MACEDONIA HAS MONEY FOR NATIONAL BUT NOT FOR LOCAL PROJECTS
Why the decentralization happened to Macedonia and did we need it? Mr. Ilija Todorovski, Professor at the New York University in Skopje explains that we needed the decentralization very much because in the period from 1991 until July or September 2005 (practically), the communities had authority over utilities which means, building and maintaining of the streets, waterworks, local roads, sewage systems, urban planning, creating urban plans and documentation - according to the previously obtained agreements from the adequate institution; first of all, that was the Ministry of Urbanism, afterwards the Ministry of Transport and Connections. All the authorities in the field of education, health protection, social protection, culture etc., that in every European system are on a local level, here were on the state level. Which were the negative aspects? The decisions for all strategic and operative questions had to be made by the minister. He could not be aquatinted with all sorts of problems like: where a manager has to be assigned, how the assets should be spent, where a new school should be opened, what are the problems of those schools. He can not have a good perspective of all that. So, he relies completely or most of the time on reports made by the local unit. Insufficiently aquatinted with the situation, the ministries made operative decisions, they did not work on strategic questions like the improving of the system etc, and the whole local government, the citizens and their representatives in the Council of the communities and the mayor were completely passive. It is a situation, a subject for which it is very important to be passive, and the other to be involved in decisions whose operability is not now sufficient. On the other hand, the organ the State does not work on more important issues such as the following of the system on a national level, development strategy, etc. That was negative and because of that as a result of the pressure (internal and external) the local government and the citizens were not satisfied. With the war from 2001 the problem of decentralization was brought up i.e. the foreign factor made some pressure and we came closer to this process. Maybe in the first time, as a result of the lack of assets and of a sufficiently clear situation, the advantages of the system were not obvious, but it's a fact that in a mid period of time the effects will be positive for this solution. The central government should be occupied by strategic national issues and the local government with operative issues of the system like naming of the managers, the use of the assets that they get for maintaining of the educational systems, social protection, culture etc. Logically, they had the utilities and now they have the local economical development. The protection of the environment is on a local level also, and the objects are divided in two groups those of national and local importance. The local government has a great potential at its disposal which are the citizens and their representatives much more aquatinted with the situation than the central government and they are also more motivated to find an appropriate solution because they benefit from the better results. The citizens can contribute with a greater knowledge, information, additional assets and the effects in the perspective of two, three, five years would be better if they cooperate with the local government, then if their problems are resolved by the central government. |
