MONGABAY.COM
Mongabay.com seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife, while examining the impact of emerging trends in climate, technology, economics, and finance on conservation and development (more)
WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
|
|
Ivory Coast
Index
As of 1987, the country was divided into forty-nine
prefectures
(see
fig. 1). The prefectural administration, headed by a
prefect
(préfet), represented executive authority within
the
prefecture. Constitutionally, the prefects responded to
the local
interests of their respective constituents and directed
and
coordinated the administrative services represented in
their
respective constituencies. As representatives of each
ministry
within their prefectures, the prefects issued directives
to the
heads of services and ensured their compliance, presided
over all
state organizations and commissions within the prefecture,
periodically met with service heads at the prefectural
level, and
acted as trustees for public enterprises and activities in
the
prefectures. Prefects also were responsible for
maintaining public
order and security in their respective prefectures. In
that
capacity, they supervised local police and oversaw the
execution of
laws, statutes, and executive orders. To deal with civil
unrest or
other emergencies, they were also empowered to issue
binding orders
or decrees, detain suspects for up to forty-eight hours,
and
request assistance from the armed forces
(see Internal Security Organization and Forces
, ch. 5).
The prefectural administration included a secretary
general, a
chief of cabinet, and two division chiefs, one of whom was
responsible for administrative and general affairs such as
elections, supervision of the police, administration of
subprefectures (sous-préfectures), and civil
affairs. The
other division chief was responsible for economic,
financial, and
social affairs, including the budget, accounts, public
works,
health, education, and the supervision of markets and
price
controls. The secretary general, besides substituting for
the
prefect during the latter's absence, supervised and
coordinated all
departmental services. The chief of cabinet, in effect an
administrative aide, was responsible for intradepartmental
affairs
(mail, inspection visits, and liaison with ministerial
departments
and personnel in Abidjan).
According to enabling legislation passed in 1961, the
prefectures were to be decentralized, autonomous units
competent to
deal with local issues. Governing the prefecture was to be
a
general council whose members, representing local
interests, were
to be elected by slates for five-year terms by universal
suffrage
within the prefecture. The general council was to pass a
budget and
act on local issues. Its decisions were then to be passed
on to the
prefect for execution. In reality, as of 1988 the central
government in Abidjan had not passed the enabling measures
establishing the general councils; hence, the prefectures
were
exclusively administrative structures.
Every prefecture was segmented into subprefectures,
each headed
by a subprefect (sous-préfet). Subprefectures were
the
lowest administrative unit of government and the unit with
which
most people interacted. Unlike the prefectures, the
subprefectures
had neither autonomy nor deliberative responsibilities;
their
function was purely administrative. The subprefects acted
under the
delegated authority of the prefects but also had other
responsibilities. First and foremost, the subprefect was
responsible for maintaining public order and could, in
emergencies,
request aid from the prefect or the armed forces. The
subprefect
also submitted a public works and civil action program as
well as
a budget to the prefect. As an officer of the state, the
subprefect
supervised the census and elections within the
subprefecture and
officiated at civil ceremonies. He also monitored, albeit
loosely,
the behavior of chiefs of villages and
cantons (see Glossary)
within the boundaries of the subprefecture and represented
the
authority of the central government to local populations.
Finally,
the subprefect elicited from notables living within the
subprefecture a list of grievances or suggestions that was
passed
on to the prefect.
Administration at the subprefecture level included a
secretariat consisting of the various administrative
services and
divisions in the subprefecture. Assisting the subprefect
was the
Subprefectural Council, which replaced the council of
notables, an
artifact of the colonial era. This council was composed of
the
subprefect, the heads of public services represented in
the
subprefecture, local party officials, and twelve to
sixteen private
citizens, all residing in the subprefecture and known for
their
active participation in affairs pertaining to politics,
commerce,
and social change. The councils met twice yearly in open
sessions
under the direction of the subprefect. The council's
responsibilities were solely consultative. At the first
meeting of
the year, the subprefect was obligated to present to the
council
the budget and accounts of the past year. By law the
council had to
be consulted on expenditures allocated to the
subprefecture by the
government or collected in the form of market, parking, or
other
fees. The council also submitted a program of public works
or other
public projects of local interest to be financed with the
allocated
funds.
The council had no decision-making authority and no
direct
political role. However, its opinions carried some weight.
The
citizen-members represented wealth and influence that
often
transcended the physical boundaries of the subprefecture.
These
citizens often understood the needs and customs of the
local
community better than the subprefect, who in most
instances was not
from the region.
Modern and traditional governance merged at the level
of
village and canton. Using criteria based on traditions,
villages
selected their own leaders, who were subsequently proposed
to and
formally invested by the prefect. The ceremony granted
formal
legitimacy to the village leader while at the same time
confirming
his status as subordinate to the subprefect. In the formal
bureaucratic sector, village chiefs served simply as
conduits
between the subprefect and the villagers. Informally,
village
chiefs filled a multitude of roles, many of which
paralleled the
obligations and responsibilities of the modern
bureaucratic
administration. Under the colonial regime, groups of
villages
linked by common ethnicity and encompassing a relatively
large area
were designated a canton; this designation continued into
the
modern period. Canton chiefs, whose authority was also
rooted in
tradition, were selected according to traditional norms
and
formally appointed by the minister of interior. Because
their
responsibilities in the formal sector were never resolved,
the
canton chiefs remained largely symbolic figures.
By the 1980s, thirty-seven cities had been designated
autonomous communities (communes en plein
exercice), a legal
status that dates from 1884 and applied originally to the
Senegalese cities of Saint Louis and Dakar. Governing
structures in
autonomous communities included a municipal council and a
mayor. A
council would be composed of eleven to thirty-seven
members,
depending on the population of the city. All were elected
by
universal suffrage and, until 1980, as part of a slate. In
the 1985
elections, council members ran independently. The legal
status of
the municipal councils was ambiguous. According to law,
they
enjoyed broad powers which were to be exercised
independently of
the granting authority in Abidjan. For example, the
enabling
legislation of 1955 instructed the councils, through their
deliberative processes, to "direct the affairs of the
community,"
which included voting on budgets. In fact, most of the
decisions
taken by councils first had to be approved by the minister
of
interior, who could veto them. Moreover, the Council of
Ministers
could dissolve an excessively independent municipal
council by a
simple decree. Consequently, the council members routinely
accepted
guidelines proposed by authorities in Abidjan.
The councils also elected mayors, whose functions were
identical to those of subprefects. Like the municipal
councils,
mayors routinely submitted to the authority of the
minister of
interior.
In practice, municipal administration was not an
outgrowth of
a preexisting social and political institution. The label
"autonomous communities" was, instead, the creation of a
state
bureaucracy that was not inclined toward sharing power.
Consequently, from 1956 until the late 1970s, councils
shrank in
size and importance as council members died. For example,
the
Abidjan council, which at one point consisted of
thirty-seven
members, had only seventeen in 1974. As the central
government
loosened its grip on politics prior to the 1985 elections,
potential candidates saw the position of municipal council
member
as a first step toward higher political office, and
interest in the
institution grew. In the 1985 election, more than 840
candidates
ran for 235 places on municipal councils.
Data as of November 1988
|
|