Localisation has become a central idea in development discourse. It is often framed as a commitment to shift power, resources, and decision making closer to the communities that development efforts are meant to serve. At its core, localisation calls for a system where local actors are not only participants, but leaders.
The logic is clear. Those closest to the challenges bring contextual knowledge, community trust, and a deeper understanding of what works. Yet, while the language of localisation continues to gain traction, an important question remains. Has power truly shifted?
The Reality Behind the Rhetoric
Despite growing commitments to localisation, many development systems continue to operate in ways that limit genuine local leadership. This is not simply a theoretical concern. It reflects patterns widely observed across development practice.
Funding is often channelled through international organisations, with local actors engaged later as implementing partners. Programme priorities and frameworks are frequently defined before local organisations are brought into the process, leaving limited space to influence direction. In many cases, local organisations are tasked with delivering activities within pre-designed projects, complete with fixed indicators, timelines, and reporting structures.
Even where consultation takes place, it often occurs after key decisions have already been made. What is presented as participation can sometimes function as validation rather than genuine co-creation.
These recurring practices reveal a clear gap between the ambition of localisation and the reality of how development systems are structured.
Participation Is Not Power
A central challenge lies in the distinction between participation and influence. Being included in a process does not necessarily mean having the power to shape it.
Local actors may attend meetings, contribute to discussions, and support implementation, yet still have limited authority over priorities, resource allocation, or definitions of success. When this happens, participation risks becoming symbolic rather than meaningful.
True localisation requires more than inclusion. It requires a deliberate shift in decision making power.
Rethinking How Power Operates
Moving from commitment to practice requires a deeper examination of how power operates within development systems. This includes questioning who controls funding, who sets agendas, and who defines impact.
Shifting power is not only a technical adjustment. It is an institutional and cultural shift. It requires trust in local expertise, flexibility in programme design, and a willingness to move beyond rigid structures.
It also calls for a rebalancing of accountability, ensuring that it is not only directed upward to funders, but also outward to communities.
What Meaningful Localisation Looks Like
Meaningful localisation is not defined by proximity alone. It is defined by influence.
It is reflected when local organisations are engaged from the earliest stages of programme design, when they have the autonomy to adapt interventions to context, and when their knowledge is recognised as expertise. It is visible in funding structures that support sustainability and in partnerships that are built on equity rather than hierarchy.
In such systems, local actors are not implementers of externally defined agendas. They are co-creators and decision makers.
A Test of Commitment
For organisations working to strengthen governance systems, localisation presents both an opportunity and a test. It challenges institutions to move beyond commitment statements and examine whether their practices reflect the change they seek to promote.
The question is no longer whether localisation matters. The question is whether systems are being redesigned to make it real.
Because in the end, localisation is not about where development happens. It is about who holds the power to shape it.
To learn more, feel free to reach out via info@zgf.org.zm
