Over the past two weeks, I have followed closely the issue around municipal elections and the problem of voter lethargy in our towns and cities.
I also remember writing two or three articles during the term of the last government, questioning the delay in holding municipal elections and political leaders’ strong grasp on power at local government level.
Last week, Suva lawyer, Jon Apted aptly pointed out that a lot of people have become ‘complacent’ when it comes to demanding accountability and transparency from authorities.
Speaking during a panel discussion on electoral system design in Suva, Mr Apted said it was important to put in place a council that looked after the interests of the people and businesses in that town or city.
But for this to happen, he said, citizens who understood their rights, roles and responsibilities and how to apply them, were badly needed. So this week I will attempt to bring up the issue once again.
Firstly, elections, whether national or local, are democratic competitions through which leaders are chosen to serve their fellow citizens.
Leaders, both at local and national levels, therefore, are those entrusted with the privilege to serve through the polls.
At municipal level, these elections allow for the decentralisation of power, which in turn allows for more transparent, accountable and responsive leadership at the community level.
Democracy at local level has been increasingly recognised as a prerequisite for sustainable and equitable socio-economic development.
But the true attraction and value of strengthening democracy at municipal level lies in creating opportunities for increased civic participation, which strengthens civic culture, builds social capital and enables people to participate in governance and decision-making.
On the other hand, some take a more instrumental view of the benefits of local democracy.
They focus on the ability of local democracy to improve service delivery and developmental outcomes through increased public accountability.
Despite its place in democratic systems and persistent calls for it, municipal council elections have not taken place in Fiji for almost 20 years and our towns and cities have been looked after by overpaid special administrators.
“For development and governance to be fully responsive and representational, people and institutions must be empowered at every level of society – national, provincial, district, city, town and village,” UNDP says.
“This comprises empowering of sub-national levels of society to ensure that local people participate in, and benefit from, their own governance institutions and development services.”
This means institutions such as municipal councils should enable people to exercise their choices for human development which among others, include taking part in city and town council elections.
In turn municipalities must bring policy formulation, service delivery and resource management within the purview of the people.
Local governments have to be accountable to their local constituencies. Their performance, the manner they have discharged their responsibilities, and the integrity with which they have handled financial resources will be judged through local elections.
Local governance, including local elections, remains the most accessible level of engagement with public authority and state institutions.
It is the mechanism and channel closest to the people for accessing basic services and opportunities to improve their lives, for participation in public processes where decisions affecting their lives are made, and for exercising their rights and obligations.
The bottom line is municipal elections is key to development that is inclusive and sustainable, at the local level as well as the national.
It is essential in improving the quality of life of the people both at the urban and rural settings, reducing inequality in all its forms across society, and enhancing relations between people and public institutions.
On the other hand, holding municipal elections and having an elected council headed by a mayor will not automatically solve our problems and is not a sufficient condition for improved governance in our cities and towns. It will not guarantee equitable development, poverty alleviation, women’s empowerment and enhanced transparency and accountability.
Instead, there may be a need to have a workable balance between public demands for local democracy and the practicality of local democracy in terms of efficiency, capacity and resources.
Secondly, we need to ensure that local government is democratic and does not merely result in a transfer of power to unrepresentative, unresponsive and unaccountable local elites or citizens.
Third, there may be a need to first balance the need to protect local autonomy from the centralising tendencies of national governments.
Last but not least, empowering ratepayers within town and city boundaries to actively participate, among other means, in elections and in the local governance machinery including decisionmaking forums, is key. But citizens cannot participate without knowledge.
That is why civic education needs to accompany any move to enhance civic participation in local government elections. One important point to note is citizens first need information to exhibit civic skills and civic virtues.
Without knowledge (awareness creation, information sharing, capacity development etc) we cannot achieve civic participation). Until we meet on this same page same time next week, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
