Why elected governments should not treat local governance with disdain
It is one of the supreme ironies of Pakistani politics that successive military governments have been the harbinger of local governance to Pakistan. Elected governments, on the other hand, have been less than enamoured with the idea of ‘power to the people’. No blame, just each form of government acting on its survival strategy, the military in its frantic lunge to achieve its pipe dream of legitimacy and the elected governments clingy and desperate for power in an environment that usually has never been very friendly to or appreciative of their existence.
What little of local governance Pakistan has experienced has been the brain child of successive military regimes. In contrast, elected governments have treated local governance with aversion and disdain. Enter Mian Shahbaz Sharif, who without any pretence or qualms so thoroughly pulled the rug from under the Nazims’ feet that to hope for a return to decentralisation seems somewhere in the distant, hazy future.
Why this dismay at a return to centralisation? Can a case be made for decentralisation of governance? Or is this just another development fad being bandied around till donor agencies find something else that sounds more technical and fancier than previous terms? Proponents often point towards the improved service delivery, improved accountability mechanisms and shorter response times associated with a more decentralised form of governance.
Developing countries the world over are embracing this move towards decentralised forms of government because there is a realisation that overly centralised governments often lack the innovation and vigour that comes with a more decentralised system of governance. Pakistan, in true regressive fashion, has decided to forgo what is increasingly being seen as an essential facet of good governance. Local government reform is a tricky business and has more often than not resulted in the creation of ineffectual grass roots level institutions. This, however, must be seen as a hurdle rather than verdict.
The idea of governance chiefly derives its power from a sort of emancipatory effect such as can only be had through the ownership of a process. Local governments allow the populace to select, from amongst themselves, a representative to the government. Enough power must be vested in the representative for the process to have credibility in the eyes of the populace, such that decisions made by the local government affect the lives of the electorate in some, hopefully positive, manner and allows them a level of ownership of the process. Additionally, with fewer degrees of separation between the local government representatives and the people, the populace feels that they have greater control over how government should be run.
This participatory affect dons a sort of halo over the political process resulting in an increased level of satisfaction with the political process. To illustrate, consider this very interesting study conducted by JPAL (Jameel Abdul Lateef Poverty Action Labs) in Indonesia where project selection in a local government environment was done through a voting process. What was interesting to note in that study was that while project selection barely changed from the previous system of selection, people showed a higher level of satisfaction with the political process.
Which begs the question, could properly implemented, grass roots level democracy lead to a reduction in conflict in war-torn areas? Especially places such as Balochistan where by decentralizing power down to the smallest level and making people realize that governance outcome is dependent on their choice and through giving them a sense of control, some steam could be taken out of the civil war presently ravaging the province. Of course, this rests on the assumption that a higher level of satisfaction with the political process will lead to a lessening of resentment, frustration and consequently conflict.
One spillover, and one of the mechanisms behind improved service delivery, is the increased threat of accountability elected government officials must contend with. The Pakistani bureaucracy has very little accountability to the people it is supposed to serve, reporting structures are such that the only authority the civilian bureaucracy is responsible to is the provincial government, where pleasing the boss or a politician is infinitely more important than doing the same for a second quintile, two dollar a day nobody.
Many would contend that responsibility and accountability can be had through the provincial and federal elections. True, but that presents a very long-winded and inefficient form of holding governments accountable. It also requires teasing out policies implemented at the macro and micro level. Additionally, legislators at the federal and provincial level command areas large enough for them to neglect regions deemed politically unimportant, potentially furthering inequalities.
What is needed is a direct process of accountability where the electorate has a right to demand answers and pass verdicts about service delivery and project selection. Reliance on the bureaucracy to select projects and deliver services leads to sub-optimal levels of both as there is little incentive for a district administrator to strive to provide the best possible in terms of service delivery. Where there is no or very little incentive, expect little or no action.
The iterative nature of Local Governments gives them the ability to specialize in their administrative abilities. Local governments are a learning process and must be seen as such. People who were disillusioned by the recent stint of local governments must realize that this process, much like everything else in democracy, must be allowed to go on and function, an iteration followed by the next, till the point that local governments have a fairly good idea of what is required of them. Due importance must be given to building the capacity of administrators and elected officials, without which officials could be left clueless about how to handle tasks devolved to them.
Pakistan’s move towards further centralisation is not heartening. A checkered past with local governance has not helped the case much. Increasingly, countries are realizing the importance of decentralizing governance down to the lowest levels. Pakistan, needing every last ounce of good governance, must follow suit too or stay frozen in time with its overly centralised government structures.
The writer can be contacted at [email protected]. Twitter: Ahshafi
