By: Basem Aref Al-Shura
As the draft of the local administration law is about to be released, old questions renew in new attire: Are we facing a real shift in management philosophy, or just a reshuffling of the same tools? The general scene suggests that the discussion still revolves around superficial details, while the essential knot remains untouched by the scalpel of reform.
Recently, the debate has focused on representation standards regarding age and the participation rates of women and youth, which are indeed important indicators of public life's vitality, but they do not simplify the performance dilemma. Local councils fail not because they lack diversity, but because they operate within a restrictive administrative environment that weakens their decision-making and accountability abilities.
Simplifying the crisis of local administration to "individuals" involves a degree of misleading simplification. Even the most capable individuals will find themselves helpless within a system that lacks true independence. Therefore, any reform that doesn't touch the institutional structure will keep revolving in a vicious circle, reproducing the same results under different names.
The missing essence in this context is the issue of independence. Local councils, in their current reality, are closer to executive units linked to the center, rather than bodies capable of planning and making decisions. This model enshrines a management based on relaying instructions rather than creating initiatives, and makes local development dependent on the center's pace, not on community needs.
In contrast to this, recent government statements have been clear in denying any move towards appointment, affirming adherence to the electoral path. This is a step in the right direction in principle, as preserving citizens' right to choose their representatives is the cornerstone of building trust. However, this commitment, despite its importance, does not exempt from the necessity of reviewing the environment in which the elected will operate, lest elections become just a periodic procedure lacking real impact.
The real challenge lies not in how to get members to their positions, but in what they can do after arriving. Here, the need arises to redefine the relationship between the center and the councils, ensuring a clear distribution of powers and enabling local administrations to manage resources and make decisions within an accountable framework.
Moreover, building competence should not be left to chance or personal endeavor, but should be a part of an integrated system that starts before candidacy and does not end after winning. Administrative and legal qualification is not a luxury, but a fundamental requirement to ensure a performance capable of meeting citizens' expectations.
Financially, the dependence of councils on central support limits their ability to plan for the long term and ties their priorities to the availability of funding rather than the magnitude of need. Empowering these councils with real financial tools, along with effective result-based supervision, is the natural gateway to enhancing their efficiency and independence.
In the end, it's not enough to conduct new elections under an amended law if the same philosophy remains. True reform begins when we move from treating symptoms to targeting causes, and from beautifying texts to rebuilding the system. Only then can local administration transform from an administrative burden to a developmental lever, and from formal structures to effective institutions that reflect people’s will and serve their interests.
