|
Zaire Local Government
Internally, Zaire is a unitary state, whose power is
projected
downward to the local level. In such a centralized system,
local
government enjoys little autonomy.
The local government of Mobutu's Zaire, like the
colonial
administration that served as its model, has as its major
function
the control of the population: counting the people,
controlling
their movements, issuing identity cards, and taxing them
to pay for
the operations of the local administrative units that
carried out
these tasks. Although the labels attached to the
administrative
units and to the administrators who hold them have
changed, the
structures themselves are very similar. In many ways, the
texture
of the relationship between the citizen and the state
apparatus
resembles that of the Belgian era.
At the same time, there are great differences between
the
Mobutu administration and its colonial predecessor in the
related
areas of efficiency and honesty. Few would dispute the
effectiveness or probity of the colonial administration,
within its
own terms of reference. By contrast, the Mobutu
administration is
widely regarded as corrupt and inefficient. Indeed,
political
scientist Michael Schatzberg has shown that the
administration has
long constituted a powerful mechanism for pumping
resources out of
the impoverished rural population.
The territorial administration was the crucial armature
of the
colonial state. A thorough penetration of the subject
society was
basic to the colonial project, and the loss of control in
some
territories in 1959 was a mortal blow to colonial
self-confidence.
Territorial control was no less central to the policy
calculus
of the independent state that became Zaire. The loss of
effective
provincial administration, and the fragmentation of
administrative
authority through a multiplicity of factionalized
provincial
jurisdictions and local rebellions, were defining
characteristics
of the First Republic. During the 1964-65 rebellions, the
vestiges
of state power even remotely responsive to Kinshasa were
eliminated
over large areas of the republic. Reestablishing the
authority of
the state, by restoring the ascendancy of its central
territorial
administration, was a first priority for the Mobutu
regime.
Initially, it appeared that this goal was being met.
The
unified hierarchical grid of the centralized state was
restored, at
least in form. But new self-destructive tendencies became
apparent
by the 1970s; the credibility of the state was at issue as
its
inability to perform basic services became manifest, and
corruption
pervaded its apparatus.
Under the Belgians, the entire colony was divided into
nesting
subdivisions. Each province was divided into districts and
each
district into territories, all units on a given level
being
juridically equivalent. There were about 125 territories
and
twenty-five districts; totals varied as a result of the
frequent
redrawing of boundaries in a vain attempt to obtain the
perfect
match between administration and society. The province,
the
district, and the territory all were headed by Belgians.
The
territory was the most crucial echelon, as it represented
the point
at which the European administration exercised its control
upon
African intermediaries, the so-called chiefs.
The local colonial administration functioned without
substantial oversight or control from outside bodies.
There were
consultative provincial councils appointed by the
government, but
until the last few years of the colonial era they
represented only
European interests
(see The
Colonial State
, ch. 1). At the
very end
of the colonial period, elected communal councils in urban
areas
and appointed rural councils were authorized. The former
continued
to function in the major cities until the end of the 1960s
(the
last elected organs from the First Republic to survive).
Rural
councils never really took shape.
In the First Republic, the province was a political
unit, with
an elected assembly and ministers theoretically
responsible to the
assembly. However, such elected bodies were never created
at the
working level where the state had its interface with the
intermediaries it had created, the chiefs.
The symmetry and formalism of the Belgian system, its
density
(almost unparalleled in Africa), and its relative freedom
from
legislative oversight, all were powerful influences on
contemporary
Zaire. The Second Republic attempted not only to
reconstitute this
system, but to extend its application to the cities and to
the
local level in the countryside.
In February 1966, three months after his seizure of
power,
Mobutu signalled his intention to bring the provinces to
heel by
reunification and depoliticization. By the end of the
year, the
twenty-one so-called provincettes had been reduced
to eight
provinces (renamed regions in 1972), plus the capital,
Kinshasa,
meaning that colonial provincial boundaries had been
almost
completely restored. The exceptions were the division of
the former
Kasai Province into Kasai-Oriental and Kasai-Occidental
and the
division of the former Léopoldville Province into
Bas-Zaïre and
Bandundu
(see
fig. 4). The provinces, once quasi-federal
political
units with their own governments, were reduced to
administrative
subdivisions of the unitary state. Their chief officers
were named
by the president, they were rotated frequently, and they
generally
were assigned outside their home areas.
The heads of the various administrative subdivisions
all had
essentially the same role--representing the central state.
The
similarity in role was symbolized by the adoption of
uniform
terminology: the regions, subregions, zones, and
collectivities (as
the colonial provinces, districts, and territories were
known from
1972 on) all were headed by commissioners
(commissaires).
However, the weight of the colonial legacy was reflected
in a
decision in 1982 to revive the prestigious title of
gouverneur (governor), in place of regional
commissioner
(commissaire de région).
Although the governors clearly were dependent upon the
president, problems of control did not disappear. At first
the
governors were kept on a short leash by the simple
expedient of
shifting them very often. Despite the frequent changes,
some
governors briefly succeeded in building up personal
political
machines. To prevent this process, and generally to keep
an eye on
the regional administration, Mobutu added a parallel
control organ
of state inspectors. The state inspectorate seems not to
have
served its purpose; it was abolished in 1971. By the late
1970s,
Mobutu also had abandoned the practice of constant
reshuffling;
instead, governors were named to three-year terms.
Although in theory the Mobutist state was highly
centralized,
in practice local administrators enjoyed a degree of
autonomy. They
were charged with implementing within their regions the
decisions
taken by the president, and an administrative memorandum
stipulated
that the word "decisions," which appears in the
constitution, must
be understood in a very broad sense. Mobutu frequently
made such
decisions, and governors often had nothing more to go on
than a
radio broadcast, telephonic instructions, or a vaguely
worded
telegram. Thus, they had considerable discretion as to how
decisions should be implemented. There were risks at the
same time;
if their interpretations were subsequently to incur
presidential
displeasure, they could lose their jobs.
Since 1977 the Mobutu regime supposedly has been
committed to
a policy of decentralization, beginning with urban areas.
In fact,
there seem to be two contradictory tendencies: toward
decentralization and democratization, under pressure from
external
aid donors, and toward tighter administrative controls.
Also in
1977, a plan was announced for sweeping reorganization of
rural
areas, so that no zone would contain more than 200,000
people and
no subregion would comprise more than three zones. New
subregions
were created in parts of Bas-Zaïre, Équateur,
Kasai-Oriental, and
Shaba. But full implementation of this plan would have
meant a huge
expense, and it was never completed.
Reorganization moves reflected both the administrative
rationale and political considerations, particularly in
Mobutu's
home region of Équateur. Mobutu's transformation of his
home
village of Gbadolite into a city, and the development of
the small
town of Gemena, also in northwest Équateur, into an
important
center as a result of his activities and those of his
relatives and
associates, led to the creation of new subregions around
them. Had
greater importance been attached to "administrative
rationality,"
then surely the reorganization of Équateur Region would
have been
completed. Indeed, plans had been prepared for all the
remaining
"unorganized" regions and portions thereof, but the
deteriorating
politico-economic situation led to their indefinite
postponement.
This wave of reform affected only the number and scope
of the
administrative units, not their relationship to the
center. Not
until 1984, when Mobutu accepted suggestions from external
aid
donors that he carry out political "liberalization," were
the
regions given legislative assemblies and a degree of
politico-
administrative autonomy.
In May 1988, Mobutu proposed improving the functioning
of the
regional structures and redrawing their boundaries, so as
"to bring
the administrator closer to the administered." The
experiment was
to begin with the division of Kivu Region into three new
regions,
Nord-Kivu, Sud-Kivu, and Maniema; the reorganization was
not
implemented immediately, but seemed to be in effect by the
early
1990s. Zaire thus was divided into ten regions plus the
city of
Kinshasa.
Data as of December 1993
|
