Q1.

DISTRICT CREATION DEBATE

There has been a hot debate on the creation of district in the local governance. Local
governance is the act of bringing relevant agencies and actors on board to make decision to
address local issues. There have been two theoretical perspectives of this debate, that is,
consolidation and fragmentation. Both have different perspective to the subject. Followers of
fragmentation focus on the value of achieving greater allocation efficiency and
responsiveness to resident preferences through the local choices freely made by individuals or
in other words, bring the government closer to the residents whilst proponents of the
consolidation stress on the need to improve administrative efficiency and address the
inequalities caused by the fragmentation of tax bases and administrative authority. Below are
the arguments made by the two schools of thought.

Starting with the consolidation perspective. This perspective advocate for a strong and
centralized administration in an area where there are too many governments. Therefore, the
presence of a strong and centralized government or administration is needed to reduce other
governments by absorbing them under its wrings as it would lead the efficient provision of
local services. Arguments made by the proponents of this stand include:

This perspective ensures financial sustainability. There have been some instances where some
smaller MMDAs complain of lack of funds to execute their policies mainly as a result of low
incomes generation at the district and of course the delay in the Common Fund distribution.
Consolidation of these smaller MMDAs into one unit seems like the solution. This is because,
incomes generated by the districts varies from one district to another which some may be
insignificant. Districts which generate significant amount can make up for those who could
not make much when all resources are pooled together. This will ensure the financial
sustainability of those consolidated districts as there would be enough resources to execute
policies.

Secondly, comprehensive and integrated planning. There is a necessity for comprehensive

and integrated planning in order to effectively manage the changes which go beyond
boarders. These changes are socioeconomic such as, rapid population growth, economic
decline, environmental concerns or the impact of technology which affect everybody not just
those in a particular district but the region as a whole. This calls for ‘all hand on deck’
approach where all districts come together to find strategies and solutions to manage these
situations and not as advertised by the fragmentation perspective where districts only focus
on what is going on their respective jurisdiction without caring about others.

Thirdly, economies of scale. These are the cost advantages that enterprises obtain due to their
scale of operation and typically measured by the amount of output produced per unit of time.
They imply that, the average per unit cost of production decreases when outputs are
increased. Local governments are tasked to provide local services which is their outputs,
would increase or decrease based on the scale of their provision of services for their residents.
Larger population implies, increase in output which will reduce the average cost of the
services being provided and the vice versa. Provision of services under this perspective would
be lower as compared to situation where the same services are provided for a district with a
relatively smaller population.

Last but not the least, improvement of service quality. It is the vision of every local
government to provide quality services. The kind of resource at their disposal, determines
whether that vision is achievable or not. Larger population means, enough resources to
execute policies for the residents in order to avoid economic downturns or tax revolts which
are normally seen at instances where local government is unable to provide the needed
services. This might be because of how small the district in question is and thus, it does not
matter the amount of tax paid by residents, it will not be sufficient enough to meet the needs
of the people hence poor service quality. The quality of service can be improved when there
is a merge between or among districts considering the revenues generated, could implement
the needed policies.

Finally, professional knowledge and skills. There are many districts in Ghana which
genuinely cannot provide personnel with the necessary expertise from inside their districts to
manage their local government in a fragmented structure. The question now is, what happens
to those districts? The call for consolidation here highlights the fact that, even if there is no
one capable of doing that task in the fragmentation structure, considering the number of
districts merged and their population under the consolidation, the local government will get
people with the professional knowledge, skills and expertise to manage its affairs for all
districts under the mergence.

Now, let us switch attention to the fragmentation perspective of this argument. Economic
theory, pictures the issue of public goods dilemma of how to aggregate individual preferences
to determine the most efficient structure for the provision of public good is the conceptual
ground base for this perspective. This theory argues that, individuals benefit from separating
into smaller, more homogenous communities that are better suitable to match their local
preferences. The fragmentation perspective therefore emphasises on the need to retain many
units of local government in order to optimize opportunities for people to choose tax-service
package that best suited their needs. Below are some of the arguments:

First is market mechanism for efficient allocation of resources. The main of the local
government to provide public services to the residents in its district. It tends to supply the
services demanded by the residents. Therefore, it is seen as one of the players or a market
force within the local economy. Its representative role and legitimacy are dependent on its
ability to successfully provide the common goods and services its tax-paying residents desire
and will pay for. In the fragmented system, the district government is service-oriented
because of how efficient and effective it is in service provision. A high level of
decentralization means, the districts can provide the ratepayers with a better choice of service
which, in turn, enhance the capacities and make for their long-term viability. This supports
the theory of demand and supply where local government supply the people with their
demands to ensure that, services provided to do not go to waste but it is actually needed. This
leads to efficient allocation of resources since resources allocated are put into good use and
not wasted.

Second is elicit response from local politicians and community members. In the fragmented
system, local government is more proximate to the people than the consolidated system. This
helps the residents in calling on the local politicians to explain or clarify their actions or
behaviours on an issue. Similarly, public sector managers providing important community
services at the local level can be asked to explain their activities to their residents they serve
on issues about the quality of services they provide and because of the proximity of the
residents, public managers would get the intended feedback from their residents to make
adjustments if they are any. That is, accountability.

Thirdly, collaborative decision making. In fragmented system, various stakeholders are

brought on board to make a decision on issue of interest to all and not people outside the
district guessing what decisions or measures to be taken. Due to the size of the district or the
population, every individual or the needed stakeholders will have their concerns and
grievances addressed quickly and swiftly because here, unlike in the consolidated system,
grievances are not forwarded to high authority for decisions to be made or taken.
 Again, fragmentation will promote and give wide autonomy to the districts. The core of
decentralization is to give power to the grassroots in order for them to formulate, implement
or execute policies beneficial to their district. In this system, districts will be the power to be
self-governed, in other words, they will be autonomous since they would be at liberty to
operate freely without necessarily needing the central government’s consent to do so.

Finally, preservation of local identity. Every district has what make it distinct from other
district culturally. Fragmented districts therefore, have people with homogenous customs,
beliefs, traditions and culture as against the consolidated which is made up of heterogenous
districts with different cultures or ethnic. Those from the minority would be have their culture
corrupted or lost to majority. Cultural artefacts that have historical tires to the former’s
ancestors would be taken from their original home to be housed or displayed at a museum in
some sense, stripping the cultural rights of the people. But with the fragmentation, respective
districts with their autonomy, would set up a museum or an exhibition center by themselves
to display their artefacts or foods in their own districts preserving what makes them different
from others, that is, their local identity.

To end this, I think this theoretical debate of district creation is a double-edged sword that
need a careful scrutiny on whether to go with the consolidation argument or to side with the
fragmentation argument. Both with their enormous advantages, have their flaws as well but
from the perspective of having a decentralized system, my support goes for the fragmentation
argument simply because, it is in the fragmented system that would warrant a proper practice
of decentralization, that is, the power to the grassroots.
Q2. IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE NON-PARTISAN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IN THE CONTEXT OF A NATIONAL PARTISAN
POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT?

The issue of whether to allow partisanship or maintain the bipartisan status at the local
government level takes the center stage whenever there is an issue of mismanagement, lack
of accountability or inefficiency at the local level. Non-partisanship or bipartisanship system
is a system under which candidates are not sponsored by political parties which in our case,
in the local government. Currently, Ghana is practicing non-partisan local government
system. This is because, the constitution does not permit the elections of the MMDCEs in
office but allows the president to appoint them subjected to the approval by the Assembly
persons. There have been many arguments on whether to allow aspirants at the local level to
contest for offices on party lines or not. This seems to be a mixed blessing since both sides of
the argument have pros and cons. Below are arguments made by those who support
partisanship at the local level and those who root for bipartisanship.

Starting with those in favour for a partisan local government system. Supporters of this side
believe partisanship at the local level is the way to go. Some of their arguments include:

Firstly, open display of MMDAs partisan politics. It is argued that some degree of partisan
politics already exits at the local level or MMDAs. Due to the provisions made by the
constitution with regards to make up of the MMDAs. Although the constitution prescribes
that, MMDAs should be neutral but it is this same constitution that compromises that
provision by allowing the president to appoint MMDCEs and government appointees into the
MMDAs. The president therefore, does these appointments purely by party lines as the
saying goes, “no one wants to work with his enemies”. Also, it is noted by Nyendu (2015)
that, there is no denial of facts that candidates of DAs are sponsored by the political parties so
for us pretending there is no partisanship in MMDAs is just an illusion we are making to
ourselves. So, it would cost no harm if there is an open display of partisan politics at the
MMDAs because there already is.

Again, promotion of local democracy and better governance. With the exception of assembly
persons election, the locals have a little or no say in who leads them at the MMDAs thus
chapter 20 of the 1992 constitution on Local Government. This although permits the people
to select 70% of members of the DAs, it gives the president 30% membership appointments
to sensitive positions in the MMDAs which tends in some ways to curtail the people from
enjoying full local democracy. Alternatively, if there is a constitutional provision that makes
room for partisan politics at MMDAs that is, candidates aspiring on party lines, the people
would have to elect them into power thereby promoting local democracy because this time,
they get to really choose who should lead them at local levels. Also, local government
election when conducted along partisan lines could be used to examine the performance of
the incumbent government and in so doing, foster better governance.

Thirdly, increment of voter turnout in the local elections. The voter turnout in the local
elections do not come closer to that of the national partisan elections. This is because, the
aspirants at the local levels do not have the funds and resources to campaign like the partisan
aspirants do. Also, the public sensitize and awareness creation of the local elections is
significantly low either from the Electoral Commission and the aspirants themselves as
compared with national partisan elections which enjoy almost unlimited airplays and
awareness creation programmes and adverts from the EC and the various stakeholders. These
send a strong and vital message to the electorate as it shows how important the partisan
election is. As a result, electorate knowing what is at stake, would turnout in their numbers on
the due day to vote for their political parties. This could also happen in a partisan local
election, where electorate will know which aspirant is representing their party at the local
levels and will vote massively as seen at the national partisan elections. Local elections tend
to record low turnouts due to fact, most at times, more than half the electorate do not know
the aspirants themselves because of low public sentitising and adverts and how non-partisan
the election is thereby rendering it of no importance hence low attendance at the election day.

Furthermore, the nurturing of political skills. ‘Experience’, they say, ‘is the best teacher’,
tends to support this assertion that, partisan local election could serve as the forum for the
development of political skills at the local level. National leaders do not pop up from
nowhere or come from the blue but from the various localities. Partisan local government
elections will allow local government to be used as training grounds for higher political office
at the national governance level which is partisan thereby nurturing aspirants to appreciate
the task ahead.

Also, selection of articulate and competent leaders. From the above point, when aspirants go
through local government which is partisan, it would signal the aspirants and the electorate at
large, whether the former has what it takes to do the job at the national levels or not.
Aspirants would be exposed considering their track records at the subnational level. This will
see to it that, there are only effective and competent leaders selected at the national level
which a sensitive level.

Lastly, promote popular sovereignty. Already, non-partisanship of the local government has
cut majority of electorate out of the selection of members per what the constitution provides.
Making the sovereignty conferred on the appointees of the MMDAs done by few of the
electorate. This does not promote popular sovereignty because MMDAs would not be
directly subjected to the will of the electorate due to the fact that, they have no hand in their
appointment but would do the biding of those who appointed them which in this case, is the
government. Partisan politics at the local government will promote popular sovereignty
because there will be a constitutional provision to allow all electorate to select their own
members at MMDAs. In so doing, will confer popular sovereignty on the members because
this time, all electorate will give their assents to the members to exercise power and also
making them be subjective to the people.

The other side of the coin are those who root for non-partisanship. They believe the election
of the MMDCEs is uncalled for and advocate for the maintenance of the status quo. That is,
to be brought to office via presidential appointment. Their argument is based on the
following:

Non-partisan system allows for the mobilization of experts and consensus building. The CPP
government led by Nkrumah made this a constitutional provision for the appointments of
30% of MMDAs by using mobilization of experts as his justification. This assertion is
supported by the fact that, not all MMDAs would have the people with the necessary
expertise to manage the local government. So, if a way is made for partisan local system
which would allow the people to elect members of MMDAs from their districts, there will be
ineffectiveness and inefficiency at the local levels. But the maintenance of the status quo, the
president is allowed to appoint members to the MMDAs who have the prerequisite
experience outside the district in question to manage the job. With MMDAs working outside
political party tags, will attract the stakeholders such civil societies, investors and the people
at large to build consensus because here, they will see themselves as one and undivided by
political parties to find solutions to their problems and push towards development of their
districts.

Secondly, opposition officials can sabotage the government in power. In scenario where
members elected at local government are from the opposition party who want to take power
at the next poll, what do you think would happen? It’s a rhetorical question indeed, as we are
all aware the opposition would sabotage the sitting government at the local levels making the
incumbent look bad to electorate. They would not execute the projects designed by the
government for their districts because in so doing, would tell the people that the incumbent
government has their needs at heart but if they do not execute those projects the opposite
thought sets in. This will ensure their success at the polls in the next election which is what
every opposition wants hence the sabotage which would be at the expense of the development
of the district.

Thirdly, prevention local conflicts and stifle local development. Many districts in Ghana are
occupied by people from different ethnic background. Political parties as we all already know
are regarded as of ethnic lines. For example, the New Patriotic Party (NPP) is considered as a
party of Akans and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) being the party of non-Akans.
This issue has already caused conflicts across the nation and imagine bringing it right to the
door steps of people living in a multi-ethnic communities amalgamated into a district will
cost. Allowing partisan politics into the local government is like ethnicization of local politics
which would bring no joy but conflicts among ethnicities derailing national development
considering what history has already taught us.

Also, to increase public expenditure. Every incumbent government wants to win subsequent
elections and the only way to do that is by doing what the electorate bid. As a result, the
government will tend to use state resources to do things to please the electorate. The
government will now focus on what the people want and not what they actually need. Thus,
over-spending on projects that are technically of no relevance to the electorate which would
increase public expenditure and financial mismanagement. Also, additional funds or
resources would be required by the EC in order to conduct the elections for the MMDCEs but
the absent of partisanship would save the national purse from draining.

Finally, serve as a catalyst to attract marginalized group. Activities of partisanship at local

government levels will render many localities or communities marginalized. In an instance
where a political party is voted to power as a central government, any constituency or district
which does not have its elected member of the District Assembly being in bed with the
central government or having a DCE who won the seat on the ticket of the opposition party,
that district in question will face underdevelopment. The central government would rather
channel resources to districts where its party won the DA elections leaving the DAs which
have DCE from opposition parties marginalised.

In conclusion, the issue of whether “it is possible to have an effective non-partisan local
government system in the context of a national partisan political arrangement or not is a
double” is a double-edged sword which needs to analysed carefully. Based on the arguments
made above, I think partisan politics at the local government is the way forward. Although,
this may disallow the mobilization of experts and consensus building, increase public
expenditure, sabotage of government by opposition officials, the emergence of marginalized
groups and make room for conflicts, the mere fact that we are pretending there is no
partisanship in the local government is like making hallucination out of ourselves or seems
more of an illusion than the reality on the grounds.
Q3. BENEFITS OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Social Media sites (SMS) are online tools designed to enable and promote social interactions.
Social Media site is a form of digital media which allow users to create online communities
for sharing information, ideas, personal messages and other content. Every social media
differs in its purpose. Examples of social media include; Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and
what have you. Since the advocacy for E-Government/Governance, local governments (LGs)
rely on social media as a communication channel more than ever as more people use it
regularly to get news updates and connect with people. It has therefore, become a necessity
for the LGs integrate the utilization social media in its operations because of numerous
benefits it provides. Below are some of the benefits of social media in local governance;

Firstly, social media sites enhance local participatory democracy. Local participatory
democracy is a form of government in which citizens engage individually and directly in
policies that affect their lives, rather than through elected representatives in their localities.
SMS allow the local government to a interact between local authorities and citizens, share
information on local government by-laws, codes and announcements. They are also used for
communication and information dissemination about local elections which includes, voter
participation, mobilization, and fund-raising in local elections. Open discussion forums
provide citizens the opportunity to debate policies online while facilitators guide discussion.
This allows the citizens to personally get involved in governance and not through their
representatives or assembly persons thereby, enhancing local participatory democracy.

Secondly, they improve local public policy making. SMS make room for the participation of
citizens in political and social affairs in their communities as they allow local governments to
publish their proposed policies or contents for public viewing and have feedbacks and
concerns considered before the implementation of those policies. Also, because of
inaccessibility or time, many citizens may not be able to attend townhall meetings but can
participate actively through the hosting of online meetings to have relevant ideas and
comments, which would have been missed if the meetings were hosted offline, collated for
decision making on drafting policies. This would improve the local public policies been made
because many people were given the chance to have their voices heard and in so doing,
would face less opposition of the policies when implemented. SMS also help LGs connect
with other public agencies, various levels of government and private companies for effective
communication.
The third is, efficiency and productivity. Social media sites increase efficiency and
productivity in many ways. Time and trips expenses are saved because in person meetings
can now be hosted virtually via SMS. Advertisement on job vacancies or recruitment of
staffs, heritage and tourist sites (district potentials) could be posted on social media sites to
attract the needed attentions to serve the intended purpose of the adverts. Also, there have
been some instances where people who need applications, renewal of businesses or submit
their tax returns face unpleasant experiences due to the long queue and its related stress they
would go through before getting them done at the office. SMS allow LGs to have those
services accessed by the people and also via e-procurement. They also provide storage of
documents and records which can be sent or received easily by employees. These have cut
cost of having these services done in person, have increased productivity because more than
be done in just couple of minutes thus increasing how efficient LGs are.

Finally, SMS improve access to local services. Local issues and challenges are reported to
local authorities via SMS by citizens’ opinions and complaints. A clear example is the video
of a man physically abusing a toddler circulated social media which eventually led to his
arrest by the Ghana Police Service. Also, SMS have made it possible to get access to higher
education and health delivery from a remote area. Public awareness creations campaigns like
road safety and drug use on SMS educate and announce emergencies to citizens as well. For
example, COVID-19 was announced to public even before the first case was recorded in
Ghana by the SMS handles of Ghana Health Service. All these services were previously
accessed by few, that is, those closer to the district capitals but with integration of SMS in
local governance, the accessibility of local services are now access districtwide.

In conclusion, the integration of social media in local government despite its curses, have
outnumbering blessings. Looking at the trend in communication and information
dissemination, using SMS in the local government is the appropriate and sensible thing to do.
Q4. ROLES OF CHIEFS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Traditional Authority (TA) in Ghana consists of the Chief and some selected Elders in
the society with the Chief at the apex or paramount. Elders include the Chief Priest and the
Sub-chiefs in the various suburbs under the paramount. The hierarchy of the TAs varies from
different cultures or localities, that is, every society has its own structure of the hierarchy, but
always has the Paramount Chief at the apex. For instance, chieftaincy in Ghana is ascribed. In
other words, a chief must necessarily be a male who hails from a royal family, duly selected
and appropriately enskinned or enstooled. But the divergence here is that, in the northern part
of Ghana, a chief is selected from a patrilineal lineage whilst southern part, from the
matrilineal. A chief being the head of a society, has some roles he performs. Below are some
of the roles;

Firstly, chiefs are agents of development. A chief is supposed to help to fulfill the hopes and
aspirations of the community. These hopes and aspirations of the community over which a
person is a chief, in simple terms, is development. It has been found that the success of a
chief is judged on performance in terms of the level of development he is able to bring to the
community. Some traditional leaders continue to be agents of development in their
communities and areas through mobilizing human and material resources for development
projects. They initiate development projects and spearhead fund raising activities for
implementation. One good example is the Okyehene’s environmental project that has led to
the establishment of a university college.

Also, chiefs settle disputes most particularly land disputes and spiritual disputes among their
subjects. They also ensure that peace and tranquillity prevail in their areas of authority.
Without peace and social order, there cannot be development. One way of ensuring this is
through avoiding and settling quickly all chieftaincy disputes which tend to divide the people.
Also, some disputes which have to do with spirituality like spelling doom or cursing
someone, is not settled in courts but the chief’s palace. So, it is their duty to step in and settle
this kind of disputes.

Thirdly, they are the custodians of the lands they preside over. All lands, both arable and
inarable lands are in the hands of the chiefs. They therefore, have the power and authority to
permit and disallow settlers and other investment partners on their stool lands. They also
assist the government/local government to acquire lands for their various developmental
projects.
Again, chiefs have the power to make and enforce customary by-laws and punish offenders
of the laws. There are taboos in every society and their adherence to them is the fear of
getting punished. Some taboos like, ‘having sex in the bush or farming/fishing on some
specific day(s) which is disallowed’ is punished if found culpable. Culprits of these kind of
customary by-laws are not taken to courts but are taken to the palace for their punishments.
Some of the punishments include, fines, banishment from the society among others but
nowadays, punishments given are not to violate human right. These shape the behaviour of
the people and the chiefs as well and also deter others from violating the bye-laws in place.

Finally, Chiefs play advisory role to the government. They serve as important links between
the government and the people, acting as channels of communication and disseminating
government policy and decisions. Chiefs are closely to the people more than the government;
this makes them right people to give advice to the government on policies concerning their
communities. They consulted by the government on any issue that will have an influence on
their subject before a decision is taken. Agendas of the government are also reechoed to the
people through the chiefs. For instance, policies of government like, “operation clean your
frontage” or the national sanitation initiated by the government are announced to the people
in the various societies days for the exercise by chiefs to create public awareness and
sanitization to support the policy.
Q5. WHAT SHOULD BE THE FUTURE ROLE OF CHIEFTAINCY IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT?

Traditional authorities (TA) were the institutions responsible for the running of the day-to-
day activities of their localities in Ghana even before the advent of the European. Although
along ethnic lines, they were seen as the cultural representatives of their people and
symbolize the communities they lead as at now. In their traditional capacities, they engaged
in various functions aimed at bringing improvement and development on the lives of their
people. They ensured peace and harmony in their communities by making and enforcing
customs and also manage community resources. They are highly respected by their subjects
and generally regarded as custodian of the land. This is the reason why they were used as a
vehicle for indirect rule which reduced their power status to merely “messengers” of the
crown.

Since then, their roles have been reduced towards the attainment of independence with the
CPP led by Nkrumah to the establishment of the PNDC Law 207, that made the local
government authorities the main political and planning authorities of the local areas. Also, the
Fourth Republican Constitution has prohibited traditional authorities from engaging in
partisan politics with the view of preserving their unifying position. The issue of whether
chiefs should be involved in local government or not, has attracted the attention of many
scholars which as Ayee, Mahama and Rathbone to mention but a few. Although, they are
consulted by the president for the appointments of the MMDCEs, the constitution is silent on
the kind relationship that should exit between the TAs and MMDAs or the kind of roles the
TAs should play.

Mahama (2009) gives two approaches on what the role of the chiefs should be in local
government or the kind of partnership that should exist between the TA and Local
government. Namely, the “CAT” approach and the “OSTRICH” approach. Conclusion would
be drawn after explaining the two approaches.

Firstly, the Cat approach. In this partnership or approach, there is a legal provision of the
inclusion of TA with their supposed-roles clearly defined. The animal used in this partnership
(Cat) is smart, stays focused on its pursuits, always comes back when it leaves home because
it knows its environment very well which does not seem like a burden to its owner
apparently. Under this approach, there would be clear constitutional backed guidelines given
to the both the Local government and the TAs on how the local areas should be administered
to avoid a clash of powers in executing their duties. Historically, this partnership was
practiced in Ghana during the colonial era and early post-independence. For example, the
one-third local government units membership provision made for TAs in the 1957
Constitution, the 1969 Constitution also reserved one-third membership for TAs to the
District Council and the maintenance of the inclusion of not more than two traditional leaders
from the Regional House of Chiefs to the Regional Council in the 1979 Constitution and
under each of the instances, TAs were given clearly defined roles to play as far as local
governance was concerned. Some advantages of this partnership include: effective
collaboration, planning and use of resources, harnessing of local resources, common and
shared vision for development, transparent and equitable distribution of resources. Its
demerits are; lack of accountability on the part of the TAs, chieftaincy disputes may stall
development and lack of genuine representatives from other acephalous minority tribes.

Lastly, the Ostrich approach. In this approach, the TAs are acknowledged to play a key role
in development but no lucid legislative arrangements exist for their inclusion in the DAs
except consultation. The two only meet in an instance where avoidance is not an option for
anyone of them. Each works adequately without involving the other. Consultation is ad hoc
except where mandatory may hardly occur. This is the approach being practiced currently in
Ghana except the instance where the constitution makes provision that enable two chiefs
from the Regional House of Chiefs to serve on their respective Regional Coordinating
Councils. Advantages may include; the maintenance of the democratic nature of local
government with no free ticket given to TAs, free initiation of projects by TAs along side that
of the DAs, TAs can compliment the DAs in the mobilisation of local resources and
preservation of the non-partisan and unifying entity. Some criticisms include; TAs have been
prevented from active involvement in development which will affect the ability of the DAs to
mobilise local resources and localities become polarized between the TAs and the DAs, thus
inability of the DAs to undertake any serious developmental projects.

From the approaches above, I think adopting a strategy that strikes the balance between both
approaches or partnerships would be ideal for decentralization of local government. Here, the
TAs will play stronger advisory and consultative role without fully integrated into local
government as seen in the Ostrich approach. Guidelines will be developed for closer
engagement between the TAs and local government and also TAs could co-opt on the sub-
committees of Assemblies as advertised by the Cat approach. With this, the important roles of
the TAs would be recognized and which could contribute significantly to the socio-economic
development of Ghana.