"And when I call the rulers servants or ministers of the law, I give them this name not for the sake of novelty, but because I certainly believe that upon such service or ministry depends the well- or ill-being of the state," this excerpt from Plato's "Laws" in other words suggests that the success of a country is on the shoulders of the leadership at all levels. In an engaging discussion with Daryo's reporter, political scientists Oybek Sirojov and Farhod Karimov shared insights into the pivotal roles and persistent challenges within Uzbekistan's local governmental structures.
Problems and Shortcomings
Addressing the problems and shortcomings in the country's institutions Sirojov said, "Management is a very complicated issue. Effective management serves to eliminate many problems, but ineffective management creates new problems. We have a local management system as well as a central management system. Most of the people's objections and complaints are directly related to local government.
It has its own objective and subjective factors. Local authorities are mainly responsible for the daily problems that need to be solved in the regions. In the example of Uzbekistan, there are serious problems in the local government. For example, we have not yet been able to eliminate the issue of corruption in the case of governors. In my opinion, the efforts of the local authorities with today's reforms are not giving the expected results."
In response Karimov stated, "Why is there a mood of dissatisfaction among the population towards local government bodies? For example, if you go to local government buildings, they will be working late at night. I tried to find a philosophical answer to this question, why are people so dissatisfied? Uzbekistan is a democratic country. What do people expect from democracy? In Western societies, when freedom comes to the fore, that's when the people believe that there is a real democracy and they agree with the local government.
Farhod Karimov, "We have mainly adopted the local government system from the West. But the people have different expectations from the authorities."
Source: Daryo
Eastern people demand equality in society. There are several differences between the West and the East in their views on democracy. This is the case in all Eastern countries. In other words, the people of the East come to the conclusion that if there is equality in the society, the government is working well. We have mainly adopted the local government system from the West. But the people have different expectations from the authorities. I saw this as the main problem we have in Uzbekistan."
When a leader begins to fear, he begins to work well. Of course, a lot depends on who is afraid here. A God-fearing leader does something out of fear of God. A leader who fears the law and the people will be accountable to the people. If a leader is afraid of the leader above him, he will start working to please the leader above him. This philosophy has been around for thousands of years. So, who are our local government leaders afraid of?
There is a saying in the West: "It is the worst thing to have a priest who does not fear God." A priest who does not fear God begins to use religion for his own interests. That was the main reason for the politicization of religion in Europe in the Middle Ages. The same is true in management. There is no worse person in this world than a leader who is not afraid of his people. That is, the first fear of governors should be the people.
Our biggest problem is that if the leader makes a mistake in the issue of accountability to the people, the people will not see this mistake of the leader. You don't see district governors being accountable to the people here. If there are 211 districts and cities in Uzbekistan, only 15 governors can be seen to be transparent and accountable to the people. I myself lived in 3 districts of Tashkent city. In these 3 districts, I did not see that the mayor ever organized a dialogue with the people.
If construction is going on somewhere and the governors do not give the people the right understanding, the people may take it wrongly. If explained to the public, common people will try to understand these things," Karimov concluded.
Adding to discussion on Eastern vs. Western mentality Sirojov said, "In the East, the desire for power has always been stronger than in the West. Because power gives a lot to an Eastern man. In the East, from the point of view of collectivity, power not only empowers one person but also the rest of the people around him. In the East, the thing that makes a person live well, then and now, is power.
While in the West, individualism and the creation of opportunities to live a good life without achieving power limit the desire for power in a certain sense. That is, he does not act on all the authorities. If everyone aspires to power, it creates certain problems.
In politics, the question of interest takes precedence. Now it is enough if district mayors honorably carry out the orders and assignments of the regional hokim, if the regional mayor likes it. Because the regional governor will decide the future activity of the district governor. After that, district governors will not consider themselves accountable to the people. But, he can still do something under the influence of the people around him, though he cannot deal with constructive issues on his own.
Another important issue is initiative. For example, if a leader puts forward an initiative, but this initiative does not justify itself, he is responsible for it. But if the initiative is promoted from above, he will not be responsible for it."
Comparing the two presidential Administrations, 1991-2016, and the current one, Sirojov pointed out the following, "During the period of the first administration, the influence of the system of the use of force in the local government administration and other areas was strengthened. Especially after the 2000s, this policy was emphasized again. That is, the system of using force has become a factor that scares the mayors. But after 2010, the system began to abuse the given opportunities. By the time of the second administration, this policy was put to an end. The reason is that the structures that used force even reached the "lampposts" on the street.
In 2018-2019, the parliament was given the authority to control the local government mayors, but it did not pay off. Because during this period, deputies were given great opportunities. For example, there was a question of meeting with the population, going to study the regions, and thereby controlling the local authority, as well as a specific accountability from it. In my opinion, the main reason why the intended result was not achieved is the lack of deputies with sufficient potential.
Today, the neighbourhood ("Mahalla") is promoted as an institution that restrains the local government. Now it is necessary to form an alternative institution for local mayors, both from the point of view of resources and from the point of view of personnel, from the point of view of strength and potential. In fact, it exists in the experience of the world. But one problem we have is that in organizational matters, it is considered a self-governing institution only in the name of the neighbourhood.
In fact, before selling the land in an area to a businessman, the mayor must consult with the neighbourhood's elder. The potential of the neighbourhood elder must be such that he can oppose the wrong decisions of the mayor. Now the neighborhood institute has been given a new status and new opportunities. But time will tell what the result will be," he stated.
Looking to measures to improve local governance Karimov answered, "The president has repeatedly talked about ensuring openness and transparency in his speeches. For example, an ordinary citizen can see the decisions made by the president and the cabinet and make a proposal. But there is no such thing in the lower joint. However, it is the lower link that works with the people.
In order to improve the local administration, the activity of the authorities should be open in the first place. That is, whether the mayor is making a decision, let this decision be discussed for 2-3 days. For example, the documents for the mayor lie in the mayor's room awaiting his attention for weeks.
Finally, the responsible person who prepared the document explains to the mayor what the document is about, and the mayor signs it. Many people will use it for their own purposes. If the signed documents were not just lying on the mayor's desk for 1 week but had gone through the people's hands, the decisions would have been very sorted. Now, if one governor makes a decision, the successor will cancel that decision. Many businessmen and people will suffer from this.
I admire something in South Korea. The ranking of all leaders throughout Korea is maintained. A person who wants to become a leader accumulates points as soon as he starts his career. If he does a good job, he gets points. If he does something wrong, his points will be deducted. The appointment of a leader to a region is made on the basis of this rating. We also need to introduce such mechanisms. And the people should evaluate the governors, not the superiors. Then the governors start working on their rating.
Also, the level of political literacy of the people should be good. The work of governors depends on demand. Unfortunately, we do not have a sense of belonging.
In addition, the tasks assigned to the authorities should be reduced. The authorities are responding to everything today. In developed societies, local government has its own function. The authorities do not interfere in other matters. Because every ministry has its own department, its own employee, up to the district level. If the administration takes over all the work, what will the lower branches of the executive mechanism do?
If there is a lot of burden on the authorities, in the end, the authorities will be in the role of "fireman". That is, he goes and extinguishes whatever issue is burning in the region. Therefore, some functions should be given to the society itself. There is no need to be afraid of this. People's sense of belonging will increase, and the authorities will have tasks that they can perform."
Possible Mechanism/Institution for Restraining Local Government
Sirojov suggests a possible mechanism or institution for restraining local government saying, "Mayors serve the interests of those to whom they are accountable. For example, if the regional governor decides the activities of the district governor, the district governor will be the first to fulfill the orders of the regional governor. In one sense it is necessary because disobedience to the superior can lead to anarchy.
The system of election of governors has been introduced worldwide. Here can be a solution to this problem. For example, in neighbouring Kazakhstan, candidates for governors are nominated by individuals or political parties. We also need to switch to this system."
Karimov agreed that restraining measures should be implemented stating, "When will there be stability in international relations? Whenever there is a polar opposite alternative. Unfortunately, today there is no restraining system in the local authorities. There is something in human nature that can change if you don't control it. That is why governors should be restrained.
It is true that there are local councils of deputies in the regions. But this council is chaired by the governor of the region. Institutions that show the will of the people are political parties. Due to the absence of these political parties, local authorities today think that there is no mechanism to limit them. Except for the superior body.
At one time, in the field of education, a monitoring board was established to control the principals in schools. The appointment of the members of the supervisory board and the supervision of the board's activities are entrusted to the director.
However, parents who are close to the school director were appointed as members of the council. The second situation is that there is no one who wants to be a member of this council. That is, the problem is not only on one side. We have no sense of belonging. That is, people are themselves careless. There is a mechanism to restrain local mayors, but we need to use them a little more actively.
Another institution that restrains local government is the mass media. Media is actually the fourth power. That is, the mass media monitors the activities of the local authorities, and if they do something wrong, they bring it to the public. But this should not be subjective. The mass media should not work on someone's order, let them give an impartial assessment. If we don't use the existing mechanism, we will be forced to hand over the control of local governors to structures that use force."
Follow Daryo's official Instagram and Twitter pages to keep current on world news.
Comments (0)