Decentralization in governance is a buzzword that caught momentum during the 1980s in form of "market-based decentralization". Like any buzzword, it has been applied often mindlessly, without paying much heed to the concept as well as the context. If you ask a reasonably informed and well- intended layperson or even a bureaucrat (despite a world of differences between the two categories), that if decentralization is desirable for a democracy – the answer would be a resounding “yes”. That is because decentralization has come to become this universal value considered generally a deterrent against autocracy and authoritarianism. However, a lot misses the eye when concepts become universal values rather than instruments of utility dependent upon the context.

Consider the case of Oaxaca in Mexico. In the name of decentralization, Article 2 of the Constitution of Mexico was amended in August 2001 to recognize the right to self-determination for the indigenous people, which unleashed some unanticipated undemocratic practices. In the province of Oaxaca, nearly a quarter of the municipalities adopted indigenous legal and political systems. As a result, when Eufrosina Cruz Mendoza won the elections for becoming Mayor in 2007, her candidature was declared null and void on the grounds that the communitarian laws did not recognize the rights of the women to hold public offices. Her votes were disregarded despite the challenge in the courts¹. Eufrosina, after much protest and activism eventually became the first elected chairwoman of the State Congress of indigenous origin and was later elected to serve as a Federal Deputy in the Mexican National Congress².

The lesson here is that whenever the question of decentralization in government is posed, the answer should be “it depends”. Decentralization, unlike popular opinion, is not a panacea for all problems of democracy. There are contexts when it is appropriate and effective, and there are contexts where it is not. Generally, if at the local levels there is a culture of democracy and equity, decentralization is an appropriate policy. Similarly, whenever there is a tendency for a central or a federal government to become autocratic, or a threat that they may be replaced by autocracies, decentralization is a solid counterbalancing policy. Consider the case of the United States. In the aftermath of the American Revolution, there was much speculation and threat on whether the United States will survive as a democracy or will relegate into a monarchical form of government like its European counterparts. Therefore, it made sense for the United States to decentralize power to the states and then further down to the level of the local government. Their cultural advantage was that of the presence of democratic impulses at the local level as was noted by Alexis De Tocqueville in his book "Democracy in America" where he enumerates instances of local groups solving day-to-day collective action problems by coming together voluntarily and through civil society groups.

In nations like Afghanistan, UNDP and other donor countries tend to invest in decentralization, partially based on the logic that should the central authority be in danger, democracy would at least continue to exist in pockets at the local level. However, the risk of feudal tendencies creeping up inside local level democracies is a challenge to look out for, especially in countries in South Asia. For example, in a remarkable study, Dayabati Roy talks about how in some regions in India elected women officials serve merely as proxies for their husbands, sons or other male family members and are not allowed to freely express their opinions even if they are elected as heads of local governments³. In many instances they are not even notified of assembly meetings and agendas. Even when quotas are reserved for women in the local sabhas (assemblies), they do not necessarily enjoy the same power as their male counterparts. This is because often, customs dominate the intent of the law. If customs and rituals are well entrenched, they simply adjust to the legal mandates and things go on as usual.

Ed Connerley, Kent Eaton, and Paul Smoke in their seminal work "Making Decentralization Work⁴", have pointed out other contexts where decentralization may not work towards furthering the objectives of democracy. Two of these are of prime importance to India. They point out that in a situation where the polity is decentralized and parties are centralized, decentralization is merely a façade. This is true for India as despite the Gandhian rhetoric, almost all the Indian parties from the extreme left to the extreme right of the political spectrum are highly centralized. Under such a scenario, it is difficult for leaders of the subnational levels of government to take any independent decision outside of the party line. In fact, with the anti-defection laws, even the nation leaders hardly have a choice of rooting for their region or districts should their interests fall outside of a few of the party decisions. Which means that given the rhetoric of cooperative federalism and Gandhian democracy, we have spared little room for a decentralized democracy.

A second aspect that makes things difficult for India is another buzzword – the "civil society". It is often said that an active civil society is necessary for a democracy to function well. An active civil society is also considered a necessary precondition for a decentralized form of government. However, Connerley, Eaton, and Smokey raise a relevant question – what if the civil society stands on an anti- democratic value system? In India, where considerable sections of the civil society are stuck between the "laal salaam" on the one hand and "saffron flags" on the other – both of which are not the ideologies having much affinity with democratic values, the prospect of decentralization as a means to foster democracy seems bleak.

In India, a google trends search shows that "decentralization" as a word has been most used in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Nagaland, and Jammu & Kashmir (in that order of frequency). It is not surprising as to why. These regions exist on the fringes of the nation and have not been adequately integrated with the rest of the country despite incessant efforts by political leaders, especially in the past decade. These are also the regions where India faces territorial threats owing to their vicinity to Pakistan and China. In these regions, however, the government, especially in recent times, has attempted a mistaken policy of centralization. Centralization is not always good for security. Consider the example below:

Let us consider the three systems shown in the image above as three government structures with varying degrees of centralization. The first is a hub and spokes model – highly centralized, the second is decentralized with a few hubs and the last is a distributed network. Which out of these would be the most susceptible to strategic attack? Indeed, the first one! An attack on the hub is enough to destroy the whole of the system. On the other hand, a system with multiple connecting nodes, i.e., a more decentralized system is more immune to strategic attacks. In systems theory literature, it is said that the more connections a part of the system has with other parts, the more stable it becomes. In simple terms it means that interconnectedness and integration are helpful strategies, but centralization can prove to be dangerous. Unfortunately, beyond the rhetoric, there has been more of the latter and less of the former in the Northeastern India in recent times.

Yet, to the credit of the policy makers, these are indeed precarious grounds and therefore the policy problem at hand for the government of India is complex. For example, in the case of the Northeast, Bethany Lacina in her work "The Problem of Political Stability in Northeast India: Local Ethnic Autocracy and the Rule of Law",has pointed out that traditionally governments have followed a policy of depending on local autocracies or traditional elite networks at the local levels in the northeast to stabilize the region. New Delhi, in other words, has “tolerated” locally entrenched forces “as a means to manage security threats”. Now, however, the governments are attempting to centralize power while continuing to co-opt some of the regional elites. What is happening in these regions is an attempt at centralization on the back of locally entrenched forces – a dual setback for security as well as democracy.

Governance is an extremely context dependent business. Trends in governance and buzzwords can cause more harm than good when applied without due consideration to the objectives a policy aims to achieve. Other buzzwords or buzz-phrases/buzz-concepts are "smart cities", "efficiency" etc. But those are a discussion for another article. In the case of decentralization, as Connerley et. al have rightly pointed out – decentralization is good policy as long as it achieves the triple objectives of furthering democracy, development, and security. However, despite the buzz, the evidence for decentralization as an effective policy in securing any of these three objectives has been mixed and inconclusive. That does not mean that policymakers should argue for more centralization. The lesson here is that to all of these policy prescriptions, whether for centralization or decentralization, the answer inevitable is – "it depends". The litmus test of the desirability of a governance policy is the outcome and not the policy itself. In the debate for decentralization versus centralization “it depends” on whether either will lead to an improved state of democracy, development and security.

References

• 1 Systems Thinking for Policymaking: The Case of Indigenous Women's Rights in Mexico - The Cornell Policy Review," accessed March 5, 2019,http://www.cornellpolicyreview.com/indigenouswomensrightsinmexico/.
• 2 "Three Indigenous Women Who Are Shaping the Region – COHA," accessed March 5, 2019, http://www.coha.org/three-indigenous-women-who-are-shaping-the-region/.
• 3 "Rural Politics in India by Dayabati Roy," accessed March 5, 2019, https://www-cambridge- org.proxy.library.cornell.edu/core/books/rural-politics-in-india/1CB8527FDB5E7CC6034EB1AEC486636F.
• 4 "Lynne Rienner Publishers | Making Decentralization Work Democracy Development and Security," accessed March 5, 2019, https://www.rienner.com/title/Making_Decentralization_Work_Democracy_Development_and_Security.