Centralisation and decentralisation reveal the degree to which a board of management in the private sector or central government is in favour of delegating decision-making to lower levels of its organisation. The private sector decides how best to run its organisation and they are answerable for their effectiveness to their shareholders and the buying public. Whereas, government is answerable to the whole nation for the way it conducts business.

In this article, therefore, I shall limit myself to the public sector. Centralisation and decentralisation are the extremes on the decision-making spectrum and between them can be plotted the extent to which local bodies such as village, district, town and city councils are allowed to take decisions within their areas of competence and in accordance with the Local Government Act and Regulations made under the Act for each local government body.

In the process of decentralizing, government has also created parastatals bodies and companies, some of which like the Wastewater Management Authority are public companies while others, such as Air Mauritius and SBM, are private, with government as the majority shareholder and their shares are floated on the Stock Market. These have varying decision-making powers depending on the personality of their board members.

‘‘The merit of delegation is that the delegates developed an all-round knowledge of tasks at different levels.’’

Interference by central government

We have noticed that interference by central government ministers in the decision making processes of local authorities, parastatals and companies vary with the standing and reputation of their chief executives. The Rodrigues Regional Assembly’s Chief Commissioner, for example, will not brook interference by the minister for Rodrigues in the internal matters of the autonomous island. The minister, if he so decides, could do so tactfully, through persuasion rather than compulsion.

Up to now, all ministers saddled with local government functions have preferred to be cautious when dealing with the Chief Commissioner. One minister, who bade well to do the opposite, found his office being physically transferred from the administrative bloc to somewhere in a private building.

The whys and wherefores

Decentralisation allows government to hive off large chunks of its functions to bodies which can command greater knowledge of local matters, at a time when communication technology was in its infancy and give timely remedies to local problems. Other advantages are that it provides a training ground for blooming politicians, gives them a first feel of politics. Above all, it teaches them to make cost effective use of scarce resources through time-honoured management techniques, including prioritization, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and projects.

It leaves ministers of the central government ample time to tackle urgent and important business. Even in the allocation of ministerial functions, the same policy is at work. Ministers are not overburdened, unless their superior position allows them to be greedy and take too much on their plate. But unless they are supermen, they will ultimately suffer from Burnt Out Stress Syndrome, which is really a pity!

For the sake of efficiency and effectiveness, we have realised that some tasks are better pushed down to the lowest levels. This goes by the name of delegation, which is the same as decentralisation but at an organisation level. The merit of delegation is that the delegates develop an all-round knowledge of tasks at different levels. This pre- vents some people becoming indispensable and if they die suddenly the organisation does not come to a standstill. People come and go while organisations live longer.

All that has been said of delegation holds true for decentralisation. In both cases we are dealing with mortals. And mortals, if they are overworked, are often under stress. We have had the good fortune of seeing our Prime Ministers reach an advanced age. Two of them were well past 80. Two contenders for the post are nearing that venerable age.

It’s a miracle that they can survive and continue to grapple with arduous tasks on a daily basis and remain, against all expectations, in good health. Robin Sharma, the author of the novel The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari, which for me is also a treatise on Human Resource Management, could spend some time on one of his trips to Mauritius to study this phenomenon.

Other merits of decentralisation

Decentralisation of functions from the centre to the periphery allows more brains to work on thorny problems. Healthy brains or brain power is a valuable asset to a nation’s wealth. Problem solving and decision-making are continuing processes which allow a nation to face adversity. They should be encouraged at village and town levels so that problems find early solutions.

In the first instance, pupils of senior forms should be taught in a practical way the merits of delegation and decentralisation at different levels of decision-making, leading to decentralisation from the Board to delegated structures and from central government to decentralized structures. The greatest advantage of decentralisation is that problems affecting the localities, say floods, fires, defective roads, culverts and bridges, etc. can be addressed without undue delay.

Logistics such as material, human and adequate human resources can be marshaled quickly and effectively. The best examples of decentralisation in action are our hundreds of health centres, schools and colleges, our social security offices, our police stations and our local fire stations. One suspects in light of the number of cases reported by the media that there are many senior officers who prefer, in spite of the availability of clear rules, to refer up for advice.

A plea for the allocation of resources

Just like Rodrigues, under the exemplary leadership of Serge Clair, which has since the first Regional Assembly obtained adequate resources to fulfil some of the pressing needs of Rodriguans, the leaders of local authorities in Mauritius should become more articulate and methodic in communicating each year their priority needs to the Prime Minister. The latter would decide on the quantum of financial grant the country can afford.

It does not strengthen local administration at all if local leaders previously engaged in tough electoral campaigns and fighting tooth and nail among themselves to become chairperson, mayor and what have you, only to sit down as mere onlookers at inaugural ceremonies or the unveiling of plaques and to applaud intruders such as Private Parliamentary Secretaries in their areas. This can only happen if substantial funds are not defalcated for the benefit of members of the government and their lackeys through their Citizen Advice Bureaus (CAB), their CAB offices, the Citizen Support Unit and other organisations which mushroom on the eve of elections.