The experience has demonstrated that unitary states have greater problems with decentralization of governmental public administration and management in comparison to different forms of state unions, confederations and federations. Decentralization is more difficult to operationalize in unitary government system, rather than in systems that have consistently conducted separation of powers, regardless of its threefold or fourfold governmental forms. The assembly system of government , compared to parliamentary and presidential system of government, of course not in its decadent manifestations (nuanced dictatorial regimes), was more frequently faced with temptations of high and deep centralization, as it was the case in recent history with republican regimes in regard to monarchist ones. Certain implications between desirable-undesirable centralization-decentralization are recognized in relation to their constitutionalization, peaceful-reformatory or violent-revolutionary, capitalistic or socialistic establishment.
Consequently, party pluralism had encouraged and favored the affirmation of decentralizational models in all aspects of societal organization (state, economy and society), while the party monism had favored the spirit of centralisation in all above mentioned spheres, because it was not devoted in its existential basis toward the need for competition and innovation, but more to preservation of privileged, monopolized, orthodoxy, dogmatic existentials. It is also indicative that (un)expectedly more difficulties in implementing decentralized models of organization are encountered by societies with multinational, heterogeneous national structures in comparison to national homogeneous, monocultural societies, in which ethnic rivalries are not existent or are insignificant. Evolutionary societal resultant unequivocally demonstrates that the execution of decentralization process is easier and more efficient in developed than in undeveloped states and societies. Or, as it could be more realistically assumed, that success of the first and failure of the second are straightforward consequences of the choice between pluralistic – non-hierarchical and monistic – hierarchical organization of governmental power.
On the other hand, regardless of the origin and conditions of constitution of centralized or decentralized administrative order, the historical experience has clearly shown that political systems with decentralized options of government organization are more stable in comparison with centralized systems, that seem more stable, but are actually more fragile and more easier falling apart with “domino effect”. Let us take the most drastic example for this purpose, the unexpected (?) smooth breakdown of socialism, socialist block, which was ”stigmatized" by many features of monolithic, centralized (anti)systemic structure, which in the end didn’t reach the affirmation of global cosmopolitan order, as it was envisaged by its creators and ardent supporters.
Much of the above stated attitudes are relevant for national milieu, Serbian state and its social and political order. “Political men” are sometimes loud and sometimes mute regarding the systemic and systematic decentralization, despite the clear signals that are indicating numerous inconsistencies in functional and territorialgovernmental, administrative organization , along with alerts by authoritative eurocrats during current pre-accession negotiations with the EU.
In the meantime, during the last decade, the premises for establishing a new and more functional decentralized system have been worsened. The reasons are more or less known: the fatal multidimensional pauperization of the system has not been stopped, the disparity between a smaller number of economically self-sustaining towns and municipalities and a significantly higher number of unsustainable towns and municipalities, whose human and other relevant resources have remained diametrically incompatible, have been increased. The effort to swiftly and boldly alter the highest legal and political act (constitution), which was adopted without public and wider expert debate, without adjusting to reality, has proved its illusionism. This resolution would undoubtedly induce further and deeper reconstruction of outdated and ineffective normative system. The additional, albeit unavoidable,restrain represents complex synchronization of surviving ineffective normative system with EU acquis (acquis communautaire). and the absence of a formal implementation of ratified charters that envisage affirmation of manifold principles of subsidiarity. In that way, based on an experiential matrix, the prerogatives of smaller territorial communities would be strengthened, which would gradually and in the long run lead to deconcentration and decentralization of power. Consequently innovated legitimization of competence, functional authority, which would allow and encourage more coherent institutional governmental structure, as well as its more consistent level of performance, which is, in systemic sense, already alarmingly absent.
Of course, there exists a long awaited salvation from obsolete and inherited ideological fallacies, changed status and role of state in modern, global era, multidimensional importance of regional inclusiveness, innovative understanding of character and structure of market relations, dealing with variable transnational institutional networking, new cultural patterns, which shed new light on the idea and practice of multiculturalism and so on.
In all those (co)relations a new perspective of social and governmental (central, regional and local) organization opens, new and comprehensive modality of public policies, “new public management” in all its functional areas, as well as capital decision-making – in the activities of information, coordination, planning, organizing, controlling – and their a posteriori integrated general and special evaluations.
~~~
Prof. Mijat Damjanović, Coordinator of Public Administration sector of Public Policy Institute