Abstract
Decentralisation became increasingly popular in Africa during the 1990s. As an institutional reform it holds the promise of substantive democracy and relevant development. However, discourses on decentralisation have a tendency to essentialise and romanticise local communities and downplay questions of exploitation, inequality and dominance. Based on a case study of decentralisation in Mali, the article directs attention to the introduction of communal institutions in local political contexts. Even though the participatory territorial reorganisation carried through in the mid-1990s sought to establish districts that were suitable for local democratic governance, the new communes were created on the basis of existing local social and political relations. The long-term institutionalisation of local governance systems is a function of local struggles over both authority and political processes within the state. The article finds that although the reform has made it easier for ordinary people to influence local decision-making, participation is canalised through clientelistic relations.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my supervisors, Professor Kristian Stokke at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, and Associate Professor Tor Arve Benjaminsen at the Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Norwegian University of Life Sciences, for their assistance with this paper. I would also like to thank two reviewers for their constructive comments.
Notes
1. S. Hagberg ‘Political, economic and cultural practices of decentralisation in West Africa’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘Decentralisation in practice: Power, livelihood and cultural meaning in West Africa’, 4–6 May 2004, Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University.
2. The financing of the ANICT is a joint project of the Malian state and its development partners. Its budget for 2001–2004 was approximately FCFA 30 billion (46 million Euros) of which the Malian state contributed 10%.