Chapter Eleven
The status of local government functionaries in France and Nigeria: A comparative analysis
p. 169-180
Texte intégral
Introduction
1Undertaking an analysis of the status of Local Government functionaries in France and in Nigeria necessitates, as a preliminary condition, a broad outline of the similarities and differences between the two systems. Such an outline is all the more pertinent considering the fact that the two countries operate on two different constitutional basis, France being a unitary state whilst Nigeria is a federal state. Also, whilst France is generally known to be an independent, industrialised country which has not experienced, at least in the immediate past, colonialism, Nigeria, on the other hand, is a relatively young, so-called "developing" country which only emerged from the doldrums of colonialism in 1960 and is operating a dependent, neo-colonial capitalist system. Thus, a broad introductory summary of the similarities and differences between the two countries will not only sharpen our analytical focus and clear the seemingly impenetrable grayness on our way, but also serve as a point of departure on which our analysis will be based. Our method will be mainly analytically descriptive.
2Globally, upon close examination of the status of functionaries in the two countries, we can delineate a number of similarities and differences. The point on which there is the least disagreement is that both the communes in France and the local governments in Nigeria are microcosms of National Government, at the grassroots. The difference between the two countries in this regard lies only in numbers: France has a total of 36,394 communes, Nigeria has only 301 local governments. Similarities can also be found in the area of secondment of staff. This takes place between state and local governments in Nigeria and between the communes and departments in France. There are also points of convergence in the two systems in matters related to the recruitment, appointment, promotion and discipline of the staff as well as conditions of service. Ditferences between the two systems may be seen on the question of democracy at the grassroots, the issue of patronage and clientelism and the effort made at the local level to meet the challenges facing workers.
3Our analysis of the two countries starts with two important reforms – the 1976 local government reforms in Nigeria and the 1982 decentralisation reforms in France. For the purpose of this study, the status of personnel is defined as a set of legal dispositions fixing the rights and obligations of persons with regards to the organisation employing them.
The status of communal functionaries in France
4France has three levels of local government. In pyramidical order, there are the communes at the base, followed by the departments then, at the apex, the regions. As we have already noted, there are 36,394 communes. There are 90 departments and 27 regions (both metropolitan and overseas). In this study, we are concerned with the commune personnel.
5One of the most significant and distinctive criticisms of the French political system is that it is so centralised that a majority of decisions, from the communal, departmental and regional levels, nave to be constantly referred to Paris before action can be taken (this being the reason why it is more appropriate to refer to government at the grassroots, as is often done, as local administrations and not local governments). Such a jacobinist tendency has given a very negative and pejorative image to the French bureaucracy as being too large and unwieldy, cumbersome and slow to react even to most important decisions.
6One of the fundamental reasons for the 1982 decentralisation reforms was therefore to rid the administration of some of these negative characteristics by devolving some state functions to the communes, departments and regions. As a result, the mayor of the commune assumed some executive functions which had hitherto been performed by the prefect, the State representative at the local level. Similarly, important functions, notably in the areas of urban planning and economic development, were transferred to the communes. Changes were also introduced in relation to staff regulations and conditions of service.
7We are concerned here mainly with the status of functionaries. However, we cannot consider this question in isolation since, to a large extent, this status is related to the capability of the communes to assume the functions delegated to them by the central government.
8The 1982 decentralisation reform introduced some degree of uniformity in the conditions of service of the communal functionaries vis-a-vis the State bureaucrats. A large dose of deconcentration measures was also infused into the reform. One can say that the fundamental guarantee provided for in the reform as it concerns communal functionaries is based on three axes – parity with State functionaries, mobility, and the definite guarantee of a status. Thus, the reform envisaged that remuneration and salaries of communal personnel should be uniform with that of state civil servants. Also, civil servants at the national level could be seconded, when necessary, to the local administration (departmental, regional or communal) to perform certain functions. On the other hand, personnel of local administrations could be seconded to a national echelon to perform certain tasks when necessary.
9The general provisions affecting the status of employees of the communes, departments and the regions go back to 1952. The 1982 reform however brought in the changes that we have just outlined. In addition, the reform stipulates that a commune, a department or a region can make particular provisions affecting the status of its personnel and take some particular measures concerning personnel matters, provided these measures are not in contradiction with the general provisions of the law of 1952 which governs local administrations.
10The 1952 law as it affects communal personnel sets four conditions under which an employee can benefit from a full status. These conditions, which have not changed with the 1982 reforms, are as follows:
An employee holding one or more permanent jobs with a commune, provided the supplementary job was created by the municipal council. Only the municipal council, in any case, is competent to create or suppress supplementary jobs.
Such a job must be on the basis of full time employment, and must cover at least 39 hours a week.
The job must be exclusively communal i.e the functionary must devote all his working activities to the commune. A functionary cannot be employed full time by a commune whilst working at the same time for another employer.
The functionary must be appointed with tenure, by the mayor of the commune or the director of local communal establishment. In the latter case, the power of the mayor and the municipal council in relation to personnel matters can be devolved to the local director or to a committee charged with the administration of the local establishment.
11To qualify for appointment as a communal employee, a certain number of conditions must be met, among which are: the applicant must be of French nationality; he/she must be of good behaviour; and he/she must have attained the age of at least 16 years.
Mode of recruitment of communal functionaries
12The recruitment of communal functionaries is supposed to be based on one of the following procedures:
Open, competitive examinations for candidates possessing certain degrees or diplomas.
Interview of the applicant by members of the jury.
Professional examinations (for specialised posts)
Direct recruitment upon presentation of certificates or justification of professional capabilities. The code of communes, article 2, 412-17 stipulates that direct recruitment is reserved for senior posts such as those of secretary general of the commune, deputy secretary general, mayor’s secretary, director of technical services, chief engineer, chief architect, director of veterinary services, librarian, director of health services, and director of the school of fine arts and music (under communal control) etc.
13It is the mayor’s responsibility to appoint people to fill posts for which the laws, ordinances and decrees do not fix special conditions of recruitment / appointment. In this case, the mayor has to issue an order or decree. Since the decentralisation reform of 1982 came into being, the procedures for appointment into, and revocation of, some jobs have been reviewed. This is the case with the municipal police and the rural police, for example, whose appointments are now the sole responsibility of the mayor. Confirmation of one’s job normally takes place after a one year training period.
Promotion and advancement
14According to the code of communes, promotion of communal functionaries can be in the form of advancement by step or advancement by grade. Advancement by step comprises an increment in salary whilst advancement by grade refers to promotion in rank. Advancement by step depends, to a large extent, on how long the functionary has remained on the same echelon. The maximum and minimum duration of time to be spent on an echelon before one can qualify for advancement by step is fixed by ministerial decree. Following the conditions laid down by decree, advancement by step can be accorded by the mayor of a commune on the advice of a joint commission on communal personnel. Promotion by rank is normally effected by the mayor who sends the list of those who qualify and whose ability in their job has been proven, to the joint commision on communal personnel, which then takes a decision and notifies the employee concerned.
Sanctions and disciplinary measures
15Communal employees, whether working full time or part time, can be sanctioned, called to order or disciplined if their behaviour calls for such punishment. There are diverse disciplinary measures which can be applied to non-conformist employees. The law on disciplinary measures for communal employees dates back to 1959, based on the decision by the joint national commission on local administration and a circular from the interior ministry (circular number 350 of 29th July 1959). This has not been changed by the 1982 reform. Disciplinary measures against an employee can take different forms: warning or being called to order; temporary exclusion from work for 5 days; temporary exclusion for two weeks; delay in promotion; demotion; and compulsory retirement or outright dismissal with or without pension. In all cases, the employee, if he/she has committed a serious offence, is suspended whilst awaiting the decision of a disciplinary council.
16The application of disciplinary measures is usually by the mayor. Before the 1982 reform, disciplinary measures in respect of rural policemen were the responsibility of the prefet. These have now gone to the mayor. The application of sanctions can follow two procedures:
those which can be directly applied by the mayor without reference to the disciplinary council (warning, blame etc.). The employee, if he or she feels the mayor’s action is unjustified, can, in this case, seek redress from an administrative tribunal.
dismissal, suspension, demotion, and compulsory retirement can be applied by the mayor only after notification has been given by the communal disciplinary council. There exist three disciplinary councils which deal with matters affecting employees of local administrations. These are:
the communal disciplinary council which deals mainly with matters affecting communal personnel not belonging to labour unions;
inter-communal disciplinary council, for those communal employees belonging to labour unions;
departmental disciplinary council which is mainly like an appeal court, acting on the basis of an appeal in a case already deliberated upon by the communal or inter-communal disciplinary council.
17An employee has a maximum of 15 days within which to appeal to the departmental disciplinary council.
18The issue of the status of communal personnel is more complex than it appears. We have talked about recruitment, promotion, appointment, disciplinary measures etc. But the question one may ask at this stage is: are the communal personnel ready for the role that the 1982 reform heaped on the communes?
19We have already noted that urban planning and economic development are two of the pivotal tasks that the communes have been expected to undertake since 1982. The communes are now confronted with more technical and professional tasks and need personnel with judicial, accounting and technical competence. Many of the communes, especially the small and rural ones, lack such personnel. Since promotion, to a large extent, depends on one’s proven capacity in one’s job, is the reform, by decentralisating some functions which some of the communes are ill prepared to undertake, not ironically placing some obstacles in the way of employees’ promotion and advancement? It has been noted that the number of highly trained, professionally qualified personnel for the top level jobs in the communes is very low, consisting mainly of an ageing category of workers.1
20Despite a law going back to 13 July 1972 on the need for professional and technical training of communal personnel, a lot still remains to be done. Indeed, this law now has to be seriously applied given the functions that communal personnel are expected to perform as a result of the 1982 reform. There is the danger or negating one of the principal characteristics of the reform, that of abolishing State tutelage. The State is not to lord it any longer over the local administrations. Neither is any local administration supposed to lord it over another for any reason whatsoever. Communal autonomy is therefore seriously threatened in a situation where these communes, especially the small and rural ones, for lack of professional and technical personnel, have to call on the services of the State or departmental personnel to perform some of their technical functions for them.
21The reform has gone half-way in trying to solve this problem by envisaging the creation of departmental and communal technical agencies in personnel matters. These agencies are to aid in personnel management, facilitate a fair application of regulations governing the status of functionaries and respond favourably to the needs of mayors in terms of technical and professional aid. The departmental councils, known as conseils généraux, the communes and their groupings can between them, also create a technical agency charged with giving technical, administrative and financial assistance to a commune in need, on being demanded to do so.
22The question of homogeneity in terms of the status of communal functionaries vis-a-vis state bureaucrats is also not as simple as it would appear to be. How can homogeneity be maintained when there are about 32,294 communal administrations, each with its peculiarities, specificities and internal dynamics?
Status of local government functionaries in Nigeria
23Until the 1976 local government reforms in Nigeria, there was no uniform policy on staffing covering the whole country. Staff policies, regulations and conditions of service were left to the discretion of the various regional and state governments. Before then, i.e. 1976, different forms of local government existed in different parts of the country – in the North, in the East and in the West. This phenomenon can be explained by two factors, namely:
colonial legacy: the desire of the colonial government to maintain "stability" and "law and order as well as to ensure the collection of revenue led to the policy of indirect rule. After the amalgamation in 1914, therefore, the country was divided into three administrative parts – the North, the East, and the West. Staff conditions of service in the then Native Authorities were therefore not the preoccupation of the colonial government.
the lack of commitment on the part of post-independence governments, be they federal or regional, state or military, to radically break with the past, in other words, to transform local government structures. In a way, what has been laid down as structures of local governments served the interests of the new political leadership. If political stability was one of the main preoccupations of the colonial government, that of the post-independence regional governments, especially m the first Republic, was how to control power at the grassroots which, to a large extent, ensured the control of power at the regional level.
24The much talked about indirect rule system in which the colonial government ruled through the intermediation of chiefs, is known to have done more harm than good to the development of a democratic, development-oriented local government system in the country. Recruitment of local government personnel was the responsibility of the chief with the assistance of his aides. No clear-cut guidelines for recruitment into the service existed and the hiring and firing of staff depended on the person who controlled the Native Authority.
25Under the "executive-councillor" system which operated in the North, most, if not all, heads of department were traditional title holders and most school leavers recruited into the system had links in one way or the other with the ruling class.2 This closed door recruitment policy which gave the chiefs unlimited freedom in the administration of local government consequenly led to clientelism and patronage whereby access to a position in the hierarchy of local government administration and the ability to stay there were not due to one’s capabilities and professional experience, but to links with the ruling class and unwavering loyalty to it. The interpretation of conditions of service, promotion, transfer and discipline were all the responsibility of the N. A. councils controlled by the chiefs.
26In addition to these, the educational policy of the colonial government did not envisage the training of professionally and technically competent staff to man local government affairs. Education, according to Lord Lugard, was to be such that no independent educated class could emerge to challenge the powers of the chiefs. Consequently, the assessment of a student in the North was based not on his academic performance but 75 % on his exemplary character.3
27Right from its inception, therefore, the local government system in Nigeria was not based on a solid foundation whereby there were clearly defined rules and regulations concerning employees, a clear-cut recruitment policy and an educational policy leading to professional and technical competence. This kind of policy continued with only timid changes here and there by the regional governments of the First Republic. Those who were struggling against the colonial government for the democratisation of political structures, individual freedom, liberty and justice, maintained the system as it was under colonial rule after finding themselves in power.
28We can say from the foregoing that, contrary to the French system of local administration, there was hardly a coherent national philosophy concerning local governments in Nigeria. Different systems were operating in different parts of the country at different points in time. Reforms of the local government system remained at the level of half-hearted measures which treated only the symptoms of a disease and not its root causes.
Local Government staff and the 1976 reforms
29We stated earlier that the 1976 reforms were the first ever attempt in Nigeria to bring about a unified form of local government system in the country. Even then, the guidelines to the reform did not categorically spell out a unified scheme of service and staff regulations for employees, leaving this responsibility to the State and local governments, who issue their edicts based on the guidelines for the reform.
30Under the guidelines for the reform, postings and disciplinary matters became the sole responsibility of Local Government Service Boards. The Service Boards can however delegate responsibility on internal postings and minor disciplinary matters to the Establishment Committees or Local Governments. Staff can appeal directly to the Service Boards in disciplinary matters if they feel they have been unfairly treated. The reform also introduced a combined local authority service and harmonised conditions of service with those of the state civil service. The establishment committees, composed of the local government Secretary as chairman and heads of departments as members, can treat postings and disciplinary matters affecting staff on grade levels 01 to 05. Staff on grade levels 06 to 15 however have their matters treated directly by the board. One of the motives in placing staff responsibility under the board is to insulate workers from undue political influence and pressure from local elites. This measure however falls short of a lasting solution in a situation where democracy is practically non-existent.
31The notion of a combined local government service envisaged by the 1976 reform is left at the discretion of the States as the Guidelines state that:
Each State, through its local government Service Board, should set up a combined local government service for the highly trained cadres. The precise extent of these services will vary from State to State but in all cases, posts for which the normal qualification is a National Diploma or other two-year West African School Certificate or higher should be included in the combined service. In some States it may be desired to extend this range downward so that all WASC holders are included so that their subsequent training and development is within the combined service.4
32On the question of salary scale and structure, the reform states that all posts in local government should be remunerated equally with that obtaining in the state civil service (in terms of responsibility and criteria), using the same criteria as those used by Udoji. Pensions, gratuities and other retirement benefits are to be paid by the state governments at rates and under conditions similar to those of civil servants.
Mode of recruitment / appointment of Local Government employees
33The mode of recruitment and appointment under the 1976 reform follows two procedures. Under the first procedure, recruitment is done by the boards while appointments fall under the responsibility of local government authorities. In the second procedure, the role of local governments is very minimal. In this case only notification is given to the local governments.
34Under the unified service, recruitment of local government staff is the sole responsibility of the Service Board. A vacant post has to be advertised by the board after it has been notified by the local government concerned. Applications received for a post, after being processed by the board, are forwarded to the local government authority, based on the recommendation of the board. The local government concerned can then make its appointment from the list of candidates submitted to it. Thus, while the Service Board has the responsibility of recruiting candidates for employment, the appointment of such candidates falls under the responsibility of the local governments. In the second procedure, the candidate is recruited and appointed directly by the Service Board. The staff recruited is then posted to the local government.
35Functionaries in the State Service can be seconded by the Service Boards to local governments when the need arises, i.e. if no suitably qualified candidates are found to fill vacant posts. On the question of iscipline, all powers of dismissal, termination of appointment, demotion etc. come under the responsibility of the service board with the exception of, as earlier stated, minor disciplinary matters which can be directly dealt with by the Establishment Committees of the local governments.
Conclusion
36We have tried in this paper to analytically describe the status of local government functionaries as it obtains in Nigeria and France based on two reforms undertaken in these countries. From the foregoing, it is clear that there are similarities as well as differences in the two systems.
37The similarities are as follows. Both reforms tried to bring uniformity in terms of salary scale and structure with that of State functionaries. Also, in matters of discipline, appointment and recruitment, references are made to a higher authority while there exists a degree of liberty to deal with minor cases at the local level. The Local Government Service Boards in Nigeria can serve in an appellate capacity in disciplinary matters. In France, it is the departmental disciplinary council which acts in such a manner. Provisions were also made for the secondment of staff from a higher level to the local level where necessary in both systems. One must note, however, that these similarities do not mean that the rights of workers in both systems, especially in Nigeria, are fully guaranteed.
38One of the most fundamental differences existing between the two systems is the question of democracy at the grassroots. We started our analysis by highlighting the fact that while Nigeria suffered from colonialism at a point in its history, France, on the other hand, has not suffered, at least in the past few hundred years, domination from any foreign power. Instead, she has been a colonial power in the third world and along its borders, for example in Corsica. This last point, on another hand, explains, in part, the tendency towards extreme centralisation in the French system in order to stem the tide of irredentism and the deep reluctance of governments to decentralise until the 1982 reforms.
39The democratisation of the system of local government, even though within the bourgeois framework, gives the local community the opportunity to choose their elected representatives. Efforts at the democratisation of local government structures in Nigeria are still at a fledgeling stage. To our knowledge, apart from the local elections organised in 1977 after the reform, no other local government election was held until 1988. With regard to workers, provisions for their job security, tenure, promotion, recruitment etc. are negated as the local governments and the Service Boards are not insulated from pressure from the powers that be. One can thus say that it might take quite a long time before democracy and workers rights are fully entrenched in the Nigerian local government system.
Notes de bas de page
1 Bruneau Pierre (1983) Conseil Municipal, Maires, Adjoints et Conseillers. J. C. Del et Cie, p. 2.
2 G. O. Orewa and J. B. Adewumi (1983) Local Government In Nigeria: The Changing Scene. Ethiope Publishing Company, p. 252.
3 John N. Paden (1986) Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna Of Sokoto -Values and Leadership in Nigeria, p. 95.
4 See Guidelines for Local Government Reform p. 10, paragraph 35. Government Printer, Kaduna.
Auteur
A specialist in local Government, he studied at the University of Bordeaux and is at present a lecturer at the Department of Local Government Studies, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
The Frontier States of Western Yorubaland
State Formation and Political Growth in an Ethnic Frontier Zone
Biodun Adediran
1994
The Architecture of Fear
Urban Design and Construction Response to Urban Violence in Lagos, Nigeria
Tunde Agbola
1997
Nigeria during the Abacha Years (1993-1998)
The Domestic and International Politics of Democratization
‘Kunle Amuwo, Daniel C. Bach et Yann Lebeau (dir.)
2001
Informal Channels for Conflict Resolution in Ibadan, Nigeria
Isaac Olawale Albert, Tinu Awe, Georges Hérault et al.
1995
Urban Violence in Africa
Pilot Studies (South Africa, Côte-d’Ivoire, Nigeria)
Eghosa E. Osaghae, Ismaila Touré, N’Guessan Kouamé et al.
1994