Rethinking governance has to be understood as an anchor of community driven development (CDD) This relationship revolves around the interplay of state and citizen power relations in the development and management of policies, institutions and systems (PIS) that modulate state structures and operations, decentralization, the legitimacy and capacity of the state and citizen empowerment in service delivery mechanisms and the rule of law. The following key issues need to be addressed in order to achieve people centred/community driven development.

Change in power relations - decentralisation

Since the 1980s there has been a significant interest in decentralization as a means of (re)gaining political legitimacy and giving people voice and choice in local affairs. Proponents of decentralization argue that decentralized governments are more responsive to and more likely to design and implement pro-poor development projects than would central governments for the following reasons;

• Allocative efficiency: local authorities should/are better informed than central governments about local realities, they can consult local communities via elected councillors and other mechanisms.
• Local government is closer to users and should be able to keep them informed more easily about decisions, e.g. councillors should be able to explain issues in terms that ordinary people understand and how they can might benefit from services and new national programmes.
• Given sufficient autonomy, local government does not need to seek approvals from above, and can act more rapidly and responsively than central agencies.
• Some local taxes, fees and user charges can be fixed locally, allowing local government to optimise local sources of revenue. These decisions have to be publicly defended by elected representatives, and therefore need public consultation locally.
• There are better prospects for public accountability: in the case of poor or non-delivery of services, communities can put pressure on officials, via their local representatives. Once citizens see that their representatives can influence officers, they may contact the officers themselves more often. There have been cases where absenteeism or corruption by officials has been reduced by the reality or threat of public pressure.

Transformation of state structures

Rethinking governance at the various levels of the state is key to addressing the challenges of community driven development. It is now realized that, on its own, the transfer of state authority and functions to and strengthening of local government and other government agencies has often not succeeded in strengthening the links between government and the citizens. Participatory work with communities shows that, with the exception of primary schools, the reach and impact of government provided services to communities is very limited in much of the developing world including Africa. The systems of governance and service delivery tend to get captured by the elite when the delivery is centralized and carried out exclusively through the bureaucracy. If decentralized systems are structured to neutralise the power of the local elite and give voice to the people in decision making, service delivery systems are more likely to be exposed to collective voice and community demands. Giving voice through community based planning, can ensure latent synergies among interventions in education, health, water and sanitation and nutrition in order to achieve community driven development. (Mehrotra, 2001) This approach requires the integration of decentralization into the broader principles that underpin governance and sustainable development. These are anchored in Khanya’s six governance issues and its version of the sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) adapted from development discourse and practice.

Development of Multiple Service Delivery frameworks

The attack on poverty, more so in the context of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, goes beyond the realisation of trickle down effects from national economic growth. It also entails the cost effective, efficient and equitable provision of goods and services, especially to poor communities, on a sustainable basis. The challenge is to innovate and upscale the complementarities between government, the private sector, communities and external cooperating partners in designing services delivery approaches including community based service delivery models, in order to address this fundamental responsibility.

Strengthening Accountability Relations among Government, Service providers and Consumers

At the coalface of decentralized service delivery, there is a need to enhance accountability relationships between consumers of services, government and service providers of different hues. Recent analyses of traditional service delivery frameworks show the existence of relatively stronger accountability mechanisms between government and service providers than between the latter and consumers of such services. Services provided directly by government, or through parties contracted for the purpose, do not reflect the specific needs of the consumers in terms of scope, quality and quantity. Both governments and service providers remain unresponsive and unaccountable/unanswerable to consumers. This calls for the strengthening of the voice of the poor in determining the nature, scope, purpose of services delivered and enhancing the accountability relations particularly between government and service providers on one hand and consumers on the other. “Without voice, the supply of services will remain of poor quality and thus ineffective” (Mehrotta 2001).

Evidence-based Policy Advocacy (or Influencing)

Rethinking governance is inspired by the imperative to go beyond policy documents and frameworks and examine how policies, institutions and systems are developed and managed. It also interrogates the extent to which institutional mechanisms are in place to implement and effectively monitor the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of policies, institutions (rules of the game) and systems in relation to the poor.

It poses questions regarding the conditions and capacities there are and/or are required in government, the private sector, civil society organizations and within communities to manage for impact. The strategy is to develop capacity to engage in policy analysis focusing on policy interactions at the community levels and its impact on the ability of the poor to drive specific poverty reduction efforts. Emphasis is also given to the development of linkages, partnerships and networks among local grassroots organizations and communities and governments at all levels in order to enhance the “inclusivity” of policy advocacy efforts on the back of evidence gleaned from action research. Khanya-aicdd’s work on developing civil society organization capacities for evidence-based advocacy to improve community based service delivery and to promote effective funding for community projects are part of this initiative (Khanya, 2007).