Regionalization, administrative reform and democratization: Nicaragua 1979–1984
| Author | Charles Downs |
| Date | 01 October 1987 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230070404 |
| Published date | 01 October 1987 |
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 7, 363-381 (1987)
Regionalization, administrative reform and
democratization: Nicaragua 1979-1984
CHARLES DOWNS
Columbia
University
SUMMARY
The article discusses the major events and debates that have taken place during the reform
and democratization of subnational government
in
Nicaragua from the overthrow
of
the
Somoza dictatorship to late 1984. Developments during this period highlight five distinct
areas of reform that must be addressed as part
of
any process
of
state democratization:
(a) selection and maintenance of local officials; (b) integration of popular participation;
(c) definition of the range of local authority; (d) resources for local development; and
(e) relation to other levels
of
government. These issues are addressed through a discussion
focusing heavily on local government during the first
3
years, then on the experience
of
the newly created regional governments and decentralization beginning
in
mid-1982, and
finally on the early-and quite divergent-experience with the development
of
zonal
government between the municipal and regional levels. The specific resolution
of
these
five sets
of
issues is part
of
the development
of
the revolutionary process in Nicaragua,
and
will
strongly shape the political and developmental significance of the resulting local
government.
INTRODUCTION
The
1979
victory of the Sandinista-led popular insurrection began an immediate
and complete transformation
of
three key institutions
of
the Nicaraguan state:
(a) the leadership
of
the old state fled
or
were removed and a Government Junta
of National Reconstruction (JGRN) was named to run the government; (b) the
old repressive forces were disbanded and replaced by the forces of the
FSLN;
and
(c) the heads
of
local governments fled, resigned,
or
were removed and replaced
by Municipal Juntas of Reconstruction (JMR-Juntas Municipales de Reconstruc-
cion). Most other institutions underwent some changes, but none to the extent
of
these three.
The development
of
subnational government in Nicaragua since
1979
highlights
a number
of
important problems relevant to the transformation from
a
repressive
Professor Downs
is
a
member
of
the Graduate
School
of
Architecture and Planning, Columbia
University. Avery
Hall,
New York, NY10027, U.S.A.
027
1-2075/87/040363-19$09.50
0
1987 by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
364
C.
Downs
centralized government to an institutionalized democratic state. It shows that it
is often the conflictual interaction of the three main actors involved in local
governance and development: local government, central government agencies,
and popular organizations that provides much
of
the impulse to the concrete
transformation of the state, and that finding the means
to
structure their
interaction-to tap constructively the tensions between them-is the essence of
the democratization and institutionalization
of
the new state.
The government structure left by the old regime involved great concentration
of authority and resources at the central level in Managua. There was no provincial,
regional, or other form of government between the national level and the 130-plus
municipios
(composed much like
US
counties, with an urban centre surrounded by
a rural area, the majority of the population residing in the latter). The periodically
elected heads
of
the municipal government were generally wealthy local land-
owners or businessmen who were normally selected as the official candidate by
the local political
capitan
and thus virtually given this intermediate patronage post,
providing access to a moderate amount of power, income and corruption in
exchange for their continued support of the regime. Even if they wished to carry
out local improvements local taxes did not provide sufficient resources, nor did
they have the decision-making authority necessary.2
This system was brought to an end by a massive popular insurrection which
overthrew the dictatorial regime and sought to replace it with a more democratic
one responsive to the needs of the majority of the people. The insurrection itself
was the first example of the widespread participation that has characterized the
period since. The aftermath of the war also forced the new government to
face dramatically increased needs due to massive destruction of human life and
infrastructure resulting primarily from government bombardment. Together these
factors defined the problems and constraints with which local government had
to
deal, and which
slowly
began to transform it.
Elsewhere (Downs and Kusnetzoff, 1981, 1982; Downs, 1985)
I
have described
the evolution
of
the subnational government system since the insurrection, consist-
ing of four principal periods: (a)
recovery
from
the war emergency
(second half
of
1979);
(b)
reconstruction
(1979 to mid-1981); (c)
preliminary institutional
con-
solidation
of
the
JMRs
and local political relations (mid-1981 to mid-1982); and
(d)
regionalitation and decentralization
(mid-1982 to present). The following pages
draw on and highlight that history, while focusing on problems encountered and
measures taken in five areas relevant to the democratization
of
authoritarian
regimes generally: (a) selection and maintenance
of
local officials; (b) integration
of popular participation; (c) definition
of
the range
of
local authority; (d) re-
sources for local development; and (e) formalization of intergovernmental
relations.
SELECTION AND MAINTENANCE
OF
LOCAL OFFICIALS
The new government’s attempt to respond to the emergency
of
sheltering, feeding
and caring for the population while getting the society functioning again was
For
more background on the subject see Downs and Kusnetzoff, 1981, 1982; Downs, 1985.
*
For
more background on the pre-1979 municipal system
see
Downs and Kusnetzoff, 1981, chapter
4.
To continue reading
Request your trial