Zanzibar 353. The CSAR [p. 106] notes that the Constitution of Zanzibar provides for the establishment of a Civil Service Commission. However, the CSAR points out that transparency and accountability mechanisms “are not well developed within government ministries,” while a programme to put in place mechanisms for ensuring “proper recruitment, promotion and management of civil servants” is being developed. Compared to Mainland Tanzania, where client charters were developed to provide an opportunity for citizens to express their opinions on the quality of service delivery, Zanzibar adheres to a traditional model of civil service and therefore has no such mechanisms in place. 354. The CSAR [p.107] further describes various post-independence structural and institutional reforms designed to improve public service performance, although it also notes that “the rapid and vast expansion of the public service” under the ujamaa socialist policy “contributed …to the crisis of the public service…in the early 1980s.” 355. Against the background of the “pathetic condition” and the “bloated” personnel structure of the public service under ujamaa socialism and the shift towards a free market economy in the early 1990s, the CSAR describes the overriding objective of the Civil Service Reform Programme (CSRP) of 1991-1999, as designed “to achieve a smaller, affordable, well compensated, efficient and effective Civil Service.” 356. The CSAR [p.109] notes that, in response to the challenges of implementing the CRSP, the Union Government introduced the Public Sector Reform Programme (PSRP) with its three overlapping phases. After this programme, steps were taken to strengthen the regulatory capacity of the public service through implementing the Legal Sector Reform Programme (LSRP), the Local Government Reform Programme (LGRP), and the Public Financial Management Reform Programme (PFMRP). These are the four main pillars of Tanzania’s efforts over the last two decades to restructure the state to match national economic transformations. Decentralisation 357. The CSAR states that the LGRP, a major pillar in Tanzania’s public service reforms, follows a long historical pendulum of Tanzania’s efforts at decentralising the central state. The current decentralisation policy, based on Articles 145 and 146 of the 1997 Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, provides for the establishment, purpose, composition, sources of revenue and functions of local governments. The Local Government Policy Paper of 1998 outlines four important decentralisation policy areas: political devolution; fiscal decentralisation; administrative decentralisation; and, central-local relations based on partnership. 358. According to the CSAR, planned Local Government Authorities will speed up service delivery with a special focus on priority sectors that target poverty reduction: education, health, water, agricultural extension and roads. These services will be democratic with the beneficiaries participating in, and in control of decision-making. This is intended to promote participatory democracy at the grassroots level. 359. Regarding the public’s assessment of public sector reforms in Tanzania, the CSAR [109] points out that many citizens rate them “moderately effective,” with “very few” believing that “the measures have made the public service better.” However, the CSAR [p.109] also notes that “if we combine the ‘moderates’ and the ‘highs’ an 80 per cent figure comes out, implying that there is some significant development towards accountability.” According to the CSAR, ordinary Tanzanians are mainly of the view that the “devolution of power from central government and lower levels of administrative/government authorities to the village/ward is still inadequate.” 360. Although LGAs are required to cooperate with all stakeholders in discharging their responsibilities, a number of factors prevent them from satisfactorily doing so, notably: (i) a weak private sector, unable to effectively play its role in service provision; (ii) mistrust and uneasy relations between LGA staff and civil society; (iii) a poor understanding of what ownership means at the local levels, with central Government dominating local decisionmaking; and, (iv) the on-going process of devolution down to ward and village levels. These challenges continue to bedevil Tanzania’s decentralisation policy and public service delivery, especially at the local levels. 84