NEGOTIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

NEGOTIATING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT







BY



Ma’azu Mohammed Yusif
Department of Political Science,
Bayero University, Kano








Being a Paper Presented at a Training of Facilitators of Community Development Agenda Setting and Negotiation Organised by CITAD at 3 – Star Hotel, Dutse on 30th, May 2007


Introduction
A growing interest in community development is one of the most important self-help efforts in recent years. This is not surprising as the current economic changes globally and nationally have imposed less commitment by the state and its agencies for full responsibility of the development of the society.

However, people in the community organisations who are the great pushers of this self-work projects have to wake up to the true realities of development in Nigeria. The efforts although very encouraging, but the rapid changes in the national and community economies and the inadequate efforts by all those concerned, deserves a definition of a new strategy to approach this problem.

From the onset, in order to be reckoned with in today’s economic development, a frontal process of modernisation of rural communities is inevitable. This would involve many hands: the communities themselves; the local entrepreneurs; the state of which the closest to the communities are local government administrations.

Although community and rural development are not the same, but there is great relationship between the two. Some aspects of this relationship will be shown and the role of a local state administration would be observed, the inadequacy brought out and the challenges for community rural development in the growing market economy brought out for discussion.

Conceptualising Community Development
The subject of community development is both wide and complex. Although there is no consensus about the meaning of the concept, the word “community” can be used in many ways – both of urban and rural communities of people. S.O. Wey (1988 : 39) defines the word community as “a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality, share government, and have a cultural and historical heritage”.

However, the word ‘community’ is most commonly used by scholars, social policy makers and the civil society to depict those groups of people living together in a given locality, but are deprived of the means to reproduce themselves according to minimum standard of human livelihood. In short, they are living in poverty.

It is for this reason that in Nigeria and most other African countries, the solidarity of Old African Society is expressed by making collective efforts, for example to build health centres, a road or a school for social and economic development.

Controversial though it is, the term community may be conceived as “rural”, therefore, the involvement of local administration or any other state institution to promote community development is also regarded as rural development. The similarity can be seen in the sense that rural development is essentially a process of increasing the standard of living of the rural population, by improving their social and economic facilities, which is the same with programmes and objective of community development. As Segun Famoriyo (1985 : 51) noted “The central issues in rural development is, or should be, the development of the rural person both economically (increasing agricultural productivity and hence per capital income) and socio-culturally (increasing the level of awareness) of the rural persons, encouraging full participation in their affairs and increasing the standard of living of the rural population”. Are these not also the objectives of community development?

The relationship between communal and rural development is vividly revealed by Ujaama villages experiment of development policy. Just called family socialism, Ujaama is a modern rural development strategy which organised villages and peasants into numerous separate productive units and with participation of the peasants, state officials implemented a more or less successful communal and rural development in Tanzania.

For different reason “The World Bank Rural Development Programme” in Nigeria, in the 1970s used the same approach. It is called “Integrated Rural Development”. Among its basic elements and method of implementation is that in order to modernise the traditionally stagnant society, the people affected by the project must be allowed a space to participate. So, in each project zone the Sarakunas, Mai Unguwas, the elders and other community leaders were made to be part of the execution apparatus of the programme (Uma Lale, 1976).

Then, facilitators for community and rural development must not ignore the fact that communities and rural areas too have social stratification and social class structures which influence the rate of their development. All, predominantly peasant societies, i.e. the peasantry societies are very difficult to embrace it to modern development. On one hand it is suspicious of outside agents and institutions as its experience with these since colonial period has been deceptive. So, it must be convinced as to what benefits would it derive from the modern changes. On the other hand the internal structure of the peasantry is not homogeneous. There are the poor peasants (those who are exploited) and the rich peasants (those who exploit). Of course, also the middle ones. The problem is that the less contact they have with outside world the more they will resist changes in their local economy. Accordingly, the way they respond will determine how fast development will come to them.



The Theoretical Context
In Nigeria of the twenty first century the record of economic and social development is still below the rates of transformation in other Third World countries. Community and rural based poverty, deprivation and exclusion from the national economy is still very common. A.A. Mordi (1988) has cited Robert Holmon who observed three factors which combined to produce and sustained a deprived and poor community. These are (1) cultural deprivation based on ideas about lack of educational orientation and resources for effective method of socialising children (2) there is also the institutional dysfunction reasoning where the problem is attributed to government institutions and agencies who failed to meet the needs of the poor in their various communities; and (3) a poverty situation as a result of unequal distribution of resources brought about by the existing social structure.

Over the years various actors – the World Bank; state actors; self-hep groups; etc. converged on their views of how to solve the problem of poverty in African communities and the rural areas. That is by providing reliable services that are necessary to serve modern agriculture, increase peasant productivity, create economic market, provide social services, etc.

These development challenges are from theoretical hindsight called “modernisation and development. Although development is not a unidirectional process as it proceeds by ups and downs, generates new internal contradictions of poverty and prosperity, of new social groups impoverishing others, nevertheless it is assumed that development will modernise the old structures of poverty and deprivation and set the communities moving into history of human progress.

The history of the concept of development is full of paradoxes. But we just take it that it brings progress and advancement in human lives. One of the earliest experiments of development to most developing countries is that it is almost synonymous with economic growth and that it contains economic strategies which will increase income, reduce inflation and unemployment as well as increase the rate of savings and investment which is expected to generate further development, both at individual and societal levels. The key assumption in this approach is that the people in the communities, mainly living on agriculture would be stimulated to generate surplus which will in turn be moved to produce a modern sector economic system. Thus, modernisation is set up.

History has recorded in rich documents, texts and electronic means that this model of development, especially in underdevelopment formations, has to be guided by state institutions and agencies through careful plan. Notwithstanding that the model promotes private enterprise development.

The Role of Local State Administration
The logic of local state administration before the 1976 Local Government Reform was more political than economics. The native administrative structures were merely to impose respect and loyalty to state authorities and to maintain law and order. The system of Bureacratic authority was not based on merit but loyalty on the local state system which was controlled by the traditional rulership system. Therefore, the procedure of development if any was based on clientelism.

The 1976 reform seemed to create a modern local state system with a vision of Weberian administrative structure to achieve some political and economic development objectives. As Dele Olowu and Bamidele Ayo (1988 : 103) noted “One of the aims of the 1976 Local Government Reform sponsored by the Federal Military Government was to integrate community development into local government. By implication also rural development.

The definition of Local Government given in the “guidelines for Local Government Reforms” has captured the imagined integrative nature of local state administration in Nigeria, after the reform. This definition is worth quoting thus”
“Government at grassroots and exercised through representative councils established by law to exercise specific powers within defined areas. These powers should give the councils substantial control over local affairs as well as to initiate and direct the provision of services and to determine and implement projects so as to complement the activities of the State and Federal Governments in their areas and to ensure through the active participation of the people and their traditional institutions that local initiative and response to local needs and conditions are maximised” (FMG, 1976: 5).

The above definition revealed a new conception of Local Government Administration. Which incorporates an integrated community approach to development, planned by the local authorities and by the higher levels of Government. Furthermore on this, the intention of the reform was to ensure that “Human and material resources could be mobilised for local development and the certainty that as from now, every stratum of the Nigerian society would benefit from the continued prosperity of this country, through the availability of amenities, indeed necessities, such as electricity, adequate water supply, improved transportation, health facilities and so on”. (Ibid. 5)

The most apparent implication of the new local government system for development in general and community/rural development in particular can be seen in the statement of functions of local government council as provided by guidelines for implementation of the reform.
1. Section 1(a) submits that Local Government Council can make recommendations to a state commission on economic planning or any similar body.
2. Section 2(a-c) states that “The function of a local government council shall include participation of such council in the government of a state as respect the following matters.
a. The provision and maintenance of primary education
b. The development of agriculture and natural resources, other then the exploitation of minerals.
c. The provision and maintenance of health services

As the case may be each local government council is divided into Departments – Education, Health, Community Development and Agriculture – with set of official actors responsible for implementation of the stated functions of the local government system.

Renewal of the Local Government System for Development
In view of rapid economic changes, nationally and globally, it seems that the structure and functions of local government system in Nigeria has outlived its relevance for social, economic and political development of the local communities. It is ripe for a more innovative system to capture and go with these changes.

The thrust of the matter is that in predominantly rural communities, where re-organisation of farm production, lack of capital, lack of productive occupation, lack of means of employment and access to outside communities, poverty and deprivation are inevitable; in the context of Nigeria’s development strategy is to encourage and introduce private economic activities into these communities in order to propel new dynamics of economic development in them.

The local state system because they are closer to the communities would become the major actors in this new development programme. In other words they would become the greatest carriers of national development. This new trend is fast taking over in development oriented countries of East Asia including China. In China in particular, the Local Government Councils with their officials, are the actors and the instruments of economic development which made China what it is today. It is about reforming the communist system into a kind of private socialist economy. Do you know that all the beautiful Chinese textiles, automobile, electronics, machineries, etc. in Nigeria’s market are produced in communities/rural settlements under the monitor of local state authorities.

Hence the structure, philosophy and orientation of the Nigerias local state Bureaucracy needs to be redefined and or the whole system reformed. Generally, the objective would be to modernise the rural economy by building a modern progressive economic system. As in China the economic reform could start in the framework of the existing local state structure and then the political may automatically follow.

Some economic areas are vital for consideration in order to drive the economy for changes. And this is where community development facilitations could play a role. These areas include:
1. Rural Industrialisation: In Northern part of Nigeria in particular the human resources are in abundance, the natural resources too are available. The only things are lacking are the starting capital and the management to plan.
2. Shareholding cooperatives: The small-scale farming system is a great obstacle to progress in agricultural productivity and modernisation of agriculture. In this part of the country the peasantry has rich experience in cooperative associations for local and modern credit facilities, for marketing of their products, etc. This experience can be harnessed and standardised as private producer cooperatives, where with correct plan and guidelines peasants could pool their small farmlands into large ones to be ran as a private company under an entrepreneurial management.
3. Fiscal reform in the Local Government Councils: Local Government Councils in Nigeria is as if they do not have financial regulations. Local Government funds from the Federal account as well as one locally collected are to say it crudely stolen. This must entirely be reviewed so that the finances, under expert and professional director channelled for planned community and rural development.
4. Education and Health and other welfare issues: As the community/rural economy becomes modernised it will become self-generating and a lot of resources could be derived for educational development, health, environment, etc.

The role of the local government council in implementing the “New Local Economic Development Agenda” may evolve gradually or by political restructuring of the local state system. In order to avoid conflicts, the new structure may better be allowed to evolve by itself. The example of china which has recently gone through similar reform is worth recording. Gradually, the local government officials in china became reconstituted as Business Corporate functioning like Board of Directors of the private and shareholding collectives enterprises of their local government areas (Maria Edin, 2000: 33). In china as in East Asia local governments select industrial sectors and key enterprises to be nurtured and promoted (Ibid: 34). Thus, the councils become very important agents in the national development of their countries. In fact, it is said that each councillor is individually responsible for a few key enterprises in particular area, also help in raising capital from bank, and monitor the development of few specific villages (Ibid.). Then gradually such administrative departments as departments of industry and commerce, civil affairs, tax collection, education and health evolved to serve the people.

Conclusion
Learning from what others have done is not copying development plan and strategy. The development of human society has always been, see the progress of others, the mistake they have done, so that we can avoid the mistake and make higher progress. The issues raised for discussion is as if we are pushing for private enterprises development in our community/rural areas. Yes, but in the context of our national and global development today, we have to create conditions of modern economic system, which will of course produce its own new deprivations, but in a modern progressive economic system. Do not put doubt that the local state cannot do what we thought it can do. As facilitators for community and hence rural development, you have to devise an effective means of campaign against corruption as it is the cancer against development in our community and rural areas.

Work Cited
1. S.O. Wey (1988). “Community Development and the process of Economic Development” in Amechi Nweze (ed.) Perspectives on Community and Rural Development in Nigeria CDS, Jos.

2. Segun Famoriyo (1986). “Rural Development Revisited”. In Department of Political Science ABU, Rural Underdevelopment in Nigeria 1900 – 1980. Seminar Series Vol. 2 ABU Zaria

3. Goran Hyden (1980). Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania; Underdevelopment and an uncaptured peasantry. Heinemann, London

4. Micheal Von Freyhold (1979). Ujamaa Villages in Tanzania; Analysis of a Social Experiment. Heinemann. London

5. Uma Lele (1976). “Designing Rural Development Programmes; Lessons from the past Experience in Africa. In Guy Hunter et al (eds.) Policy and Practice in Rural Development. croom Helm. London

6. Rodolfo Stavenhagen (1975). Social Classes in Agrarian Societies. Anchor Books. New York

7. A.A. Mordi (1988). “Theoretical Approaches to Community Development: An Overview”. In Amechi Nweze (eds.) op. cit.

8. Dele Oluwu and S. B. Ayo (1988). “Community Development and Local Governmentr Administration in Nigeria”. In Amechi Nweze (ed.) op. cit.

9. Federal Military Government (1976). Guidelines for Implementation of Local Government Reform

10. Yusif M.M. (2003). “The Role of Local Government in peoples’ Participation in National/Rural Development: Theoretical consideration”. In Shehu Dalhatu and Muhammed Auwalu Umar (eds.). Towards Improved Local Government Management Mubin Books Kano

11. Yusif M.M. (2003). “Local Government and Democracy: The Basic Principles”. In Shehu Dalhatu and Muhammed Auwalu Umar (eds.). op. cit.

12. Sartaj Aziz (1978). Rural Development: Learning from China. The Macmillan Press. London

13. Maria Edin (2000). Market Forces and Communist Power Uppsala. Sweden.