Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0159/01590.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 30KB | 475 lines

$Unique_ID{COW01590}
$Pretitle{351}
$Title{Honduras
Chapter 4B.   Local Government}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{James A. Morris}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{party
political
central
local
government
liberal
national
military
groups
pnh}
$Date{1983}
$Log{}
Country:     Honduras
Book:        Honduras, A Country Study
Author:      James A. Morris
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1983

Chapter 4B.   Local Government

     The basic unit of government consists of 281 municipios (sometimes
translated as municipalities, but similar to United States counties) and the
Central District, which combines the twin cities of Tegucigalpa and
Comayaguela. Charged with upholding standards of health, safety, and order,
the municipios implement public works, collect taxes, and compile vital
statistics along with other census data. The municipio is defined as an
administrative unit, and boundaries are not determined by the extent of
urbanized settlement. Outside the urban zones, scattered concentrations of
population or villages are subsets of municipios and are classified as aldeas
or caserios. Municipios are granted ejidal (communal) lands, which can be
rented or utilized to generate additional income.

     Municipal governments are normally elected by local citizens who choose
a mayor (alcalde), a sindico (who acts as a secretary and legal recorder), and
a municipal council. The councils vary in size according to population but are
allowed a maximum of seven councillors (regidores). They meet twice a month
and appoint a secretary, treasurer, and assistant mayors who work in the
aldeas and caserios. The elected mayor has a double role as administrative
head of the municipio and as representative of the central government charged
with carrying out national laws and policies.

     For the most part mayors have been forced to fulfill the latter role
because most authority and resources have resided with the central government.
Structural changes accentuated the trend toward centralization as local
expenditures declined in relation to overall growth in the nation's economic
base. With national development becoming a major objective, central government
institutions assumed more responsibility for the execution of policy. Revenue
growth expanded faster at the national level with the imposition of income and
corporate taxes. Another distinction was the ability of the central government
to borrow in order to finance development projects. Accentuating this
centralization process has been the proliferating character of the state
itself. New decentralized agencies, such as INA and COHDEFOR, tended to absorb
functions formerly performed by the municipios, and they also used funds and
resources formerly available to local government.

     Under elected regimes, local officials directly lobby the Ministry of
Government and Justice, other cabinet-level offices, and autonomous agencies
in pursuit of budgetary requests. Personal contact and political party
linkages between central and local authorities are the major channels of
communication and serve as the framework of political exchange, i.e., local
political support in return for public works contracts and extension of
governmental favors. Despite party relationships, local officials normally
direct their efforts at the appropriate governmental office rather than appeal
to their deputy in the National Congress. Neither congressional
representatives nor local military commanders are ignored, but favorable
responses often depend on direct personal contact with the officer or
individual able to make the critical decision. And it is not unusual for
representatives of a community or a particular interest group to take up
specific issues with the chief of state.

     Between 1972 and 1982 mayors and other local officials became more of
an administrative arm of the central government because all were appointed
by military leaders rather than elected to their posts. Between 1978 and
1980 administrative control by the military governors was tightened when
regional development councils were interposed between local and central
governments. Each council was headed by the military zone commander, and the
regional representative of CONSUPLANE acted as its technical secretary.
Representatives of relevant central government ministries also participated.
A fundamental objective of the regional development councils was "to serve
as control mechanisms for the evaluation, supervision, and coordination of
projects and programs proposed in current Operating Plans...." Besides
coordinating investment programs and collecting data, the councils approved
project and budgetary requests from local governments. At the same time
they were instrumental in the disbursement of central government funding.

     While they functioned, all communications were routed through these
regional organisms. Even so, the departure from traditional communication
channels worked to the benefit of many smaller, poorer municipios that
normally had to compete with the larger, more urban communities. Because
decisions were made at the regional level by military zone commanders,
access to authorities by local governments and responses to their requests
were, in some cases, facilitated.

     Once the 1980-81 Constituent Assembly was installed, the regional
development councils withered as the military backed away from day-to-day
administrative issues. The Assembly asserted itself in matters of overall
policy, while military zone commanders were growing tired of the
time-consuming and fatiguing process of political negotiation and
bureaucratic competition. Only one or two councils remained active, but
these instances were due to continuing local interest and the initiative
sustained by local military officers.

     A centralized system of constitutional and political authority has
emerged since the era of Carias and the latter-day growth of the state under
the military governors. Despite this trend, local governments remained
vitally important to the average citizen for essential services and initial
contact with authorities. Local officials, though mostly dependent on central
government funding, did not always implement directives or programs in the way
intended, whether because of opposition to the policy, lack of financial
or technical resources, or incompetence. Mechanisms of control were extended
through the parties, but authority was not always imposed. Rather, local
political bosses and provincial elites in conjunction with regional military
commanders often determined or influenced local policy implementation, issues
of law and order, governmental favors, and the extent or kind of formal
political participation.

Political Sectors

     Throughout the 1960s a diverse array of groups, organizations, and
political movements appeared which eventually played significant political
roles in Honduras. Until Carias retired in 1949, most Hondurans participated
politically through personal ties to local political leaders, and most
of these were linked to the Liberal or National Party organizations. Since
that time the nature of political participation has changed, although
often the style of politics retains the flavor of caudillo personalism
and authoritarian rule.

     Numerous private and official overseas contacts in the aftermath of
World War II led to a more complex and growing state apparatus and helped
stimulate processes of social mobilization-urbanization, demand for
education, economic diversification, and shifting social relationships. The
first successful labor unions were organized during the 1954 nationwide
strike; most business organizations appeared after the creation of the Central
American Common Market (CACM) in 1960; peasant associations were organized
after the 1962 Agrarian Reform Law had been passed by the National Congress.
The rise of a modern military institution paralleled this proliferation of
newly emerged interest groups. Coincidentally, a significant decline
o