By Yasin Maoni
A
federal system of government is not a bad idea. It works for many countries. Whether
a nation adopts a federal or unitary system of government is merely a matter of
choice. It is a choice of the architects of a nation, ordinarily representative
of the will of the people, or the people themselves who determine the kind of
governance system that is to apply. In most cases there are historical events
coupled with other geographical, economic, political and ethnic considerations
that influence the formation of a particular governance system.
As
the debate on the proposal to adopt a federal system of government rages on, it
is clear that it is a time of choice for the people of Malawi; to decide whether
to go federal or remain unitary. In this kind of scenario there are many
factors to consider. Here are just a few, especially for the proponents of
federalism in Malawi.
For
starters, federalism is a form of a decentralized system of government whereby
certain powers and functions are reserved for regional governments in most
cases referred to as state government. Other powers and functions are then
shared between the federal government and the local governments. Malawi already
embarked on a decentralization program after the 1998 Nation Decentralization
Policy which has faced a lot of challenges. One challenge has been the absence
of Councillors, an integral part of the system, for a period of nine years. This
was due to a decision of political masters who thought having the system fully
operational with Councillors was expensive.
The
question for the proponents of the federal idea is; if we have failed to
successfully undertake a wave of decentralization to local governments under
this program, is it prudent that we should be thinking of an additional wave
length of a decentralized formation? Is it logical to further decentralize national
powers and functions to regional governments when the decentralization to local
governments has not be completed and taken stock of?
The
foregoing also raises a question of cost. Perhaps the political masters who thought
having Councillors was costly had a valid point. The current governance system
has two tiers; the national and local government. There is already a high cost
for sustaining the national executive, Parliament and Councillors from the
consolidated fund. Going federal will add a third tier of government at the regional level with executive, legislative body and supporting staff. This
entails a further cost from the consolidated fund already overstretched. It is
an economic question for the proponents of federalism to consider.
Related
to the issue of cost is the question of competent personnel. One of the
challenges of the decentralization program has been the inability of local
governments to attract competent personnel with requisite skills. Creating one
more tier of government will require specific skilled personnel. Isn’t this
going to pose a challenge on the proposed system?
Allied
to the issue of cost and skilled personnel is the question of the electoral
method. The electoral method recently introduced, namely, the tripartite
elections of combining elections of the president, MPs and Councillors caused
confusion to the electorate many of whom are illiterate and encountered a
number of logistical challenges. Adding another tier of government will require
another set of elections for the regional executive and legislature. Could this be added on top of the tripartite
method or it will require an alternative electoral period? If the former is the
option, the complication is compounded. In case of the latter is opted, then we
are adding on the cost of instituting our government. The sad part is that we
mostly rely on donors to assist us to successfully conduct these elections as
the electoral bill is substantively high. These additions seem to elude economic
sensibility.
There
is also an inter-governmental relations question. With only two tiers of
government there is a confusion of roles and functions between the central
government and the local governments. One may argue that the powers and
functions between these two are not clearly delineated. There is also a
conflict and overlap between the role of MPs and those of Councillors. The
proposition of federalism intends to add on regional executives and legislators
to the quagmire. This needs a little more homework than we did with the current
setup, otherwise it will result into a chaotic system.
A
question of logic also crops in. Apart from identity of a people and historical
reasons, population and size of a country informs the decision making whether
to divide the country’s governance formation into regional governments for
better administration. Though population may be on the high scale, the land
mass of 118,484 km², which includes
24,404 km² of water surface,
is quite small and does not make logical sense to
divide that into a three tier government with addition of regional governments.
It
is also prudent that the proponents of the idea realize that federalism is not
a panacea to the problems being cited. The main motivation for the proposal is
that the northern region should also have a fair share of national development.
This entails allocation of financial resources to the northern region to
address such developmental need. It is not a given fact that a federal system will
deliver that solution. In allocation of national financial resources to
regional or local governments one of the usual variables factored into a formula for financial distribution is population density. Given that the northern region is the less populated region in the country, it is also likely
to receive less of the national cake, probably less than what is allocated in
the current system where government discretion rules.
On
the issue of financial resources, it is also the northern region that is likely
to face challenges in raising revenue locally as it is less populated and has
less economic activity compared with the rest of the country. This makes
self-sustenance for the northern region difficult and is more probable that it
will end up relying on the grants or transfers from the national government to
support its development efforts. The latter scenario does not make any
difference with what is obtaining currently. The question then is whether going
federal is worth the trouble.
The
issues aforementioned should not undermine the benefits that the federal system
may bring. Going federal conforms with the principle of subsidiarity which
dictates that governmental function should be left to the level of government
that can best address the needs of a particular locality. In this case it mean
that, in line with the principle, the people of the north are well placed to address
their needs and aspirations. The same applies to other regions. Secondly, the
creation of another tier of government will result in a division of labour
which may lead to efficiency as well as job creation for the created positions
in the regional level of government. These pros, however, need to be weighed
against the issues raised earlier.
Whilst
the agitation for a federal state riles, the onus is wholly on the federalist
to convince Malawians how the issues raised will be addressed if the proposal
carries the day. The decision to change Malawi to a federal state, which is
different with a decision for the northern region to secede, will have to be
decided by the whole of Malawi and not the northern region alone. If it is a
campaign for federalism, it has to be convincing across the country with clear
reform and strategic points. Let the federalists get to work.
