Key Components of Modernisation and Local Governance - Essay Example

Modernisation and Local Governance I. Introduction A Public office is a public trust. It is established through the sovereignty of the people for purposes connected with administration of civil services. As a service provider to its citizens, the government is imbued with the responsibility of providing efficient and cost effective basic services. In the light of these precepts, the United Kingdom embraced the principle of modernization in governance where changes are instituted in different areas. One of its focus areas is in the field of basic community services. But before we go into a comprehensive discussion, let us first understand the essence of modernization. What is modernization? In the broadest sense of the word, modernization is about democracy and better public service. As a tool for broadening of powers and base of government, modernisation can be equated to political change and cultural and management reform. It therefore has a profound impact in local governance where its subjects can directly feel these changes. Renewed democracy is one of the aims of modernization. This renewal may be view in the context of the provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 where Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Community Strategies were introduced. The LSPs are bodies, which are geared towards attaining sustainability in communities through participatory governance. Under this feature of modernization, we embrace the principle of partnership where different sectors come together and share not only best practices in community leadership but also other resources and expertise. Another feature of modernization is the best value and best service principle. Envisioning a higher standard of delivery of government services to its citizens, modernization takes us to another level of governance. It envisioned higher standards in public life where a more comprehensive and stringent ethical framework affords a more thorough public scrutiny and accountability. Along the definitions of modernisation is the concept of participation in government where there is shared responsibility and accountability. Taking a closer look at the issues of governance and modernization, we come to an understanding that the building blocks of good local governance are many and varied. Key factors that we must look into is the participation of its citizens, close coordination and partnership among key actors in governance, most especially at the local level, the building up of capacity among these local public servants citizen participation, partnerships among key actors at the local level, capacity where multiple flow of information is necessary to institute transparency and accountability. The local role is vital at this point since they are now given statutory power to secure economic, social and environmental well being of the local areas. This power is critical as it enables local authorities to step outside the narrow provisions of the range of services they are directly responsible for, to look more widely at the needs of the community, such as promoting community cohesion and tackling social exclusion and discrimination (ODMP 2005). II. The Local Government Act 2000 A landmark in the modernization process is the enactment of the Local Government Act 2000. This ushered the era of modernization by providing the legal framework for change. Under this act, localization is highlighted and effective local leadership is at the heart of the Government’s modernization agenda ( Entwistle et. al. 2005). The Intention of the Local Government Act is to promote a strong, visible and more individualised form of leadership with an associated heightening of accountability (Lowndes & Leach. 2004: Entwistle et al. 2005). Localisation and decentralization is highlighted under the Act by the provision of powers for each local council to choose their own leader and cabinet, elected Major and Cabinet, and Elected Mayor and Council manager. The communities are now given the mandate to charter their own courses of action and to plot their own development agenda. Strengthening community leadership through tapping into the pool of local leaders reinvigorates local democracy. As local leaders are tapped and their capabilities enhanced by the added value of ownership where these public servants know that they are serving the place they call home and people whom they know and call as their friends. As the leadership potentials of these local public officials are honed, they now have the chance to achieve national prominence. A good example of this scenario is where a Councillor in a given locality is able to implement a program which generated exemplary results and warrants national recognition. 2.1 Potential Conflict in Local Governance As with any change in paradigm, there are those who foresee conflict in local governance as the provisions of the Local Government Act will now place two kinds of public servants in a more or less the same sphere. With the election of Councillors who, under the law, shall govern local community affairs, potential conflict may arise with the existing paid officials of the government. As these two classes will now be working closely together and their functions are so closely intertwined, they may tend to usurp each other’s functions. Even they way the government presents the situation between the two class of officials; we see how conflict of interest could easily arise. The White Paper of 1998 explained that community leadership is at the heart of the role of modern local government. According to the paper, the community leadership is at the heart of the role of modern local government. Council are the organizations best placed to take comprehensive overview of the needs and priorities of their local area and communities, and lead the work to meet those needs and priorities in the round (DETR. 1998) The 2005 paper Vibrant Local leadership makes the same point, explaining that councils have a key role in leading their communities, focused on networking, influencing and working through partnerships, building on the governance arrangements for LSPs and approaches for Local Area Agreements (ODPM. 2005a). Yet, recent developments may put friction in such co-existence of elective and non-elective leaders. While the government has argued that the leadership roles of councilors and officers can to some extent, be differentiated into community and corporate leadership, key elements of the current modernizing agenda are encouraging councilors to become increasingly involved in the kinds of managerial issues that have traditionally been seen as the primary responsibility of paid officials (T. Entwistle et. al. 2005). On the other hand, paid officers are also under pressure to perform their functions and show some results. Since 2002, officers have come under increasing pressure from comprehensive performance assessments (CPAs) to provide effective leadership of their authorities by offering, among other things, ambition and focus, an ability to set clear priorities and to make good use of available resource (T. Entwistle et. al. 2005). Such conflicts of interest may be some negative effects in the delivery of basic services such as health and sanitation. To illustrate, in the point, let us take into consideration the effect of such conflict in the delivery of health services. In this time technology advancement, we rely much on database to delivery services. The United Kingdom is noted as one of the countries, which is aggressive promoting IT application in our health-care system1. By the very nature of health care services, this close to the heart of our people. Leach and Wilson explained that “Politicians know they will be judged not by what appears in a statement of strategy and policy, but by what happens on the ground.” By this token, politicians may not be contented by just looking at and observing how the systems work but would always be tempted to gain management and control of the same in order to influence the votes of his/her constituents in the next election. On the other hand, the paid officials also have stake on the delivery of health services, therefore, he/she may also assert his/he authority over the project. Control over a project may cause such conflict that will render the system less effective or even ineffective. II.1 Impact of Modernisation in the Delivery of Local Services The impact of modernization at the local level of governance has a two-pronged effect. To get a better picture of the situation, let us go back to our previous example of the IT application on the health-care system. Looking at the positive side of the scenario, a strong local leadership would hasten the delivery of basic services. Decentralised Governance, carefully planned, effectively implemented and appropriately managed, can lead to significant improvement in the welfare of people at the local level, the cumulative effect of which can lead to enhanced human development. Decentralised governance is not a panacea or a quick fix. The key to human development-friendly decentralised governance is to ensure that the voices (UNDP 2004) from all sectors are heard. On the other hand, too much decentralization and devolution of functions from the national government to the local government may prove to be detrimental especially where the local leaders are not adequately equipped to take on the task they are given. II.2 Partnerships Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) and Community Strategies were introduced as a result of Local Government Act 2000. They have helped make great strides to improve the local quality of life. LSPs are now established in all areas and much progress has been made in terms of representation, establishing a common vision and moving to genuinely collaborative working. Community Strategies and Local Strategic partnerships have a critical role in further developing coherent service provision and genuinely sustainable communities. (ODPM 2005). Partnership and Participation have co-evolved as key instruments of New Labour’s agenda for the “modernization” and democratic renewal of British local government. It is often assumed that that partnerships are more inclusive than bureaucratic or market-based approaches to policy-making and service delivery. (Lowndes and Sullivan 2005). The vision behind LSP is that it shall take the strategic lead in the locality by bringing together the views of the local partners, including representatives of the private, voluntary and community sectors, with national, regional and neighbourhood or parish priorities in developing the Sustainable Community Strategy. There are currently over 360 local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in England, 88 of which are in areas that currently receive Neighbourhood Renewal Funding (NRF). (ODPM. 2005) The local vision document” Vibrant Local leadership” demonstrates a strong commitment in developing close coordination in community leadership. According to this article there should be along-term goal of “ developing the effectiveness of the community leadership role of councils in relation to the range of local services that contribute to the well-being of the area and strengthening the relationships between local partners.”2 III. Conclusion Governance has come a long way in terms of innovations and modernization. As the power of the local communities so set their our development directions are absorbed and exercised by its local leaders, we can expect changes in terms of culture and politics. Along the way, we may encounter different events where conflict of interest may arise. However, with the current trend of partnership and collaboration, there is a strong potential for local advancement in terms of delivery of services. Where local governments enter into partnership with private entities in the delivery of services, we can expect better and efficient governance where different sectors have a stake not only on the benefits they will derive from the government but also in the delivery of its services. As we enter into a new era of development, it interesting to note how we as a nation have evolved and how democracy have metamorphosed resulting to the empowerment of local communities. Another thing of interest is that the broadening of the base of power of the government through localization would afford us a better chance self-determination and sustainability. The existence of LSPs also contributes much to local advancements and is essential in our quest for sustained development momentum. In building alliances, we strengthen ourselves. Bibliography 1. Alexander A. (1982) Local Government in Britain since Reorganisation (London: Allen & Unwin) 2. Ashworth, R. Entwistle T & Martin S. (2003) The future Role of Elected Members (Manchester:APSE). 3. DETR (1998) Modern Local Government: In touch with the People, Cmnd 4013 (London: The Stationery office). 4. Entwistle T., Martin S., Enticott G. (2005) Leaderhip and Service Improvement: Dual Elites or Dynamic Dependency? 5. Geddes and Martin (2000) In Policy and Politics Vol. 28 No. 3 6. Local Government Act 2000 7. Lowdnes and leach (2004) Understanding local political leadership: constitution, context and capabilities. Local Government Studies 30(4) 8. Lowndes & Sullivan (2005) Like a Horse and Carriage or a Fish on a Bicycle: How Well does Local Partnerships and Public participation goes Together? 9. ODPM (2005b) Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neigbourhoods Matter (London: ODPM) 10. UK Cabinet Office, 1999 Modernising Government. London, 11. UK Government, 2000, e-government – A Strategic Framework for Public Services in the Information Age. London 12. UNDP 2004. Decentralised Governance for Development: A Combine Practice Note on Decentralisation, Local Governance Urban/Rural Development online available http://www.undp.org/policy/docs/practicenotes/dgdpnintra.doc last accessed March 14, 2006 13. Vibrant Local leadership, ODMP. 2005 available online see http://www.odmp.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odmp_localgov/documents/page/odmp_locgov_034875.pdf 14. www.informationweek.com 15. www.ukonline.gov.uk Read More