Abstract

When it comes to the implementation process, the decentralization policy has opened up a plethora of possibilities, which has exacerbated challenges and had negative consequences for good governance and local governance quality.

The objective of this research is on the extent to which the government has implemented the decentralization policy in Mezam division through the transfer of competencies, as well as the challenges that have arisen during the process.

The necessity for local councils to be empowered to develop their communities, as well as the ability to recognize and prioritize their true needs, has fueled Cameroon’s decentralization effort.

As a result, the purpose of this study is to evaluate delays in transferring competencies to local authorities in Mezam Division, as well as the extent to which this procedure has met its policy objectives.

To achieve these goals, a series of questionnaires were distributed to citizens in the Bamenda I, Bamenda II, and Bamenda III Municipalities, and structured interviews with mayors and administrative officials were conducted using the stratified random sample technique and case study design.

Frequency tables, charts, graphs, chi-squared tests, three hypotheses were tested in the study, and major findings revealed that although the state seems to be timidly devolving some competencies and resources, there is still the absence of a genuine political commitment in implementing all the facets of decentralization.

The study, therefore, recommends salutary measures for empowering and strengthening councils and communities in taking charge of their destiny. The operationalization structure by the new ministry of decentralization is intended to curb excessive interference by administrative bottlenecks and guarantee local autonomy in the establishment of envisaged reforms. The lack of political will by state officials when implementing the decentralization policy retards the realization of the intended objectives in this domain.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background To The Study

The transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government agencies and/or the private sector is known as decentralization (Kum, 2017; 336). Decentralization is defined as the transfer of some particular powers from the federal government to regional and local governments (Abangma, 2013).

The focus of this study is on Cameroon’s decentralization policy execution. The introduction, on the other hand, covers the study’s history, problem statement, research questions, objective, hypotheses, importance, scope, limitation, definition of words, and organization.

The ‘first wave’ or generation of decentralization experiences, particularly in Africa, have not proven positive. Administrative reforms as part of integrated development planning initiatives were explored in several newly independent countries from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s.

The real impact, however, was minimal: participation was not raised, local administration performance and capacity were not improved, and wealth, status, and power distribution were not transformed. Decentralization, in summary, failed in many parts of Asia and Africa.

However, it is critical to comprehend why “decentralization” failed. It wasn’t so much decentralization as it was deconcentration, a type of decentralization in which tasks and authorities were moved to central government field offices.

Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity in the execution, as well as insufficient resources, a shortage of competent staff, and general reluctance from senior officials. Decentralization failed primarily due to insufficient decentralization. It lacked responsibility to local civil society and was not adequately participatory.

A global ‘second wave’ or generation of decentralization was noted in an increasing number of developing countries by the beginning of the 1990s. Despite warnings that decentralization should not be viewed as a magical cure-all for all societal ills, the present significant movements of decentralization in the form of devolution, i.e. the transfer of powers to elected local governments, cannot be dismissed as the latest “global fad.”

Decentralization is likely to be irreversible, even if it is now regarded as a fragile process, as many observers in Africa and Europe claim. Local governments will reject any attempts to reverse the process now that they have tasted power.

The image below depicts the complexity and interconnections of recent decentralization reform initiatives, which emphasize state reform, local governance, local democracy, and local economic development as critical elements of a long-term and effective local development process.

1.2 Statement Of The Problem

Decentralization, according to Nelson Kasfir (1977), includes dispersing authority and power horizontally rather than hierarchically, i.e., giving local institutions the power to rule rather than concentrating power at the center.

Typically, the goal is to improve the effectiveness of achieving locally determined objectives. Decentralization, according to Saint Agrawal and Jesse Ribif (1999), is any act in which a central government formally cedes power to actors and institutions at lower levels of a political, administrative, and geographical hierarchy.

Despite the presence of highly educated, qualified, and experienced professionals in many areas of the national government, local government authority is being suppressed. The decentralization idea is officially supported by Law No. 96/6 of January 18, 1996, which amends Cameroon’s constitution of June 2, 1972. Following that, statute No 2004/0017 of July 22, 2004 on decentralization orientation, as amended by law No 2004/018 of July 22, 2004, established provisions that applied to councils.

The central government’s abundance of legislation, decrees, orders, circular letters, and interactions demonstrate the government’s dedication to facilitating the decentralization implementation process. The above-mentioned norms have empowered local administrations in Mezam Division, and their relevance has begun to grow in recent years, owing in large part to the formation of a relatively “clean” electoral competition in most of the large municipalities (Abangma, 2009).

The constitutional council was established by decree No 2019/105 on the 7th of February 2018 for the goal of overseeing the electoral process in the whole Republic, including Mezam Division, and in observance of Cameroon’s constitution. According to Mback (2003), challenges persist in many sectors, particularly when looking at the institutions and structures put in place by the state to support efficient decentralization.

As a result, there may be a pressing need for a new method to emerge from the newly constituted ministry of decentralization and local development in order to achieve the government’s goal and vision.

Political leaders and local stakeholders appear committed to implementing decentralization policies that allow for participatory local governance and long-term local development; however, many obstacles stem from the central government’s failure to fully devolve competencies and resources to local authorities, as evidenced by re-centralization trends (Mawhood 1993,Wunch 2001:1,Lukong 2005, Mbuagbo and Ebune 2010).

The function of government delegates at city councils designated by presidential decree in overseeing the actions of some local authorities adds a new wrinkle to the traditional definition of local autonomy. As a result, the premise of local government administration by officials locally elected by direct universal suffrage is violated. Cheka (2007), p. 191.

However, the overlapping and incoherence in power-sharing between the Central Government and Councils, as well as between City Councils and Sub-divisional Councils, is exacerbated by the lack of regulatory instruments defining the modalities of collaboration between local authorities and state external services, resulting in problematic situations that act as stumbling blocks in the decentralization process (NLEP 2003, Hatcheu,2005: 83-110) The central government has put in place an overbearing control apparatus to limit the functional autonomy of national communities (Abangma, 2009:20-25).

As a result of the above, President Biya gave unambiguous instructions to the government at the statehouse on March 15, 2018, during the council of ministers meeting that followed the cabinet reshuffle on March 2, 2018.

At the Unity Palace, Biya pushed the government to submit a clear decentralization plan, saying, “Our masses across the country have continued to express their desire to be actively involved in the running of the affairs that directly affect their daily lives.”

The foundation of the Ministry of Decentralization is aimed at quickly responding to these persistent requests.” He also stated that he expected the Ministry to offer suggestions and a timeline for expediting the ongoing decentralization process in the near future.

1.3 Research Questions.

This study will be guided by the following:

1. What are the measures for implementing decentralization and to what extent has such efforts led to sustainable development in Mezam localities?
2. To what extent has the implementation of the decentralization policy gone in achieving its goals and objectives?
3. What new functional structure and organizational mechanism can sustain the challenges of fast-tracking the decentralization process?