ILGIs and local democracy

With deepening democracy in most countries, ILGIs, have time and again, been the focus of attention. The status of these institutions in modern societies and their role within the democratic context has been intensely debated in social science literature: be it the context of democratisation, decentralisation and good governance discourse, or in debates on rural or economic development.

The role of ILGIs in decentralisation

With an increasing thrust towards democracy and decentralisation, the role of ILGIs in local democracy and decentralisation has come under scrutiny, especially in contexts where these institutions have received recognition from the state.

The issue has been more pronounced in Africa where many countries in the post-colonial period, from as early as 1950s to as recently as 1990s, have grappled with the problem of accommodating traditional authorities within a multi-party system of democracy. In South Africa the issue continues to be debated with feminist and liberal scholars questioning the co-existence of institutions rooted in exclusions and lineage based leadership within the democratic system of governance. Further, one of the reasons for the adversarial relationship between traditional authorities and elected local governments in South Africa is that the boundaries of the two sometimes cross-cut one another in a relatively arbitrary fashion. This makes the coordination of action or policy-implementation more difficult in both domains, and increases the chances of conflict.

Interaction between formal and informal local governance institutions in the South

Many international development agencies have begun to recognise the importance of ILGI in local democracy and governance. ILGIs are adapting to the process of decentralisation which has introduced formal local governments at the local level. The interaction with formal local government may take various forms. ILGIs may try to engineer local elections or continue to function as parallel bodies limiting the process of decentralisation. They have been known to restrict pluralism and political competition at the local level and influence the implementation of local development projects.

While some studies show that this interaction negatively impacts development outcomes others have shown that this could also have a positive influence on development outcome. By appropriating contracts for local development projects, capturing benefits or acting as gatekeepers between the citizens and the formal local government ILGIs tend to hamper the process of decentralisation.

In other contexts, they have also made the process of local governance more transparent, increased accountability by monitoring elected representatives, supplemented local resources for social sector developments like providing funds for school or hospital buildings and at times initiated their own development activities through collective action.

Irrespective of the nature of outcome, it is clear that the ILGIs play an important role in local democracy and governance and are forcing policy makers to take account of their presence in framing policies for good governance.

Persistence and adptability

ILGIs have not stood still over time; constant interactions with a transforming external world have resulted in these institutions getting imbued with more modern elements. ILGIs today are vastly different from what existed fifty years ago - less hierarchical and exclusionary than before, and more adaptive and effective in terms of addressing current needs and evolving local understandings. This ability to adapt to changes in the larger socio-political context within which they are situated has enabled ILGIs to survive even today and capture new opportunities for collective political action at the local level that arise from changes in local politics.