The Question

This question was posted on behalf of Nora Pendaeli (UNDP Tanzania)

Dear Colleagues,

Within the context of ongoing electoral cycle support and in preparation for support to more comprehensive electoral reform towards 2015 elections, UNDP Tanzania has received an informal request from the National Electoral Commission to provide advice and input to the design of a structure for its decentralized presence at regional, district or even constituency level. The Commission is preparing a proposal outlining the new organizational structure and elaborating the requirements for effective operationalization.

UNDP and other Development Partners may be requested to provide financial assistance to such decentralization and therefore have ‘value for money’ concerns. Against this backdrop, we would like to solicit experiences from other countries where the electoral commission has undergone similar reforms. In particular we would like to benefit from lessons learned and case studies in areas relating to:

• Cost/benefit analysis of presence at different administrative levels or in relation to population concentration;

• Funding models for how to fund a massive local decentralization of elections management;

• Experiences and lessons learned from rolling out decentralized elections management to sustainable presence;

• Analyses of value for money and sustainability of donor support to such efforts.

We are seeking input from colleagues who have been faced with a similar challenge before and how they effectively contributed to sustainable institutional transformation and development while promoting sustainability and local ownership.

Best regards

Nora Pendaeli (UNDP Tanzania)

 

Summary of responses
In general, decentralisation of EMBs is viewed in a positive light. It is stressed that decentralising is often a costly process, particularly in the initial stages, but that it becomes more cost efficient with time – especially in densely populated areas.

Regarding funding models, one practitioner suggests territorial budgeting, as well as emphasising iplaced on the need for proper and accountable management of funds for the success of any the a the need for strong coordination among donors. The sustainability of financing decentralisation requires particular attention: a Nigerian expert recommends poor countries to explore the possibilities for internal financing.

There is a warning that decentralisation efforts may well face stiff resistance, particularly from those actors who see themselves as having to relinquish responsibilities. In terms of overall sustainability, it is advised to “use structures that are best placed to deliver the service.”

Lesotho and Malawi are cited as two African countries with varying degrees of decentralisation.

Examples of related ACE Articles and Resources
Encyclopaedia:
• Centralised or Decentralised EMBs

Names of contributors
1. Idi Boina
2. Moussa Abdou
3. Horacio Boneo
4. Frank Vassallo
5. Tomsie Dlamini
6. David Arabambi

La question est importante mais facile à répondre, en premier il faut mettre en place les structures, c'est à dire la commission nationale, régionale, et préfectorale. Chacune des commissions fait et propose un budget prévisionnel, le transmet à la commission national, pour harmonisation en vue d'avoir un seul budget. Elle va le proposer au gouvernement pour adoption, et après, convoquer les partenaire pour en discuter ensemble. L'Etat va avancer sa contribution et chaque organisation qui sera inviter par le ministre des affaires étrangères et des organisations internationales qui auront pris part, vont se prononcer. Il serait important dès le départ d'associer le PNUD des la conception des projets de budget pour vous apporter un appui, car ce dernier à tellement de l’expérience en la matière et possède les prix des matériels du marché international.

La commission Électorale Nationale Indépendante (CENI) du Niger n'est pas permanente dans sa forme actuelle. Cependant, un secrétariat général permanent assure la garde du patrimoine entre deux élection ainsi qu'une coordination du fichier électoral. En période électorale, les membres de la commission sont nommés un mois avant les élections. Cette commission procède à la mise en place de ses démembrements en fonction de l'organisation administrative en vigueur ainsi qu'il suit :

- Niveau national : La CENI avec un bureau de 5 membres (1pdt, 2VP, 2 Rapporteurs) le genre est respecté ;

- au niveau régional ;

- au niveau départemental ;

- et au niveau communal.

 

Dans toutes ces structures, on retrouve les parties politiques, la société civile, l'administration, les forces de défenses et de sécurité.

Tout le processus est mené de bout en bout depuis la préparation jusqu'à la proclamation des résultats provisoires qui est faite par la CENI nationale.

 

Cette organisation n'a jamais présenté de défaillance jusque là car impliquant les toutes prenantes parties.

 

En cas de besoin, je peut vous mettre à disposition notre code électoral qui présente de manière claire la composition et les attributions de la CENI

 

Bien à vous tous.

 

Nora,

I did some work for USAID in Guatemala which is quite relevant to your question.  But it is in Spanish.  If you read Spanish and are interested, send me a message to [email protected] and I will send it to you.  Best

Hi Nora,

There are some EMBs very close that have degrees of decentralised election management such as Lesotho and Malawi. While Lesotho is small it is more decentralised and Malawi has three regional offices that administer everything within the region. Unfortunately I do not have any figures. However, what I can say is that done correctly it can be a very efficient way to administer elections especially in a large country like Tanzania.

I would be happy to discuss this further with you if you like. Just send me an email to [email protected]

Regards,

Frank

This reply is posted on behalf of Tomsie Dlamini.

My contribution is based on my experience in the electoral field and in local government and governance processes associated with decentralisation. Hope it helps:

Cost/benefit analysis of presence at different administrative levels or in relation to population concentration;
 
What to decentralise is always at the core of decentralisation processes – and in the case of electoral administration, the various cycles of the election process could help in identifying  In order to answer this question therefore it is critical to outline and clearly demarcate roles and responsibilities of the various levels and the components to be decentralised while considering the cost implications at each level.
 
Costs of maintaining coherence at the various levels could prove to be high at the initial stages of implementation but once the process is up and running, mechanisms for maintaining acceptable standards in place – decentralisation could pay off in the long term. This is even more beneficial in densely populated areas where turn-around time to respond to required services or deliver supplies would be much longer if administrative processes were centralised.  In short, decentralisation in densely populated areas would be the better option than a centralised administrative approach. Issues of accountability and transparency of processes then come to the fore – which will therefore require checks and balances which must be built into the territorial planning process. The planning process could involve laying out for example, strategies for decentralisation, addressing the push factors leading to decentralising, assessing if strategies are responsive to the objectives/rationale of decentralising in the first place, developing policies, responsive management approaches and interventions from national/regional/district levels.
 
Budget elements to consider would include when and how to use budget support? It will be unlikely to decentralise roles and responsibilities without funds following to support those components decentralised. This would then require performance indicators and close monitoring of the application of funds for approved and agreed upon programmes to be put in place.

• Funding models for how to fund a massive local decentralization of elections management;

Possible funding models could include territorial budgeting (regional, district, constituency) while ensuring that there is no double budgeting in the process. Management of donor and maybe components of public funds in such a process becomes paramount to ensure accountability and ownership.
Coordination of programmes at the different levels will require stronger relations among donor community partners to play various roles in a coherent manner. Various components of decentralised election processes will require leveraging of costs. 
 
• Experiences and lessons learned from rolling out decentralized elections management to sustainable presence;

Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
Possible resistance to release responsibilities that were centralised could prove difficult and might not be seamless. Turf protection and resistance are just but a few of the challenges that would have to be addressed for a smooth transition. Whatever disadvantages that may be tabled, bringing democratic activities closer to the people is the current wave in developing countries. Kenya for instance, is going through the process of implementing constitutional reforms which promote decentralisation – calling for involvement of communities – as this is in a way promoting sustainable local development.
 
Emerging lessons linked to a decentralised approach include the structures identified for the delivery of elections – which in most cases are local government – municipalities – and these are designed for spatial development – using structures that are best placed to deliver the service, who is closest to the people where the service is needed.
 
Financial arrangements are the dominance of decentralisation issues and the main reason for the failure in implementation. If the financial obstacles can be overcome, there is considerable scope for improving the quality of electoral administration through decentralisation.
 
• Analyses of value for money and sustainability of donor support to such efforts.

Donor support at inception of decentralisation is essential as this is unchartered terrain where the goal for all is to succeed at all costs. At the initial stages …depending on how quickly the systems in place adapt to institutional reforms and programme implementation, the donor partner plays a role as the agent of change. Decentralisation has become the mantra in developing countries and for that reason it would benefit UNDP-Tanzania to embark on this learning process as it supports a variety of complex developmental programmes in the continent. It would also present an opportunity to build internal capacity in the UNDP to further refine policies on funding programmes. The impact of a well implemented and monitored decentralised administrative programme would be value for money. Transfer of skills and internal capacity building would be key to sustainability of such programmes. UNDP-TZ could therefore view this as an enabling environment for its own development and value-add in electoral administration support.
 
In addition, donor community initiatives in collaborating on support could address inconsistencies that come with fragmented implementation of programmes as the magnitude of decentralisation would call for a joining of hands and assigning components to partners for the various levels.  
 
For all the issues raised there are no easy answers to financial sustainability which would require UNDP-TZ to craft sustainable response strategies – which would further advance the support of democratic processes that it has worked so hard to establish over the period.
 
Regards
Tomsie Dlamini

Apart from financial constraint at the beginning of decentralisation, sustainability of financing decentralisation could be a serious challenge especially in many countries with weak economic base. Decentralisation involves heavy capital inputs at its beginning and running. There are two major sources of financing decentralisation. External donors and the affected country's yearly budgeting. Apart from these two, it may be of immense benefit for a poor country to look inward for sustainable sources of financing decentralisation of elections. For example, private and well established firms and industries could be made to contribute a small percentage of their yearly profit for electoral activities. This, will help,not only in reducing the sustainance challenge,it may arouse the interest of the employers and employees in the private sectors and thereby reducing their apathy during elections. There are many other sources that could be employed depending on the socio-political and economic situations of the country. From my experience of over twenty years,I can competently say that the advantages of decentralisation over centralisation are overwhelming. Where and when decentralisation is efficiently run, where internal saboteurs are kept in check,neutralised and punished, the by-products of decentralisation will always be timely distribution of men and materials, adequate number and quality electoral personnel and materials,efficient mobilisation and education of eligible registrants and voters at the grassroot, fair, free and credible electoral activities at all levels. I need to add that,here in Nigeria, we operate decentralisation system from federal level through state,local,ward and unit levels. For further details you may wish to contact this e-mail address: [email protected]