Devolution: Why not?

Why not cater the locals through local government system?

This is common knowledge that Pakistan is a democratic state per se. However, if we look at the short but crisp and effective philosophy of democracy put forward by Abraham Lincoln, declaring democracy to be the government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, it can be argued that democracy very well rests upon a system that is aware of the needs and wants of the people, and is very close to the people. In other words, in an ideal world any decision taken by the democratic representatives should be the mirror image of the will of the masses – or of the locals if we rephrase it. Well as per this argument, built upon Lincoln’s notion, a few questions come to mind.

How can the needs of the citizens be catered to if the politicians keep sitting in the Ivory Tower termed as parliament?

Are the elected officials, that are elected by the masses themselves ironically, even accessible to the common man?

On what basis do we judge whether the elected representatives actually pass their bills as per the will of the nation?

Are the problems being catered to at the very grass-root level? What is the most basic unit of governments in the country?

Well, no hard-core research, no charts, no tables, no stats can measure this. However, all of us know that local government system, or power being devolved to the grass-root level, is the bedrock of democracy. According to Beetham (1985), in a democracy everyone’s preference is given a “political equality.” Can this political equality be ensured if the problems of grass-root level are not even known to the elected representatives; of course no?

“Ok, so we put in effort and go and vote,” Muhammad Amin, a former lawyer, commented on the situation. “But what happens after every election? We have our hopes set on the people we vote to sort our problems. But when we look at a broken pavement in the locality, or dirty water that is hardly potable being provided to us, who do we complain to? How do we reach the political elite? There hardly seems to be a way.”

The rank and file has always felt this way in Pakistan. Because even though the country follows a “democratic” model can this model be actually followed without devolving power to grass-root level through local government system?

Time and again, military regimes have made an effort to devolve power to the grass-root. We can see nothing concrete could be carried forward to the longer term. What are the reasons? What were the impediments?

The take of the constitution – and the dwindling efforts to devolve power

The constitution has to be followed by the citizens of any country, as it is the supreme law in place. Any breach of constitution should be taken very seriously in an ideal world. This gives us a notion that maybe power can be devolved to the grass-root level if some clause is incorporated into the constitution, but isn’t it there already?

In 2010, the 18^th amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan was made. This amendment made a major contribution in decentralising political power and authority. An important step in this regard is Article 140A. It says that as per law every province shall establish a local government system. This local government will have elected officials through elections held by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority will then be devolved by the provinces to local government officials.

In 2010, the 18^th amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan was made. This amendment made a major contribution in decentralising political power and authority

Prior to it, the 17^th amendment had been made in 2002, which too attempted to make devolution effective. Local Government Plan 2000, originated in Musharraf’s era, was a major reconstructing step. The National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) had come up with the following agenda for devolution.

Figure 1: Devolution Agenda as put forward by NRB

This plan was implemented on August 14, 2001, and the local government system was put forward. There were three categories, the district government, the Tehsil government and the union government in the following hierarchy:

Figure 2: The Local Government System as per the Local Governments Act 2000

These administrative units further had their hierarchical forms. These further divisions are shown in the following figures.

Figure 3: District Administration

Figure 4: Tehsil Administration

Figure 5: Union Administration

It was apparently a very careful and well-laid plan, with a clear aim to devolve and decentralise authority. This was not, however, the first such attempt. A similar plan was laid out by Ayub Khan when he introduced the Basic Democracy System.

This affection of military regimes for devolved political power has to have a reason. “Military regimes generally try to win over the hearts of the locals through devolution to grass-root” Daniyal Aziz, MNA, mentioned the cause of this.

“However, there was a reformist purpose in Musharraf’s time, and it was not supported by the bureaucracy.”

What life was like with local government system?

Now this is something apparent; what have today is concretely different from what we had when devolution of power was there. But does that really matter for the masses?

“The Nazim and Naib-Nazim system was very conducive,” Muhammad Amin expressed his opinion. “They could better understand and cater to basic needs. They were from within us. Many times, I could actually go and meet them and express myself. So the progress was very visible because of this accessibility factor. The easy and frequent communication enabled the government to take corrective actions as and when required. This was the major difference. Now when we have any problem, we do not know where to go. Being from the masses, this is very important that someone is there to understand our issues.”

It is evident that it was more comfortable and feasible for the masses when local government system was in action.

A tale of two culprits

However, this devolution was a very short affair. No concrete remnants can be seen today. Some power has devolved to the provinces, but we do not see any further devolution – at least not a concrete one.

Talking to experts, a tale of two culprits was revealed; one of them being the politicians and the other the bureaucracy.

“The political system of Pakistan is based on “bradari” (caste) and personal gains.” Dr Arfa Syeda Zehra, Professor of History at FC College Lahore, said about the current status quo prevailing in the political scenario of Pakistan.

“The reasons for all this are the tasteless citizens of Pakistan, who are protecting this system and culture. If they do not contribute, they won’t have the amenities on their tables that they are enjoying as a ‘divine’ right”.

However, we have repeatedly seen politicians approving of devolution of power in parliament. So there has to be a different perspective too that needs to be looked at.

“The bureaucracy is the main impediment to the devolution of power in Pakistan,” added Daniyal Aziz, mentioning his experience as one of the architects of the devolution plan in Musharraf’s regime.

“There are three major reasons due to which bureaucracy bars the way of effective devolution of power. Firstly the structure of the bureaucracy is unitary and graded in the form of a hierarchy; whereas the nature of the constitution is federal. Hence there is an inherent clash. When the powers are devolved to the grass-root level the bureaucracy just cannot handle it as people with lower grades than them are given the fiscal and financial authorities.”

“Secondly, we still have colonial traces,” he continued, explaining the barriers put forward by the bureaucracy. “In a colonial setup, the bureaucracy holds the local government and district powers. However, in a democracy ideally the power is devolved to the grass-root level. When the local government is empowered, the bureaucracy simply cannot accept it. The third problem with our bureaucracy is their desire to overpower the judiciary. The judiciary-bureaucracy clash has no logic. According to our constitution executive and judiciary are to be separated. However the bureaucracy’s desire to control everything is the problem. If we look at our politicians, they have always been in support of devolution almost unanimously. But our bureaucracy always impedes this progression. Reformist motives are always barred by the bureaucracy”.

While the two analysts expressed opposite opinions, one thing is sure. Whatever the reason is, one thing bars devolution of power, and that is sticking to the status quo.

“The bureaucracy is the main impediment to the devolution of power in Pakistan,” added Daniyal Aziz, mentioning his experience as one of the architects of the devolution plan in Musharraf’s regime

Dr Arfa Syeda, as an educationist, thought there is something wrong with the politicians, whereas Daniyal Aziz, being a part of the system, holds the bureaucracy responsible. Musing over the words of both, it is safe to conclude that status quo is the culprit.

This tussle reminds of the words of Javed Jabbar, which he wrote in his masterpiece From Chaos to Catharsis:

“After the shouting is over and the legislative bills have been presented, it is the bureaucracy alone that has the data, the methodology and the organisation to transform a piece of power into a portion of progress.”

Therefore, it is the need of the hour that politicians and bureaucrats join hands to get rid of the status quo and decentralise authority.

Steps required for establishing effective local government system

Nothing is done out of the blue. Steps are required to turn every dream into reality.

“Devolution of power cannot be done effectively unless bureaucracy is reformed.” Daniyal Aziz proposed. “The officers in our bureaucracy will have to be split as per this hierarchy; local, district, provincial and federal.”

“We do have the human capital”, Dr Zehra talked from a different viewpoint. “We have all the human capital that we need. However, we need to mobilise, unite and educate the human capital we have. The key is: education, education, education – and that too the right forms of education. Until now we have generally played with numbers and grades in our education system.”

The prospects of a bright future

“If we do achieve the true form of democracy in the form of devolution of power, then we will see the consequences in the form of a strong society, a united society, compassionate society.”

If the needs of the locals are taken care of, the societal fabric will be integrated and a true democracy will be established. Even in a poll conducted on Facebook, all of the participants expressed the desire that devolution to grass-root level is important. 80 per cent said yes straight away, whereas the rest too believed so, if grass root is ready to take this responsibility.

Figure 6: Result of a Facebook survey conducted on whether the powers should be devolved to grass-root level

To make this effective, we should have partnerships between federal and provincial and between provincial and local governments.

While we as nation are fascinated by concepts like the blood of martyrs and the uprisings of a revolution, the reality and the practicality of administrative machineries are very different. There is a group of Pakistanis who are always chanting slogans in favour of revolution (without knowing what it really is); then there is another group of people who assert that evolution rather than revolution is the key. However, the solution to most of our administrative problems lies neither in a blood-stained revolution, nor in centuries-long evolution; rather devolution of power is the key.