The decentralisation process in the Kingdom of Lesotho has traversed through different phases that are marked by paradoxical perceptions of optimism and pessimism. Based on these experiences, it is vital that the identified gaps in devolving governance powers to local councils should impetuously set the country in the right direction towards effective decentralisation process.  As such, there is a need to continually assess the decentralisation process in the country with a view to suggest informed interventions that can significantly contribute towards effective implementation of the preferred decentralisation model. This assessment takes due cognisance of the past and present interventions, the recent one being a resolute decision to fully decentralise public services, which is entailed in the Multi-Stakeholder National Dialogue Plenary II Report (2019) under the sponsorship of European Union (EU) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 

Decentralisation process in the Government of Lesotho (GoL) is enshrined in the Constitution (1993), under Section 106, which provides for the establishment of local authorities to enable urban and rural communities to determine their affairs and to develop themselves. There are four layers of local authorities in Lesotho namely: municipal councils, District councils, urban councils, and community councils (Lesotho Local Government Act, 1997). 

Although there are some hurdles in the decentralisation process, there have also been some significant strides reflected in the periodic local government elections. Also, the community councils and councillors have consistently delivered entrusted services. This happens despite their limited scope and some of the powers still concentrated in the central government. 

A consensual assertion is that the type of decentralisation that the country had adopted impeded accelerated decentralisation process (‘Nyane, 2019; Naha, 2015). The initial adoption of ‘deconcentration’ model against ‘devolution’ model, whereby the former reserves the powers of the central government, and thus limiting subnational government ability to make decisions, while the latter devolves adequate decision making and governance powers to the subnational government, warranted replacement. Deconcentration is deemed the weakest form of decentralisation because it does not effectively transfer power to local government (Utomo, 2009: 2). Leaving governance powers in the custody of the central government undermines the aim of decentralisation and renders the exercise futile. This is why deconcentration is at times pushed to the periphery of the decentralisation discourse because under this form, local authorities do not have a platform to make a significant decision on governance issues. 

Support to the Government of Lesotho in 2014 by EU, UNDP and United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) on diagnostic assessment of decentralisation in the country heralded the adoption of the decentralisation policy. The diagnostic assessment study unearthed eight challenges[1], which pointed to the need for a decentralisation policy that will provide a roadmap towards the adoption of a relevant decentralisation model (Diagnostic Assessment of Decentralisation in Lesotho, 2014).

The Lesotho Decentralisation Policy (2014)   provides a comprehensive framework for setting up a fully-fledged decentralisation process in Lesotho. It provides a roadmap for implementing decentralisation through facilitating effective operationalisation of various structures of sub-governments at different levels. The policy is also hailed to be a product of high participatory and inclusive consultation, which are fundamental features of democratisation of governance and development (Khiba and Disiree, 2020: 370; Kali, 2020: 13). Inferring from inclusivity and ability to attract wide participation of the public, the policy seemed to embrace Lesotho’s decentralisation context. As such, the expectation was to have substantial ownership by key stakeholders throughout all the phases of the Policy development and implementation. The primacy of citizens’ participation in the process is succinctly captured in the purpose of the Policy that: 

[T]he National Decentralisation Policy is to reduce poverty, promote equitable local development and enhance participatory governance, by transferring functions, responsibilities and resources for service delivery to local authorities and empowering citizens to actively participate in all service delivery processes. (Kingdom of Lesotho National Decentralisation Policy, 2014: 11)  

Across different contents of the Policy, a great effort is taken to emphasise the importance of adding value to service delivery by inviting the citizens to actively participate in subnational governments. This is one of the identified strengths of this Policy that are lucidly advocated as pillars of success. Active participation of citizens in decentralisation process therefore highlights the essence of the process, for without it, decentralisation does not have any value.

First local government elections in 2005 were a clear manifestation of a resolute intention to decentralise governance powers from the central government to the local level. Although these elections attracted mixed reactions from political analysts and scholars (Shale, 2005: 106), they became a beacon of hope for inviting local communities to actively participate in governance processes.

Deepening Decentralisation Programme (DDP), which was a joint initiative by EU, UNDP, and UNCDF, concertedly supported the GoL to effectively decentralise key functions to local councils. The general objective of DDP was “to support the Government in reducing poverty, promoting inclusive economic growth and entrenching democratic principles through improved decentralised governance” (Deepening Decentralisation Programme, 2017: 7). Although fiscal decentralisation was not categorically stated in the programme, it was substantially implied. Emphasis on enhanced developmental funding and accountability of the local authorities implies financial empowerment of the local authorities, and their ability to be accountable in the management of the funds.

The fact that decentralisation process in Lesotho is punctuated by various challenges does not negate the value of decentralising governance powers from the central government to the local government. Such challenges ought to be addressed with renewed thinking that perpetually seeks to come up with viable strategies towards meaningful and value-driven implementation of decentralisation. The argument that decentralisation is the kernel of democratisation because it enhances participation through soliciting citizens’ inputs in local governance is still valid. However, without requisite competence of those who serve at subnational government, the value of decentralisation remains hampered. Capacity building of these stakeholders should therefore be adopted as an imperative strategy for success.

References

Deepening Decentralisation Programme (2017). https://info.undp.org › pdc › Documents › LSO PDF   [Accessed 8 July 2024].

Diagnostic Assessment of Decentralisation in Lesotho (2014) Deepening Decentralisation Programme: Strengthening Authorities for Sustainable Local Authorities, Available At: https://www.slideshare.net/HenryHKellamIII/lesotho-diagnostic-assessmentddpsigned [Accessed 10 July 20224].

Government of Lesotho (1993) The Constitution of Lesotho, 1993. Maseru: Government Printer.

Kali, M., 2020. Challenges and prospects of decentralisation in Lesotho. International Journal of Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences, 5(2), pp. 11-20.

Khiba, M. Disiree, M., 2020. Public participation in public policy making: the case of the Lesotho National Decentralisation Policy. Journal of Public Administration, 55(3), pp.370-384.

Multi-Stakeholder National Dialogue Plenary II Report (2019) https://www.undp.org/lesotho/publications/multi-stakeholder-national-dialogue-plenary-ii-report  [Accessed 12 July 2024].

Naha, I.M., 2015. Full decentralisation of powers, resources and functions in the Kingdom of Lesotho: an evaluation from a developmental local government perspective (Master’s dissertation, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University).

‘Nyane, H., 2019. A critique of the newly proposed model of decentralisation in Lesotho. Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance, (22), pp.1-21.

Utomo, T.W.W., 2009. Balancing decentralization and deconcentration: emerging need for asymmetric decentralization in the unitary states. Nagoya: Nagoya University. Discussion Paper No. 174, pp. 1-30.

Shale, V., 2005. The 2005 Lesotho local government elections: implications for development and governance. Journal of African Elections, 4(1), pp.100-116.