Entitlement to the 13th salary in Mozambique: Local authorities outperform the government

Paulo Vilanculo"

While the Central Government hesitates, justifies itself, and shifts responsibility to budgetary constraints, two Mozambican municipalities have decided to act. The municipalities of Nampula and Beira, despite operating outside the heavy machinery of the central state, announced the payment of the 13th-month salary to their employees, reaffirming a labor right that, paradoxically, has been treated as a political favor by the Government itself. How can we explain that municipalities with limited budgets manage to fulfill labor rights, while the Central Government, with access to national taxes and international funding, fails in the essentials? Does decentralization threaten the State or does it only threaten the concentration of power?

In Mozambique, the 13th-month salary is not an occasional perk. It is a historically established right in the public service and the formal sector, linked to budgetary predictability and social justice. Ultimately, the debate about the 13th-month salary goes beyond financial considerations. It concerns respect for acquired rights, governmental coherence, and social responsibility. If local authorities can fulfill this obligation, the Central Government can no longer hide behind the discourse of a permanent crisis. By failing to guarantee the 13th-month salary, the Government pushes thousands of families into greater economic vulnerability, especially during festive periods when expenses increase and social pressure intensifies.

The announcement of these local authorities is not merely an administrative act; it is a political and social gesture laden with symbolism. When local government manages to fulfill basic labor obligations that the central government fails to do, it becomes clear that the problem is not only financial, but also one of management and priorities. More than surpassing the government, these local authorities expose a structural problem: the disconnect between the central state and the social reality of its employees. The local authorities demonstrate that the central issue is not just a lack of resources, but political prioritization.

In a context of economic crisis, rising cost of living, and declining purchasing power, where the central government prioritizes opaque spending, ceremonial trips, redundant structures, and triumphalist speeches, local authorities choose to place the worker at the center of governance. When the State fails to honor this commitment, it fails not only financially; it fails morally and politically. It fails in the trust it establishes with its own workers. It is a silent but forceful lesson in responsible governance; the 13th-month salary ceases to be a mere financial supplement and becomes a minimum instrument of labor dignity. The crisis, after all, seems to be less economic and more political.

In the Mozambican context, where the central state historically concentrates decisions, resources, and priorities, the experience of local authorities demonstrates that decentralization is not only worthwhile but also indispensable for effective and socially sensitive governance. The debate on decentralization in Mozambique has ceased to be purely technical and has become profoundly political and social. Whenever local authorities demonstrate governance capacity, paying salaries, guaranteeing basic services, or responding to social crises, the central government feels uncomfortable. This proximity generates political tension, but also fosters vibrant democracy. Central power is often abstract and distant; local power is tangible. In contrast, while central power is diluted in ministries, national directorates, and generic discourses, local power has a face, a name, and an address.

Politically, decentralization exposes a structural contradiction: the fear of losing control. Administrative and political decentralization is not merely a model for organizing the State; it is a strategic governance option that brings power closer to the citizen, reduces asymmetries, and increases the accountability of public managers. Decentralization allows for a more realistic understanding of local needs. Local authorities experience the daily lives of their residents and workers, understand economic vulnerabilities, social dynamics, and concrete emergencies. Decentralization reinforces direct political accountability. Decentralization also strengthens substantive democracy, going beyond periodic voting. Decentralization contributes to institutional stability and national cohesion. Socially, decentralization has produced a clear effect: it brings power closer to the citizen. Where there is direct accountability, there is more cautious governance.

Well-managed municipalities become alternative showcases of governance, breaking the monopoly on the discourse of state competence. By allowing different territories to find their own solutions within the constitutional framework, the feeling of historical exclusion and marginalization is reduced. By bringing citizens closer to decision-making processes, space is created for participation, oversight, and continuous social pressure. This proximity translates into faster and more appropriate decisions, such as prioritizing the payment of the 13th-month salary, which the distant and bureaucratic Central Government tends to treat as an abstract macroeconomic problem.

The experience of Mozambican municipalities, such as Nampula and Beira, shows that decentralization does not mean weakening the State, but rather redistributing governmental intelligence. When power is shared, governance becomes closer, more accountable, and more effective. There is also a profound social debate about dignity and justice. For the municipal worker, the payment of the 13th-month salary is not about ideology. When the right is guaranteed locally and denied nationally, the average citizen realizes that the problem is not a lack of resources, but a lack of political will and clear social priorities.

The actions of Nampula and Beira also dismantle the recurring argument that decentralization weakens the State. On the contrary, it demonstrates that local governance, when committed to the public interest, can be more efficient, more humane, and more sensitive to the concrete needs of the working population. The case of municipalities that surpass the Central Government in basic social matters reignites an inevitable discussion: do we want a State that commands or a State that serves, since decentralization points towards a State that serves. Not as a miraculous solution, but as a necessary correction to an exhausted centralist model. In the end, the debate is not about administrative maps or legal competences. It is about power, democracy, and dignity. And it is in this debate that decentralization ceases to be a constitutional promise and becomes a social imperative.

2025/12/3