97
discussion relating to decentralization and the relationship between the local and central
governments.
Communication
Importantly, there was wide variation in attitudes towards the adequacy of communications
between local and central government, with newly-elected councilors arguing that relations
were “excellent” and that government institutions at the two levels “are one and the same,”
while mayors were adamant that relations between central and local layers of government are
unsatisfactory. According to one participant, the relationship between the central and local
governments is “currently unproductive and not helping the progress of decentralization.” The
mayors felt that the newly-elected councilors “do not see the problems of communicating with
ministries” when there are problems in their respective jurisdictions due to the lack of time the
councilors have spent in their roles.
However, interviewees reported that there is no formalized system for communications between
the two levels of government, with communications being reactive and ad-hoc. Executive
workshop participants identified the need to formalize local-central government
communications in order to promote transparency and participation within government.
While the executive participants felt that the priority change in this category was to establish
clear roles and responsibilities for government ministries and agencies – an issue placed under
the internal organization and management category – the local government participants focused
on the need for local government to participate in the central government’s decisions over the
allocation of resources. Participants were adamant that at present no mechanism exists to
communicate resource needs to the central government and decisions therefore are “made on a
whim,” according to one former mayor. Whether or not this is the case, the important point
here is that there is a high level of demand for decision-making to be more participatory and
include local government.
External Outreach and Inclusiveness – Low Priority
This category was also considered a low priority among participants, who in the words of one
official understood external outreach and inclusiveness as “something to consider after the other
things are in place.” There was a general agreement among both participants and interviewees –
particularly those at the local level – that public demand for engaging with government was
weak and that external engagement would only be possible if resources were made available to
develop communities. One former mayor spoke of the hatred he felt from the people he
represented because he “couldn’t do anything…the government gave me no money to do
anything so the people lose trust.” According to a current mayor facing resistance in his
community, the solution needs to be investment in infrastructure, “When the people see what
you did (tangible achievements), then many people will be on your side.”
Communication and Information Dissemination
Even with a lack of activity in terms of delivering much-needed services, participants felt it
important to engage more with the media in order to present a “true face.” Participants
prioritized media engagement, particularly at the local government level, in order to
communicate the (sometimes limited) activities of government and create a channel through
which the public can engage with elected local officials. One mayor remarked, “there is a need
