THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PEOPLES’ PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL/RURAL DEVELOPMENT: ---

THE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PEOPLES’ PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL/RURAL DEVELOPMENT: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION



BY



M. M. Yusif
Department of Political Science
Bayero University, Kano


I
The experience of Nigeria in economic and social development, especially at grassroots and community levels has reached a dead end. Nigerian development has reached a dead end precisely because it is not built around the people (Nnoli, 1993: 220). Even government establishments and agencies, as well as foreign donors and funders, also non-governmental organizations who took part in the implementation of the programmes have come to realized that the development vision, programmes and strategies pursued, though with good intention but ended up being inappropriate and even irrelevant to the real need of the vast majority of the people. Perhaps, that is why the Agricultural development programmes funded by the World Bank in the 1970s, the River Basin Development Project funded by the Federal Government and the present sugar cane project in the Jigawa state, in spite of the huge financial commitment have failed to transform agriculture into modern mechanized production activity. Again a critical analysis of these programmes would show that they hardly contributed to the welfare of the bulk of small peasants in the project areas.


In the latest endeavour to overcome these problems the various levels of governments believe that a development strategy that is not tied up primarily with private initiative in a market-oriented system will not solve the problems of economic and social development or improve the conditions of the poorest segment of the people. Thus, all the levels of government are withdrawing from their traditional responsibilities. Even in promoting rural and agricultural development.

Therefore, the search for alternative development strategies and well-conceived programmes has now become imperative, particularly among social scientists and policy makers in Nigeria. The starting point for this search is the recognition that the past development strategies have only succeeded in breeding poverty among the population. The main focus of the development strategy being searched must be one, which taps the initiative of the people through their active participation in conceiving, planning and implementation of the programmes, to eradicate poverty. To be in line with the African charter for popular participation in Development and Transformation (ECA 1990).

II
Conceptually the acceptance of peoples’ participation approach to development can be regarded as a breakthrough, especially if we consider the present day domain of market principles in Nigeria’s political and economic development. But participation by itself does not provide a set of policies. More so, we have to be very clear by use of the model participation for development. Unfortunately, even the World Bank claimed the principles of participation of peasants in the Integrated Rural Development Projects it sponsored in Nigeria in the 1970s. Many other programmes today by United Nation Development Programme claimed to be rooted on participation of the people. So, what do we mean by participation? Participation by who? Participation by what methods? Participation in what forms?

The answer to these questions would vary widely, but in the context of the subject matter of this paper, they cluster around the viewpoint of popular and political participation for development.

Therefore, we may start by exploring the meaning of political participation. Different scholars have defined the term political participation variously. The supporters of western model of Economic and National Development see political participation as the actions of private citizen, either individually or collectively to influence government policies in their favour. Thus, according to S.O. Huntington and Joan M. Nelson (1976), political participation means activity by private citizens designed to influence government decision-making. By the standard of the above definition participation is reduced to lobbying or making any other form of contact with government officials or employees to get access to government resources.

At another level participation in activities of government becomes synonymous with mobilization of the people to direct the government projects. Mobilization is seen in this context as the process of intervention by the popular masses (in their various organizations) in development strategies as conscious and autonomous agents of development. The practical implication presupposes that the process of mobilization, although not necessary identical with the process of political participation, always involved movement in one and the same direction i.e. peoples’ intervention in their socio-economic and political development. Indeed, according to Lars Rudebeck (1974), in his book “Gunea-Bissau – a study in Political Mobilization” political mobilization is a conscious work carried out with the explicit purpose of intensifying process of political participation by the people. This is also what is called popular participation (Nyongo, 1987).

The mobilization may be initiated locally by the people themselves through their organizations or as is the case of some countries by the state using democratic organs and structures of power, including local government apparatus and employees.

III
The concept of local government in this paper is that it is about the management of political, economic, and social affairs of people at community level. For this purpose, are there means and ways in which local government apparatus and employees be used for effective mobilization of the people in development strategies and programmes of governments?

The history of the structure of local government administration in Nigeria has taken varied forms over long period of time. Each structure comes with different composition and orientation of the local government employees. The contemporary local government structure is closer to modern civil service in the Weberian sense. It is organized with hierarchical arrangement and chains of command as well as with particular specialized staffs responsible for expert duties. That is why, in Nigeria’s local government system, there are employees for community works who goes to the field to organize the people in community projects. There are also extension workers in the departments of agriculture and social welfare who go to the field to assist the people in Health care, Environmental Protection, Agricultural Services, etc.

Thus, the modern local government system is equipped with workers who are capable of mobilizing the people in order to participate in the development agenda of the state. The creation of appropriate political institutions and structures at the local level to guide and implement a programme of National Development is one of the most important ingredients of a strategy of a successful National Development.

IV
As Jigawa state is a predominantly rural area, local government administration is merely rural development administration. The conception of rural development should be such which put the emphasis on increasing agricultural output and putting the necessary facilities and infrastructures including of agro-industry in order to meet the demand of improving the living conditions and welfare of the peasant producers. A real process of rural development can be initiated and sustained only by realizing the potential of peasant’s greatest resource i.e. their productive abilities (John R. Herzog, 1978: 79). In order to accomplish that, the existing constraints on the activities of the rural poor must be overcome, and this requires the mobilization of the rural poor. Indeed mobilization is the keystone of Rural Development Strategy (Ibid, 79).

In order to understand the problems and the direction to follow it seems that all actions by authorities especially of the local governments must be based on review of actual experiences in the use of the strategy, or on analysis of the theory from which the strategy is, implicitly or explicitly derived. Again the nature and origins of barriers to successful rural development and of the grave difficulties that even well intentioned leaders encounter must by documented.

With this in mind, we must deal explicitly with a number of major issues immediately relevant to efforts of local governments in order to mobilize the rural poor.

The following are some changes, which the authorities of various local governments are to put in place in order to guarantee the political participation and mobilization of the people in development process.


1. First and foremost is that local government governance should be democratic. This is because local governance provides an important means to bring political power closer to the citizenry, to stimulate local economic development and alleviate poverty, to widen the participation of women and other marginalized groups, and to recruit and train new leaders knowledgeable and well-intentioned in development of the people (Seoul, 2002).
2. A viable system of development at local government level must provide political leadership and guidance to plan and execute various programmes and policies. But this must be done without curbing local initiative and participation. The simultaneous attainment of both these objectives requires the growth of representative leadership at the local level and the delegation of responsibility to this leadership even if their initial capacity is considered inadequate.
3. In countries with effective national political parties it is possible to recommend the integration of local government mobilizational activities with the system of political parties in order to make both the parties and mobilization of the people more development oriented. However, in present day Nigeria, because of the existing multi-party system with many conflict of interest and loyalties, the government in power has varying degrees of support, from different localities. Therefore, it will be difficult to use the party structure for the purpose of mobilizing the people to become active participants in the development process. Nevertheless, the development of local institutions should be closely tied to development functions and objectives, and every effort can still be made to utilize existing party structures, but to avoid any possible discrimination against those institutions which do not represent the party in power.
4. Indeed Bureaucrats and Technicians are needed to assist and advise the local people. If these officials are to appear as masters of the people it will be difficult to change their mentality and attitude. The only way to integrate themselves with the local people is to appear as genuine servants of the people and to place themselves under the under the political authority of the locally recognized leaders. Their efficiency should also be judged in terms not only of their capacity to serve and trust the people without curbing their initiative and participation.
5. It is also expected that as part of democratization of local governance mentioned above a gradual process of democratization covering all aspects of planning and implementation, including the mobilization and allocation of resources would be an important pre-requisite for the viability of local institutions and agencies for development strategy.
6. In order for all the above methods of including people in development process be meaningful, provision of education, health and other social services must be the priority of the local government authorities to create new man with new attitude prepared to challenge oppression and exploitation.
7. Furthermore, if all the above are to be successful, the concern of corruption in Nigeria society must be removed in the conduct of local government public officers mobilizing the people to participate in development programmes.





V
By way of conclusion, we may ask the following questions can these essential pre-requisites for participation of the people be achieved without a major political change? Can the participation of people as suggested above be realized without giving them an effective share of political power? Indeed, it may be more successful if the “people” are holding political power, yet there are probably minimum objectives and successes that can be achieved within the existing power relations. This is because the local government authorities, when given a dynamic, honest, dedicated and transparent leadership, can take along their people for successful National Development.

References
Allen Isaacman (1979): “Socialist Transformation in Rural Mozambique”, Rural Africana, Vol.4 No. 5

Archie Mafeji (1978), Science, Ideology and Development, Uppsala, Sweden

Dele Ololu and S. B. Ayo (1988, “Community Development and Local Government Administration in Nigeria” in Amechi Nweze (ed) perspectives on community and Rural Development in Nigeria, challenge Press, Jos Nigeria.

ECA (1990): Charter for Popular Participation in Development and Transformation, Arusha, Tanzania.

John M. Cohen (1980), “Integrated Rural Development: Clearing out Underbrush” Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. XX No.3

John R. Herzog (1978), “Towards a Theory of Rural Development” African Development Vol. 3 No.2

Lars Rudebeck (1974), Guinea-Bissau: A Study in Political Mobilization, Uppsala, Sweden

M. M. Yusif (1999), The Role of Local Government Employees in People’s Participation in National Development, Paper Presented at a Seminar Organized by the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees, Katina State Chapter.

Okwudiba Nnoli (1993), Dead end to Nigerian Development: An Investigation on the Social, Economic and Political Crisis in Nigeria, Codesria, Dakar

Peter Anyang Nyang (1987), Popular Struggles for Democracy in Africa, Zed Books Limited, London and New Jersey

Samuel Huntington and Joan M. Nelson (1976), No Easy Choice, Harvard University Press

Sartaj Aziz (1978), Rural Development: Learning from China, Macmillan Press Limited, London and Basingstoke

Seoul (2002): Second Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies, COEX Convention Center Seoul

Steven A. Nkom (1981), Integrated Rural Development and the Marginalization of the Peasantry in Nigeria, Africa Development No.6 No.4