The valorisation of local customs, institutions, and communities over centralised power has emerged as a popular and genuine solution to Matabeleland-specific developmental matters. We believe the localist solutions approach has become necessary due to regional and central government neglect of local communities. We have highlighted how people of Matabeleland were disproportionately affected by ZANU PF’s centralised power approach which often pitched its policy in response to the majority ethnic Shona population group.
We have written extensively about tribalism and the socioeconomic inequality in postcolonial Zimbabwe and the unravelling nonresponsive policy making. We argue that mainstream politics is not responsive to Matabeleland needs and policy neither reflects nor gives expression to the will of the Matabeleland population.
Policy (in)effectiveness can be tracked down to who determines who gets what, when, and how. Within the Zimbabwean political context, the majority ethnic Shona population group controls and exerts power over every other population group with no regard for their unique needs. There are indicated problems with a majoritarian approach to decision-making.
Majoritarian rule may be convenient, but that must not be confused with it being also fair because it is scarcely fair to minority population groups. We see that in Zimbabwe where the ‘will of the people’ has become a euphemism for legitimising exclusive ethnic Shona interests. With that in mind, we argue that majoritarianism cannot be the best approach in policy making in a socio-culturally diverse society like Matabeleland.
Creative and safe decision-making processes are required so that we can build policies that ably meet the needs of the majority and equally protect minority population groups’ rights from the tyranny of the majority.
We will need to find formulations that make responsive policy making achievable; as alluded to earlier, there is need for policy to be responsive to any clear and settled popular demand. We define responsive policy making as reflecting and giving expression to the will of communities after extensive, honest, and direct involvement of local people to determine their needs and local priorities.
Imported solutions are gimmicks that hardly address local challenges. We must heed legitimate calls for the elevation of localism of decision-making to the core of politics requiring an intentional decentralisation of power away from the State House and back into the hands of local councils, communities and individuals to act on local priorities.
Localism is the view that the governance of such critical local matters as land use regulation, local taxation, and the financing of local public services ought to be reserved for local authorities. We believe this approach improves accountability and responsiveness of services, and significantly reduces waste as locals better understand what works for them.
This shift in focus from national to local government will see Matabeleland build robust local alliances and co-create solutions that have the commitment of local citizens. We need to look at what is already working in communities before imposing external ideas. It must be appreciated that communities already have able leaders and innovators at every level; unfortunately, these leaders’ capabilities are often suppressed and undermined by national government bureaucrats who spearhead the blanket imposition of externally researched ‘solutions.’
Localism does not operate in isolation, it needs central government support for funding, etc. For localism to be effective, local communities must be fully equipped with relevant skills and given power as genuine core-creators of decent local solutions. This will be achieved by working with and enhancing the local civil society, who include the following local actors:
- community groups
- business community
- faith organisations
- neighbourhood committees
There are many examples of how localist ideologies have influenced governance policies and laws. For illustrative purposes only, we reflect how the UK legislation, Localism Act 2011, seeks to devolve to local councils, communities, and individuals the responsibility for rebuilding social cohesion and economic resilience:
- The Community Right to Bid will give community groups the right to prepare and bid to buy community buildings and facilities that are important to them.
- The Community Right to Challenge allows voluntary and community groups, charities, parish councils and local authority staff to bid to run a local authority service where they believe they can do so differently and better. This may be the whole service or part of a service.
- New neighbourhood planning measures allow communities to shape new development by coming together to prepare neighbourhood plans.
- The Community Right to Build allows local communities to propose small-scale, site-specific, community-led developments.
- The Community Right to Reclaim Land helps communities to improve their local area by giving them the right to ask that under-used or unused land owned by public bodies is brought back into beneficial use.
We are convinced that localist solutions will better serve communities in Matabeleland, and that central government remains a significant player providing centralised coordination and oversight.
Localist orientations and arguments, and the concept of localism have been on the rise in Matabeleland due to disproportionate poverty in the region and unjust centralisation of local services, associated poor service delivery, and a lack of accountability within central government.
MTHWAKAZI INDEPENDENT 