What makes districts perform better than others in the Imihigo? That has been the question on the minds of many ever since their evaluation results were made public a little more than two weeks ago. 

A recent study tried to understand why some districts underperformed by conducting what was reported in this paper as a "mini-survey” in the two districts that came at the bottom of the Imihigo rankings: Rwamagana and Gatsibo.

From this survey emerged the conclusion that the reason these two districts had performed poorly is because of the failure by the local leaders to involve residents in development programmes.

Rwamagana is "always trailing” because local leaders are "out of touch with reality,” one person in the study was quoted saying. In a more stinging critique, a member of the district advisory council observed;

"They are always on the defensive. Whenever we try to advise them, they come out strongly to defend their wrong doings. We are in a tricky situation and almost running out of choice.”

Gatsibo’s position at the very bottom of the ranking was also attributed to the failure by the district authorities to "involve” its residents in "development programmes.”

On the surface, the selection of the two districts for the survey is obvious – they were dead last in the rankings, taking the 29th and 30th positions. It makes sense, therefore, to select the worst for a study intended to identify the reasons for their failures.

If that was the intention, however, little was achieved. Before I explain, let me give the numbers a chance to speak for themselves. Let us consider three tiers of districts. If we select the five worst performing districts in each tier, a story begins to emerge.

Take the bottom (third) tier of the worst performing districts: Rulindo (71.8%), Rubavu (71.8%), Musanze (71.7%), Gasabo (71.6), Rwamagana (71.6%), and Gatsibo (70.7%). According to the figures, it is true that Rwamagana and Gatsibo were dead last; moreover, the distinction between Rwamagana and Gasabo is zilch.

In the middle (second) tier are Burera (73.4%), Nyarugenge (73.5%), Rutsiro (73.6%), Nyamasheke (74.7%), and Kamonyi (73.9%); and in the upper (first) tier are Nyaruguru (74.7%), Nyagatare (74.7%), Nyanza (75.1%), Gisagara (75.1%), and Kayonza (75.3%).

You should be having trouble making a distinction between, and within, the different tiers. And that is part of the point. To drive the point home, consider the samples from the above tiers against the cream of the crop; the top overall performers in descending order are: Kirehe (75.6%), Huye (75.7%), Ngororero (75.7%), Ngoma (75.8%), with Kicukiro as the best performing district with a score of 76.1 percent.

It’s a labyrinth. Now, a survey is telling us that Rwamagana and Gatsibo scored 71.6% and Gatsibo 70.7%, respectively due to a failure to consult with residents.

Be that as it may, isolating the two districts at the bottom of the ranking may provide us with the needed sacrificial lambs. However, it would be diversionary. It would pre-empt a more candid self-evaluation that is needed to take full advantage of this unique opportunity to improve Imihigo and, therefore, the lives of the people whose socioeconomic transformation they serve.

As I have pointed out in this column before, this year’s Imihigo serve an important purpose for learning lessons. Now that Mayors understand what is expected of them, more corrective measures can be taken to help them design Imihigo in such a way that they are linked to national development priorities so that they serve their intended purpose of being key drivers of socioeconomic transformation.

Local leadership also requires support to mobilise committed local development partners under the Joint Action Development Forum (JADF). Also important is to build the capacity of their staff to implement, coordinate, record, monitor and assess progress on a more regular basis.

While the conversation about citizen involvement is legitimate, it serves a more useful purpose when it comes as part of a holistic examination of Imihigo for the intention of correcting areas of possible defect.

In this regard, there’s more mileage in empowering existing structures of the local administrative entity (district, sector, cell, and village) and to enhance coordination with JADF and the Advisory Councils.

Fortunately, monies have just been availed for this purpose. In the past couple of weeks, the Belgian government provided 28 million Euro for supporting Rwanda’s decentralisation, with half of it expected to be used for building capacities of these local government structures.

Similar changes ought to come out of a genuine and holistic examination of the defects in Imihigo. Otherwise, isolating a couple of districts to assign fault is escapist and does not lead us to the deeper understanding that we need to effect meaningful change that links imihigo to socioeconomic transformation.

lonzen.rugira@gmail.com