolution, no area of the world is inaccessible. This means that wherever there seems to be some vacuum to be filled, it will be filled. What we must ensure is that at the level of our local communities, these needs are met by those most immediately affected, whose day-to-day lives are affected by policy decisions, and whose involvement and contribution serve to strengthen the democratic process at the national level.

In today's rapidly advancing world of market economies, we all agree that a major condition for economic advancement is the development of strong and stable democracies, the entrenchment of open and solid juridical and legislative systems, just administrative structures, and a government that is accountable to the citizen body which elected it to serve. The ideal is not to introduce those elements as a canopy enveloping the social framework of society but rather as a force, which mushrooms from the terrain of the local communities and spreads out to envelop the entire nation.

These are the objectives, I understand, that this conference seeks to enhance and consolidate in our region of the Caribbean. Your presence here today is testimony of the desire of each of your countries to explore ways to create a more just and participatory social order and governance. You are also the means by which such improvements on existing systems can be set in motion. As senior officials in departments of local government and related fields, your wealth of experience qualifies you to make fairly accurate assessments of your own individual national situation. Details will vary from country to country, but generally all the countries of the region stand to benefit from increased community participation and empowerment in the area of government through revalorization of local government

One of the greatest challenges for increased empowerment of local government and a broadening of community participation, is the risk of party political loyalties paralyzing the effectiveness of these bodies with consequent increasing division and rivalries in those communities. It is critical, therefore, to ensure that local governments be as objective and nonpartisan as possible so that through their efficiency in dealing with local issues, communities can be enriched in terms of the local functions of government, and also in terms of the requisite social networking to weed out corruption and advance the interests of the entire community. This clearly is one social function where the opportunities for success are undeniably far more compelling than the complexities of its challenges.

The Caribbean enjoys a cultural tradition of neighborliness, community-based involvement, volunteerism, dedication, and sacrifice, which are important elements on which the local government exercise can draw. Our own history informs that people are always prepared to come forward in the interest of the common good, provided they discern the presence of honesty, genuine selflessness, and fair play.

This is especially so today when everyone is aware of the dangers which our communities face, when concern for the future becomes every day more acute, when society everywhere seems increasingly imperiled, where leadership motivation is constantly questioned and where a search and reassertion are essential to a reconstruction of societal awareness and consciousness. Two months ago, in Washington, a Caribbean seminar on future leadership and the leadership qualities that most motivated Caribbean youth revealed the attributes of commitment, cause, and involvement.

It is my belief that these qualities are prevailing viewpoints. It is also my belief that democracy will not survive and cannot be advanced without the effective participation of civil society. A participation that must be founded on principles of justice for the future development of communities as a whole. This is a fundamental obligation on all those who seek and have been elected to govern.

We are, therefore, all involved in a responsibility to enkindle these values throughout the Caribbean. We can do so here by formulating the proposals, launching the initiatives and inviting participation for the ultimate results.

The Heads of State and Government of the entire hemisphere have pledged their support for civil society. The Heads of State and Government of the Caribbean have made a commitment to that cause. Conditions and circumstances are therefore cogent to its pursuit.

I thank the government of Jamaica for this most important initiative and I thank you for your participation. Best wishes for a successful outcome of your meeting in the interest of effective democracy throughout the region.

ANNEX 4

Kingston, Jamaica, 8 June, 1998

I bring greetings from the Vice Chancellor and the University of the West Indies, which by its very nature and stated remit has a vested interest in the promotion of local government and the implications for civil society and democratic governance. This particular exercise comes on the eve of proffered local government elections in Jamaica. These elections carry their own burden of concerns about fairness and frequency in the light of the urgent need for electoral reform and the repeated postponement of the event in order to get things right.

With the delay, comes the reinforcement of the view that any contemplation of a future for this country that treasures individual freedom, believes in the right and capacity of the citizenry to direct its own destiny, and in the integrity in representational government to achieve this, must foster and promote a culture of partnership as a guiding principle towards democratic governance.

Such "partners" are mainly the State (as hub, nexus or broker), the private sector (comprising employers and managers workers and their trade unions, operators of big business and micro-entrepreneurs) and the people-at-large mobilised for people-based thought and action. "Such tripartite, coordinated approach to governance," as I have said elsewhere, "deserves serious application consonant with the aspirations of participatory democracy and the optimization of productivity for a well-educated, highly skilled and culturally confident human resource base", on which the future of the entire Caribbean depends.

The local government mechanism is a tried-and-tested, guaranteed modality for achieving this. Communitarianism as an "ism" is not without its detractors, especially where it makes exaggerated claims for its potential for meeting the harsh realities of a world which in its increasingly "globalised" form transforms the simplest local demand into a complex issue that speaks to factors beyond national and regional boundaries.

But no one can complain with what we might simply call "community action" as an integral part of the mix of modalities serving a modem civil society.

The West Indies is no stranger to this. Who can forget "Free Villages" like Sligoville and Buxton in Guyana? But for this, the post-Emancipation period could not have served the relatively orderly transition from slavery to freedom for the vast majority. The early self-government movement wisely settled for community development even before the establishment of political parties, or of representative government elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage. And those of us who grew up with vestries and municipalities or parochial boards (later renamed parish councils in Jamaica) had a real chance for ready dialogue with local representatives whom we actually saw, and who lived among us, before we sent elected members to Parliament in our nations' capitals which tend to keep them out of sight until near general elections.

We are also no strangers to a perverse and deliberate programme of emasculation of the local government system. And all in the name of efficiency which, paradoxically, is not necessarily the linchpin of democracy. Many a dictatorship (like the one presided over by Hitler and that other system engineered in South Africa by the Apartheid regimes) turned out to be far more operationally efficient than established democracies in the short run. Investment in local government is an investment in human capability for self-governance over the long haul in building a nation and shaping a society.

Local government becomes necessary for yet another reason. Whatever the claims of market-forces, whatever the reason cited for the dismal decline of the old Soviet empire built on statism, the citizens' easy and inexpensive access to primary healthcare, running water, education, decent housing, good roads - all hallmarks of social justice, equity and the building of self-esteem - remain on the agenda of humankind's concern. The hijacking of all these basic community responsibilities by a central government into a national monopoly by this or that party has served to deprive local communities of a sense of purpose all over the region, and has resulted in a certain cynicism duly exploited by talk shows in Jamaica, and for which we are now paying dearly.

To less-count the ordinary citizens' own understanding of what is involved in their own future, starting with concerns nearest to existence, is to court disaster. Successive administrations have not succeeded in taking them seriously enough on this score, other than as electoral statistics, consumers, anthropological/sociological specimens. The interesting thing about all this is that after centuries on the margin our people have developed fantastic ways of frustrating the powerful. They all know how to make things not work.

The obvious solution to this endemic problem is to genuinely empower the people. Give them back the power to deal with the first line of operation - their community. Restoring to the region the opportunity of dynamic community action as a central part of the strategy of growth and development is therefore a major challenge at this time. This makes the agenda for the new millennium, which comes hard on the heels of the next Jamaican local government election, and any other after that, a matter of urgency.

Community action, as part of the development strategy, was at the heart of Norman Manley's political credo. Jamaica Welfare Limited, which predated the founding of the PNP itself, as I earlier indicated, was to be the basis of the self-reliance, patriotism and sense of purpose which informed Jamaican rural and urban life throughout the early self government movement. Trinidad and Tobago itself took an interest in this, as Professor Selwyn Ryan who has documented this fact so well knows.

As basis for people-empowerment in the 1990s, the fostering of community action still has a central place. And the local government mechanism offers an excellent opportunity to realize this. But for this to happen, it will take all the ingenuity of modem state-craft and a certain sensitivity to social dynamics, coupled with a genuine respect for people as the prime source of energy for development and growth. Nothing short of a series of workshops, colloquies, seminars and groundings for sitting local government councilors and those to be newly elected all over the region will help sensitise them to their responsibilities.

The present workshop is none too soon. Let us regard it as preamble to what should be an on-going exercise of education, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. The University is happy to be associated with any such initiative on making local government work through the mobilisation of energies of the mass of the population, who exist beyond being consumers or statistical units on voting lists.

What a splendid opportunity, indeed, to have politics again make sense for the many it once served so well.

I thank you.

ANNEX 5

1. Madame Chairperson, Dr. Elsie Le Franc, Director Institute of Social and Economic Research, UWI; Ambassador Christopher R. Thomas, Assistant Secretary General, OAS; Mrs. Joan Neil, Director, Office of OAS in Kingston and Ms. Anne-Marie Blackman, Senior Specialist, Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, OAS; Deputy Vice-Chancellor Rex Nettleford; Professor Edwin Jones and other members of the UWI; Representatives of the various donor and funding agencies present; Mayors, Councilors and representatives of the various Central and Local Government agencies from the Caribbean region; distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen: It is with distinct pleasure that I undertake the pleasant task of bringing greetings to this very important and pioneering Workshop, on behalf of the Honourable Arnold Bertram, Minister of Local Government Youth and Community Development. The Minister is unfortunately unable to attend himself, but sends his profound regret and also his best wishes for a successful and productive Workshop. He has asked me to extend the following greeting on his behalf
2. I would first like to extend a very warm welcome, on behalf of the Government and people of Jamaica, to all participants in this Workshop, and in particular to our visitors from neighbouring Caribbean countries, as well as representatives of all the different international agencies, countries and institutions which are sharing in this event.
3. I would also like to express the appreciation of the Government to the sponsors of the Workshop - the OAS, and in particular the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy, for the decision to hold this Workshop, and for choosing this region, and Jamaica, for staging what we understand to be the first of a series of similar Workshops to be held throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. We take this as an indication of the OAS' strong commitment to supporting initiatives to improve the process of governance in the Region, and a recognition that such initiatives are most likely to succeed if they are approached on a regional basis, by sharing experiences and attempting to develop common policy prescriptions for meeting the challenges and taking advantage of the opportunities which present themselves. We also want to express appreciation to the organizers, the Institute of Social and Economic Research and other Departments of the UW I, who have taken on a difficult task and have obviously done an excellent job in making the arrangements for the staging of the Workshop.
4. The staging of the Workshop is very timely, and its theme and the issues which are to be addressed indicate that it will be of great interest and value to Jamaica, and to the Ministry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development in particular. The present Government has both stated and demonstrated its belief in and commitment to the creation of a strong and vibrant system of decentralized local administration, through policy initiatives in respect to Local Government Reform and the empowerment of communities and civil society, for which policies this Ministry has the primary mandate.
5. The Ministry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development (MLG, Y&CD) brings under one umbrella the subjects of Local Government and the reform of that system, as well as Community. Development, Youth and Culture. This reflects the Government's conviction that the objective of creating a strong and effective system of local government can only be achieved through the active and direct participation of civil society in the process of local governance, and further, that the processes of local governance and effective and sustainable community development are inextricably bound together. This Ministry therefore has as its focal objective the transformation of the Local Government system to enable it to successfully take on the task of effective local self management of the functions assigned to this level of government, and to forge a participatory model of local governance, in which local communities and civil society are empowered to function as effective partners in this process.
6. The Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP) represents the Government's major policy initiative towards achieving this objective, and this is supported by a general policy of promoting and facilitating strong community participation in programme execution in a wide range of national programmes, including environmental and disaster management, public health, security, shelter, etc. The Government has also initiated several projects aimed at supporting community-led development, including the Jamaica Social Investment Fund and the Poverty Eradication Programme, all of which seek to encourage significant participation and inputs from the NGO and Community Based Organisations.
7. The LGRP is essentially a response to a number of historic and contemporary factors, including:

* A long tradition of local government in Jamaica, dating back to 1662.

* A strong conviction on the part of the present Government that an effective system of local government is essential to the deepening and strengthening of our democracy, and to facilitate meaningful participation of citizens in the process of governance,

* Some level of dissatisfaction with the performance of Local Authorities in the past, and therefore the need to bring about significant improvement in their performance, if they are to fill the expectations and demands which they will face in the new paradigm of citizen participation and enhanced local self-management.

8. The LGRP is therefore essentially a local product in terms of design and content.

However, as our own Programme developed, similar programmes have emerged and are currently being pursued in most parts of the world, and especially in this region. We are anxious to benefit from other experiences and the sharing of ideas and knowledge which have emerged in this field, and therefore welcome this Workshop as a means of sharing experiences with our Caribbean brothers, and as an opportunity to develop common policy initiatives and strategies in this area. We look forward to the outcome of the Workshop to be of great assistance to our efforts in respect to local government reform and enhancing the role of civil society in the process of governance.

9. We also note that sharing in this Workshop are representatives of a number of donor and funding agencies, several of whom have already demonstrated their interest and goodwill by providing tangible support to the Government of Jamaica in areas relevant to those which will be discussed during this Workshop. We trust that the Workshop will I serve to reinforce the interest of those who are already involved, and to convince others of the importance and urgency of support for the policy initiatives which we hope will emerge as a consensus from this Workshop.

10. In closing, let me extend good wishes for a successful and productive Workshop, and hope that our visitors will have a most enjoyable stay in our island.

ANNEX 6

Development strategies in the Caribbean have been changing over time. The transition from narrow colonial objectives to the post-colonial mission of 'development' was somewhat planned. This "development administration" approach experimented with various strategies, but within the framework of old systems of public administration. All the transitional objectives were therefore not met. Conceptually, there was, however, the recognition that socio-economic progress required better articulated forms of decentralized government. Practice, however, was mostly halting. Guided by the international policy network of aid and advice, significant policy shifts have been made toward 'market-led development' since the 1980s, although some role in addressing community needs was defined for institutions of local government.

This has been the general approach to institution building and policy development across the Commonwealth Caribbean, with some variations. This paper is mainly concerned with reexamining certain concepts and strategies needed to aid the transition from current practices of local government to norms of local governance. Objectively, the context or 'task environment' is indifferent, if not resistant to change. It also suffers from technical incapacity and over-bureaucratization

Caribbean state systems have historically been committed to strong centralizing impulses in Public Administration. Normally, the centre assumes control for performance of the whole system, exercising responsibility for the establishment of administrative standards, strategies, priorities as well as resources. In effect, it meant avoidance of meaningful power sharing, unequal power structures and central control over local communities (Mills: 9).

Within this general centralized format, symbolic forms of 'local government' have survived for "hundreds of years". Initially, they served as convenient centres for collegial interaction among local elites. Later they functioned to accommodate alliances between partisan representatives, state bureaucrats and community notables. In these roles, they neither represented popular needs and expectations nor reflected meaningful accountability. Nonetheless, within the symbolic, formal system, certain voluntary and mostly independent institutional networks continued to help build local problem-solving capacity (Robotham: 11).

Commitment to fully developed local government systems would remain lop-sided for a long time. Duncan's (2: pp 41-43) typology of Caribbean local government systems as 'legal/constitutional', 'informal', 'non-existent', and some as embracing 'entire island' units, underscores this claim. There was accordingly much ambivalence on the question of what such systems would deliver. Supporters claimed that systems of local government would advance values of "development and good government". In particular, they would expand opportunities for self-determination, capacity building and participation in decision-making at the community level. In addition, they would help improve the economic and social life of the rural poor. Further, they were expected to improve the managerial aspects of government: their efficiency, accountability and responsiveness. Moreover, especially in the states of cultural pluralism and racial bifurcation, it was anticipated that local-level government would weaken these and other 'historical particularisms'. Those opposed to experimenting with such systems tended mainly to rationalize their position on grounds of inappropriateness for states of small size, fear of 4 capture' by the political opposition and as bad policy, in a context of financial stringency or insufficiency.

This culture of ambivalence, resource starvation and a record of under-performance have helped to undermine institutional legitimacy. In normal times, most have functioned as 44 ... system with responsibility without power." Normally, they have been denied necessary autonomy and have therefore been kept in a constant state of uncertainty. Some have suffered drastic diminution of power, suspension of activities and dissolution. In between, a series of political, management and ethical crises has also undermined capacity for effective management. Such situations merely complicate their well-known reactive, politicized and bureaucratized styles of action. Much cynicism is engendered by this framework that continues to reflect dependence on central government, seeming indifference toward local needs, and powerlessness of the people to make local authorities responsive.

Thirdly, regional local government systems have consistently embraced a limited and limiting vision of reform. This approach is evident from at least three perspectives. In the first place, the reform agenda has mostly ignored long-standing, structural problems related to accountability, unequal local power structures and continuing irritant central-local relations. The dominance of over-developed central bureaucracies and weaknesses in civil society complicate the situation. Secondly, the local government reform process has relied heavily on symbolism. A main vehicle of symbolic reform being the Commission of Enquiry and Review Committees, used passively. It has been passive in the sense that few, if any, of its significant recommendations have been implemented. Problems associated with implementation have mainly remained by default. Otherwise they have been addressed slowly, in piecemeal fashion, or prompted either by external forces or domestic crises.

Fourthly, the local government reform process has never seriously contemplated, much less implemented, the ideals of local governance. Local governance is about "people power". It thrives on arrangements of co-management, using government as one instrument. It confronts and resolves problems by community discourse and action. It seeks to provide services not to the public, but for the public and with the public. Put another way, community governance looks outward to the community it serves rather than inward to the bureaucracy. It recognizes that it is responsible and accountable to the community, so ultimately the community governs it.

A distinctive characteristic of the region's local government tradition then, is its negative image. In the public perception, it is a main centre of institutionalized corruption and venality. Because it may be a convenient 'pork barrel' for ruling parties and their supporters, it is never a prime candidate for thorough-going reform. Because public attitudes and opinions are not effectively mobilized against corruption, it escapes sustained scrutiny. Because local officials themselves may benefit from the existing institutional and procedural arrangements, they see little or no need to 'professionalize' the system. Growing public perception and knowledge of internal waste and mismanagement have compounded this image problem. Only reliance on an alternative set of concepts and reform tools would be able to convert these structures into genuine community or service organizations.

In recent times, governments and the international policy network have been emphasizing decentralization, accountability and governance within the framework of 'civil society,' as the essential building blocks for development. These structures and processes may be built and practiced at the local-level. Their implementation, however, is not likely to be problem-free.

As development practitioners continue to emphasize the promotion of economic growth, social equity and organizational capacity for meeting the basic needs of the poor, widespread participation in decision making and decentralization are seen as appropriate strategies. Decentralized systems of local government make accountability possible because citizens are more likely "to have direct encounters with, and can exercise control over, government organizations".. Local institutions are more strategically placed to know the specific needs of local citizens and to "deliver appropriate needs-based goods and services" (Haque: 6). Local level decision-makers that know their context are best able to provide services and solve problems with a higher degree of responsiveness.

In the conventional sense, decentralization is usually applied as a mechanical movement of power from central to local government. That approach has not enhanced local self-governance capacity. For decentralization to generate responsiveness, enhance popular participation and promote equitable access, it must be conceptualized somewhat differently. In particular, the process must involve re-design of structures, procedures and practices that change the consciousness and orientations of stakeholders. In short, it must enhance capacity locally and at the centre. Decentralization gains its force when it involves programme and policy innovation and the building of a culture of implementation (UNDP: 15; Global Forum: p3 1). None of that would be possible without a supporting agenda for improving management techniques and practices as well as human capital.

Development practitioners insist that stakeholder consciousness about decentralized decision-making must necessarily include awareness of its "costs and benefits" (See for example, (UNDP: 15; Global Forum: 1996; p. 19). The benefits include:

• "Facilitating greater popular participation;

• Increasing efficiency in determining service demand;

• Increasing flexibility of government in the presence of hanging circumstances;

• Enhancing the capacity to tailor solutions for local problems to local conditions;

• Providing the opportunity for a wide variety of innovations, an important precondition for significant policy and programmatic changes;

• Promoting pluralism and dynamism in a society;

• Broadening the potential of societal capacity-building;

• Providing increased accountability to the people".

Potential risks encountered during the implementation process might include:

• "Possible increase in inter-regional inequalities, leading to the potential widening of intra-national poverty gaps and fostering of politically destabilizing forces;

• High risk of resource capture by local elites;

• Possible misuse of authority in an environment of inadequate supervision;

• Inadequate implementation arrangements which can lead to disparity between the revenue available and the responsibilities needed to be carried out, which, in turn, would render local government systems ineffective".

Ultimately, the educated consciousness would make for stronger participation and greater confidence in choice making.

As local-level responsibilities expand with decentralization, the necessity for accountability increases. Administrative accountability is one such form. On one level, it is understood as answerability for the efficient performance of assigned functions, This is normally called role accountability. However, when "strongly formalized", the concept extends to "the power of prior approval". This means subjecting internal management decisions to other levels of control and review (Polidano/Hulme: 10). According to the doctrine of the New Public Management, output-based accountability also helps to make local level officials more accountable for results. Typically, this approach relies on the development of a performance monitoring and measuring system. It may involve, as well, the recruitment of top managers based on short-term performance contracts. The contracting of service delivery functions to private sector providers (e.g. garbage collection) represents another available strategy. The extent of reliance on these strategies of output controls should depend on the particular circumstances of context. Considerable internal managerial capability and reliable systems of control are needed to successfully implement such strategies. Most of the region's local government structures lack such capacities.

Direct accountability downward to clients is the central characteristic of administrative accountability. Some countries depend on administrative scrutinizing bodies to ensure this kind of accountability. Various audit and anti-corruption offices, Ombudsmen and the like are some of the more common of such devices. Yet, they may need the reinforcement of considerable political education, to help remove or moderate fear of confronting high profile public officials. Such offices must also be adequately resourced and willing to apply sanctions against proven culprits. To be sure, they must be guaranteed sincere political support.

Political accountability is the midwife of democratization and good governance. It is especially needed in cases of local government systems that are corrupt and politicized; bureaucratically controlled by the centre; and operating in a context where civil society is weak. Yet, the essential 'social foundation' of political accountability comes with "the establishment of institutions that will strengthen accountability to formal norms of conduct". The accountability/democratization process may be deepened through more meaningful public participation in politics, and in a context where personal rights are protected.

Accountability at the local level requires a sensitive, caring, responsive and responsible bureaucracy. Responsible behaviour of the local-level bureaucracy strongly suggests adequate understanding of its role, functions and authority, as well as the nature of local problems. It must be skilled at diagnosing the needs and priorities of local clients. It must evidence commitment to address such problems on a timely basis. That kind of response requires the supporting social foundations of civil society and governance.

Civil society is now a dominant theme in the on-going discourse on democratization and development administration. This emphasis on mobilizing and strengthening civil society stems partly from widespread dissatisfaction with highly centralized national governments; partly from the re-discovery by the international policy network of the need for civic action to sustain democratic development; and partly also from the availability of non-governmental organizations as development brokers.

For most purposes, civil society is viewed institutionally as the range of national, sub-national, local and community organizations - formal and informal - that fall outside the public realm. It incorporates citizen-initiated political action that seeks to influence the political and policymaking processes'. Equally, it refers to "those groups which are organized outside the state and are autonomous from the state, but which are in contact - either collaborative or antagonistic with the state". The concept is also used to mean the "readiness of citizens to pursue their rights; their willingness to demand better standards of conduct from public figures, and to back up those demands with their votes; and their readiness to act as citizens rather than subjects" (Polidano/Hulme: 10; p.7).

A supportive social environment is needed for the construction of an effective civil society. Some measure of trust, personal security and fairness of governmental transactions are supporting conditions. Social trust is reflected in the willingness or the ability of people to work together for common purposes. They combine not only for economic life, but also for other aspects of social existence. This stock of "social capital" is diminished without co-operation and grows with every act of co-operative activity. As well, social capital helps the government to function more effectively by winning wider cooperation for its laws and policies (Fukuyama: 3; Polidano/Hulme: 10).

Availability of the basic life-sustaining goods, services and opportunities also helps to lay the foundation for the formation of civil society. Where citizens are unable to maintain basic standards of living, they are more likely to become preoccupied with personal survival and less inclined to become involved in civil society issues. Further, in the absence of an environment of social trust and personal security/personal rights, individuals would be unwilling or reluctant to co-operate with others for common purposes and goals. This conceptualization strongly suggests a reinforcing and mutually beneficial relationship between civil society and the local government principle and process. Indeed, a beneficial symbiotic relationship is evident: a vigorous local government system is essential for the flourishing of a strong civil society and equally, a strong civil society is critical for the existence of a creative democratic local government system.

In particular, civil society limits the possibility for arbitrary or abusive state action. Organized groups and individuals would impose checks and balances against such behaviour, via protest, demands for redress or withdrawal of support. In addition, civil society "would extend the reach of the state", enabling it to do more than it would otherwise be able to do. Further, it engenders a wider discourse on governance issues (Polidano/Hulme: 10). Moreover, civil society would augment the state's implementation capacity because of the combined effects of open engagement in dialogue, interactions with multiple social forces, and ability to bring a wider spread of talent to the decision making pool. Weaknesses in civil society yield opposite effects, as they continue to do in the Commonwealth Caribbean region (Jones: 7; Mills: 9; Singh: 14).

Nongovernmental Organizations, (NGOs), have been linked with the emergence and consolidation of civil society. That role, however, is often contested. As against governmental agencies, NGOs are preferred by the international agencies of aid and advice as vehicles for directing aid funds. In practice, they serve as intermediaries in promoting associational life at the grass roots. They have been instrumental, at that level, in sharpening advocacy skills; enhancing community research capacity; directing the distribution of money, goods and services; strengthening self-reliance, while weakening dependence on the state. As well they promote an ethos oriented to implementation and accountability.

There are, however, certain problems in the NGO-civil society relationship. In particular, some rivalry for international resources has developed between institutions of government and NGOs. The role of NGOs as development brokers has encouraged competition amongst their clients, which sometimes narrows the boundary between their non-political and political engagement. Further, their dependence on external funding sources has subjected them to reporting controls and other requirements, thereby making them more bureaucratized. There are, of course, several types of NGOs (Duncan: 2). Their contested role notwithstanding, they appear to play a potentially significant role as builders of civil society in the Caribbean. We conclude then, that civil society and NGOs are essential building blocks of viable, vigorous local government systems in virtually any environment. Overall, they are an important part of the social foundation necessary for better governance.

In general, governance represents a democratic participatory approach, designed to achieve development objectives. Its essential objective is the distribution of decision-making power to benefit the majority. It is a process through which a society steers itself, guided by certain abstract rules and regulative principles. Of course, governance thrives where there is a wide range of pluralistic structures, committed to solving social problems collectively. In practice, this process emphasizes systems of "co-management", involving the sharing of such tasks and responsibilities between social forces and political actors. This system of collective decision-making would provide opportunities for the re-design of policies and institutions around some agreed definition of the public interest. To be effective, this process ideally requires "social capital" and trust, fairness in governmental transactions, and the satisfaction of basic needs. A strong tradition has not developed around these tenets in the Caribbean (Jones: 7; Duncan: 2 Ryan 13).

Rather, the reality is that Caribbean local government systems suffer some major crises of governance in terms defined by the World Bank (16 : p.9). The challenge is how to confront these crises. At least four strategies are available:

1. First there is the need to concentrate on public policies that promote economic growth, social equity and administrative reform.

2. Secondly, crises of governance are best overcome with strong local and national political leadership. In particular, leadership that is pragmatic and flexible, sensitive to changing conditions and able to change priorities and mobilize resources for policy implementation.

3. Thirdly, successful governance requires, indeed demands, heavy investment in human development. The primary idea is to build new skills and self-confidence as well as strengthen social capital.

4. The fourth pre-condition relates to the building of permanent governance institutions as one method of institutionalizing innovations. Given the issues raised throughout this paper, all these strategies are underdeveloped in the Caribbean. The strong support of a public philosophy, focused on a new moral infrastructure of society, is needed to re-orient existing patterns. In particular, this philosophy must be designed to sustain a sharper sense of civic responsibility, social restraint and moral obligation implicit in modem concepts of governance and citizenship. Local government institutions, like academic and civic associations, can play an instrumental role in creating this moral fabric. (Duncan: 2; Ryan: 13; Jones: 7; Gonzales: 4).

Two underlying assumptions have guided the discourse so far: One is that the socio-historical factors that have conditioned and articulated local-level administration in the Anglophone Caribbean have left a framework in which concepts of local government take primacy over those of local governance. The second assumption contends that any meaningful transition to the governance orientation requires certain minimum social foundations or building blocks. One is democratization, anchored in concepts and practices of political and administrative accountability. Another is decentralization, in terms broader than the mere movement of power from central to local government. The third is embodied in frameworks of civil society and governance as core organizing principles. Considerable administrative capacity is required for the cohesion of these building blocks. It has never been fully developed in the Caribbean (Mills: 9).

Perhaps the most persistent problem facing the Caribbean local government system is under-capacity to manage its complex processes. Yet, socio-technical capacity is always needed to cement the building blocks that make up vibrant local government. The bridging of this 'capacity gap' in the region must start with conceptual clarity, aided by purposeful administrative guidance.

Development practitioners normally regard capacity development as a process by which individuals, groups and institutions increase their ability to understand and deal with their development needs overtime, It is also a process of personal, organizational and social change that depends on local energy, commitment and ownership. Such socio-technical capacity is more securely built in the crucible of a participatory framework. (CIDA: 1).

Capacity building must also be seen as an 'action-based', learning process in which stakeholders are active in guiding and shaping their own development, including building appropriate commitments. These processes require certain institutional and human resource pre-conditions. One broad aim of the process is to cultivate ability for problem identification, policy preparation and the strengthening of management skills to implement policies. The willingness to learn or internalize new innovative ideas, practices and alternative organizational forms is another expected output of this process. In addition, the success of the process must be judged by the extent to which it engenders commitment to changing the overall image of the existing local government systems. Included in such commitment, must be the willingness to depart from some of the conventional incremental approaches to solving local government problems. We are still in search of this ideal in the region.

However, Caribbean local government practitioners are positioned to refine and extend reliance on two specific capacity building strategies, already on their agenda, The one concerns networking or institutional partnerships at the regional level. A number of regional local government seminars symbolize this effort. This approach has involved the sharing of experiences as well as bridging gaps in communication and information flows. It has also assisted in reconciling political differences. In addition, the emerging regional local government network has raised the question of a joint approach to negotiating international financial and technical support for community development The other possibility concerns the expansion of experiments with community economic development projects. Both approaches require additional action, research and a reliable statistical base, to guide appropriate social action.

CIDA (1) has summarized certain crucial "guiding principles" which should guide action. These include:

• systemic approach to problem solving;

• consideration of social, political, cultural and economic context and institutional arrangements;

• a very strong emphasis on the participation of local stakeholders; mediation and consensus building;

• adopting a facilitative approach to development intervention; adaptiveness, flexibility and a "learning by doing" approach; management of risk, uncertainty and complexity.

Drawing on Caribbean field experience, Girvan (5), has identified five core principles that conduce to "community power" or capacity building at the local level. These core principles stress:

1. Economic value of community participation: Community participation can serve as a check to waste, inefficiency and downright corruption, tap local human resources, and stimulate greater effort and voluntary labour in project implementation. This can result in substantial savings, yielding more and better physical facilities for available financial resources.

2. Solidarity: When practised in a strictly non-partisan manner, community participation can break down tribal political divisions and promote community solidarity and cohesiveness, thereby facilitating collective self-help and problem-solving at the community level.

3. Rootedness: Community participation is not to be confused with token involvement by hastily formed local structures which are not genuinely rooted in community life.

4. Transparency: Confidence by the community in the participatory mechanism requires that information about project formulation and implementation processes are freely available to all members of the community.

5. Control. Community participation is made effective through the exercise of genuine control over resources at the local level, represented by the authority over the selection of those who would be employed on projects, and who would have actual control over resources, subject to technical monitoring and accountability.

Girvan had cautioned the need for the institutionalization of local government organizations, with their own independent revenue base as a means of bypassing dependence on high profile leadership and officialdom.

Local government practitioners ought to be interested in what makes institutions work. The fashionable response nowadays is to rely on market or market-surrogate mechanisms in local and national administration. Yet, market mechanisms are not necessarily the best instruments for managing growing local government portfolios in socio-economic activities. Market mechanisms do not necessarily resolve central problems of politicization, accountability, participation and capacity building. If anything, Caribbean local government systems may require a mix of management approaches. The key issues in utilizing social capacity at the local level then, turn on context and 'strategy mix'.

From the Girvan-CIDA and other (e.g. Rondinelli: 12a) 'models' referenced in this paper, at least five 'management' strategies seem relevant to the changing regional context.

1. Local organizational capacity should be built from the ground up. Among other things, the Caribbean local government legacy of delayed autonomy, politicization, patron-client politics and symbolic democratization are all expressions of manipulation "from above". These approaches have not generated client-centred or sustainable development. Only organizational arrangements and practices of opposite tendencies will be able to build new networks that are defensive and respectful of the interest of the majority who are poor.

2. Keep the management and planning systems and procedures simple. Genuine management competencies are in short supply in the private and public sectors throughout the Caribbean region. These deficits are largest in the rural sector. Field experience here and elsewhere suggests that rural people tend to be somewhat intimidated by complex bureaucracies and their so-called 'sophisticated' procedures. To be effective, rural/local administration requires simplifying and short-circuiting long bureaucratic chains. It must draw on the common sense of the people as a reliable store of knowledge. Capacity-enhancing planning models must also start with what is known. They must seek to ensure that the agenda is manageable and involve stakeholders.

3. Rely on appropriate incentive systems. Especially in a reform environment, newness, the sense of uncertainty and the risk of failure create real problems. They normally inhibit innovation. Systems of incentives are therefore necessary to encourage and reward managers and stakeholders willing to confront these problems. Such incentives may range from opportunities for adequate training, availability of strong field support, affording managers the freedom to manage, and use of performance-based reward systems.

4. Build a culture of self-correction. In an environment of newness, uncertainty and complexity, a measure of confusion, some errors and mistakes are to be expected at the local level. There is a natural tendency in such circumstances to cover up or to deny the existence of such problems. This is why systems for error-detection and self-correction must be institutionalized. In other words, the idea is to encourage correction rather than punishment. The strategy is to recognize behaviour oriented to creativity, flexibility and experimentation. It should also regard uncorrected errors as a main expression of poor management.

5. Concert the action strategies. Capacity building or problem solving strategies work best when they are carefully integrated and coordinated. They need the cement of trust that encourages working together for common purposes. Needed also are frameworks of laws, rules and regulations that clearly define the division of labour, responsibilities and accountabilities among stakeholders. In particular, the reform programme at central and local levels should be coordinated, to mitigate fears that the one is being developed at the expense of the other. Experience teaches that the effective concerting of capacities and strategies requires reliable statistics. These are also necessary too for effective planning, project development and implementation.

Historically, the roots of the region's local government problem have been conceptual and practical. For the most part, the conceptual building blocks or social foundations needed for viable local government practice have been interpreted at a general level. Such interpretations did not readily accommodate contextual conditions and circumstances. At the practical level, the core problem has been defined as dependence on the centre. Its by-products are then viewed as lack of adequate revenue sources; human resource weaknesses; and policy inadequacies mainly associated with centralized styles of management. Accordingly, conventional wisdom has conceptualized appropriate institutional reforms in structural terms. This approach has led, as we have seen, to lop-sided reform results (e.g., changes in structure without corresponding behavioral changes).

Four other conclusions may be explicitly stated.

• First, mainly 'crises', 'administrative guidance' and 'bureaucratic paternalism' have stimulated change processes within regional local government systems. These represent top-down strategies that have not encouraged sustainability. Their essential by-product has been institutional 'capture' by vested interests. The strengthening of civil society is suggested as a more reliable vehicle for promoting change and sustainability. However, movement in that direction requires the opportunity and capability to pursue free public discourse and develop critical opinion. It may also require constitutionally guaranteed autonomy.

• Secondly, the regional systems have been accommodating market-oriented mechanisms. Yet, there is little evidence to suggest that the expanded role and power of the private sector and corporate bureaucracy has mitigated or replaced the usual biases toward local elites and indifference to the poor in local communities. That certainly has not happened in Jamaica (Jones/Mills: 8).

• Thirdly, although the Commonwealth Caribbean region has a relatively strong democratic tradition, some of its democratic institutions and impulses now appear threatened (Ryan: 13). Weaknesses