Geography
Devolution in Sudan
Devolution in Sudan refers to the process of decentralizing power from the central government to regional and local authorities. This was done to address the country's ethnic and regional diversity and to promote greater participation in decision-making at the local level. The devolution process has been ongoing since the early 2000s.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
3 Key excerpts on "Devolution in Sudan"
eBook - ePub- Peter Woodward(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
6 Regionalisation in the Sudan Characteristics, problems and prospectsAl-Agab Ahmed Al-TeraifiOver the past two decades decentralisation has been increasingly recognised as an essential component of the development process. Several scholars in the field and most studies and reports from donor countries and international and regional agencies argue that 'decentralisation is necessary to accelerate the pace and spread the benefits of economic growth and to assure that those benefits reach the poorest groups, who have usually been by-passed or excluded from the development process'.1Decentralisation, however, is an elusive term which means different things to different people. To an economist 'decentralisation is important if it can reduce the cost (or increase the profit) of producing a given set of goods tacitly agreed by the organisation and its clients'.2 For public administrators, on the other hand, the concept is related to the diversity of governmental services and promotion of opportunities for the citizen to influence public policy making. In this chapter we adopt the following definition of decentralisation which has been offered by a UN study on the subject in 1962:The transfer of authority on a geographic basis, whether by deconcentration (i.e. delegation) of administrative authority to field units of the same department or level of government, or by the political devolution of authority to local government units or special statutory bodies.3From this definition two mam forms of decentralisation can be identified: (a) deconcentration and (b) devolution. Deconcentration refers to the delegation of authority that is adequate for the discharge of specified functions by personnel of a central government unit who are situated outside the capital city, whereas devolution means the legal conferment of powers on formally constituted local and regional authorities to discharge specified or residual functions.4 More specifically, when functions are decentralised by assignment to state/regional and local governments the process is called 'devolution' and when they are delegated to field offices of the central government the process is known as 'deconcentration'.5
eBook - PDFDiverging Mobilities
Devolution, Transport and Policy Innovation
- Danny MacKinnon, Jon Shaw, Iain Docherty, Danny MacKinnon, Jon Shaw, Iain Docherty, Steven Tiesdell(Authors)
- 2008(Publication Date)
- Elsevier Science Ltd(Publisher)
As Salmon and Keating (2001) observe, much of the debate about the transformation of the state has been conducted at a general, abstract level rather than offering detailed examinations of change in particular places. One of the most concrete and tangible processes in this respect is devolution. Since the 1970s, many unitary states across the world have introduced some degree of devolution, strengthening the regional scale of government ( Rodriguez-Pose & Gill, 2003 ). This has produced an assortment of institutional arrangements, stretching from the strong regionalism of Spain to the functional (administrative) regionalism found in Portugal or Sweden ( Keating, 1998 ). From the perspective of the central state, devolution can be seen as part of a broader process of territorial management, designed to meet the two underlying territorial objectives of the state: ‘‘preserv[ing] the integrity of the territory, and ensur[ing] legitimacy within these boundaries through popular support for and acquiescence to its political authority’’ ( Rokkan & Urwin, 1983, p. 166 ). It is instructive to note, however, that the introduction of political decentralisation has often not been enough to settle debates over devolution and regionalism, sometimes leading to further stages of reform. Whilst the observation that devolution is a process not an event has become something of a cliche´ in the context of British devolution ( Davies, 1999 ), the adoption of a broader international perspective serves to emphasise its underlying validity ( Hazell, 2001 ). The purpose of this chapter is to place our study of transport policy in the UK within the broader context of the literature on devolution and state restructuring, outlining the theoretical perspectives that inform the book and reviewing the process of devolution in other states.
- Charles Manga Fombad, Assefa Fiseha, Nico Steytler, Charles Manga Fombad, Assefa Fiseha, Nico Steytler(Authors)
- 2022(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
While political leaders have shown considerable interest in individual positions of power provided by the peace agreements, little attention has been paid to the practicalities of devolution in the system of government. Few, if any, demands for greater decentralisation have been recorded from the lower levels of government, suggesting that states and localities are content with the Transitional Constitution’s declaration that South Sudan is a decentralised system and its circumvention of previous arrangements for a federal system. However, a change-maker might be the advent of the notion of a National Dialogue. This has brought to light a significant level of demand for a federal system in South Sudan, though it is far from clear how the recommendations of the National Dialogue will fare in the coming years.7.2 South Sudan: a history of top-down governance in a unitary system
During the early history of South Sudan, colonial powers (Britain, France, and Belgium) competed with each other for control of its territory. As was typically the case, once such control was established, decentralisation – through the creation and use of native administration – was simply a useful way of lessening costs of direct administration that would otherwise be incurred. The natives were to be used only for implementation purposes, never for decision-making.6 It is noteworthy that the terms ‘decentralisation’ and ‘native administration’ do not denote any form of devolution of authority in the colonial administration. Historically, the pattern is that orders have been transmitted from Ankara to Cairo (in Turkish times), Cairo to Khartoum, London to Khartoum, and, since independence, Khartoum to Juba; now Juba has its turn to be the source of orders for the states and localities. The result is that, apart from casting their ballots for the given candidates, citizens under national institutions have rarely enjoyed any power to make decisions.77.3 The Addis Ababa Agreement (1972)
The disenfranchisement of citizens in all things political was also apparent during the Addis Ababa Agreement (1972) period of governance by the High Executive Council (1973–1983). Superficially, this period may seem like one of empowerment for the South Sudanese people after 17 years of war (1955–1972) but was an era virtually of war between North and South Sudan. Revealingly, General Gafaar Mohamed Nimeiry appointed a southerner (in the person of Maulana Abel Alier) to lead the Khartoum delegation at the Addis Ababa talks facilitated by the All-Africa Council of Churches. At the establishment of a government for Southern Sudan as provided for in the newly concluded agreement, Nimeiry appointed his chief delegate to be the President of the High Executive Council (as the executive wing of the Regional Government of Southern Sudan came to be known). This incident illustrates the top-down decision-making that has been the norm in the governance of South Sudan.8
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
