Who Can We Count On? Authority, Empowerment and Accountability in Mozambique

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the use of a governance diaries methodology to investigate poor households’ interactions with authority in fragile, conflict and violence-affected settings in Mozambique. The research questioned the meanings of empowerment and accountability from the point of view of poor and marginalised people, with the aim of understanding what both mean for them, and how that changes over time, based on their experiences with governance. The study also sought to record how poor and marginalised households view the multiple institutions that govern their lives; providing basic public goods and services, including health and security; and, in return, raise revenues to fund these services. The findings show that, even if the perceptions and, with them, the concepts of empowerment and accountability that emerged do not differ significantly from those identified in the literature, in terms of action and mobilisation there are distinctions. In our research sites we found that people rarely mobilise, even faced with prevalent injustices and poor basic service provision. Many claim to be ‘unable’ to influence or force ‘authorities’ to respond to their concerns and demands.

Repertoires of citizen action in hybrid settings

“…In the first phase of its work, the A4EA programme used governance diaries with marginalized communities to understand how these groups interacted with authorities, and on what kinds of issues. Across Pakistan, Mozambique, and Myanmar, the research found that in general chronically poor and marginalized citizens in these settings rarely engage directly with the state, even when pressed with poor services or perceived injustices (Chaimite et al, 2021; Loureiro et al, 2021). Once again, however, this did not mean that they were not taking action—rather that such action was often taken through intermediaries, local fixers, brokers, and informal leaders at the community, village, settlement, or neighbourhood level.…”

What makes “difficult” settings difficult? Contextual challenges for accountability

“…In South Asia, the British had an explicit approach of “divide and rule.” In Myanmar, this involved preferential enlisting of ethnic minorities into the military, giving them power, which some scholars argue is the root of the social cleavages that are at the heart of the current sense of grievance and conflict (Brenner & Schulman, 2019). Chaimite et al (2021) point out that Mozambique is experiencing a crisis in authority, which “is a product of the post‐independence state's failure fully to transform Portuguese notions of authority, its coerciveness and militarization, its blurring of distinctions between state and party, attacks on spiritual authority, and inability to deliver or protect economic progress” (Alexander, 1997, as cited in Chaimite et al, 2021, p. 27). Similarly, in Nigeria, Oosterom and Sha (2019) suggest that the contestation over “indigeneity” and its complexity must be understood against the historical background of colonial rule in the Middle Belt states, in which:

“the British had given powers to Hausa settlers over Christian groups.

…”

“…In one conflict‐affected site in Myanmar, women were preferred as village leaders during periods of active conflict, partly as they could negotiate with armed groups without being perceived as a threat (Myanmar research team, 2021). In another case in Mozambique a husband‐and‐wife team leading a residents' association relied on the wife's social and political connections to connect with higher levels of authority (Chaimite et al, 2021; Nazneen, 2023).…”

“…In all four countries, tax/GDP rates are low, and the taxes collected do not seem to be underpinned by a fiscal social contract. In A4EA research, an interviewee in Mozambique asked, “who will have the courage to come here and tax us, after what they have done to us?” referring to their precarious situation caused by resettlement (Chaimite et al, 2021, p. 21). Meagher (2018), looking at the informal economy in Northern Nigeria finds that histories of coercion around taxes, a limited definition of informality, and the interaction of the informal economy with ethnic and religious differences point to difficulties in using taxation to rebuild accountability.…”

“…What was interesting in Myanmar was that distrust appeared not to be solely based on the person's own experience, or that of close friends and family, but rather on a “historic narrative or collective belief of authorities being ineffective” (Myanmar research team, 2021). In Pakistan and Mozambique, most people avoid going to the police for solving crime, because they do not trust them (Chaimite et al, 2021; Loureiro et al, 2021).…”