The need to develop parallel delivery systems
With ever growing population and problems, devolution and decentralisation of power from center to the provinces and from provinces to district and union councils and village levels is a standard recipe for development and modernisation across the world.
However, it remains a dream for third world countries where power brokers in cahoots with feudal, political, judicial and bureaucratic elites make sure the hold on power centers of a few remains intact.
Pakistan is one such country where the powerful deny devolution of powers to the weak and meek. Though Article 140-A of the constitution calls for decentralisation of powers to the lower levels, all provincial governments have been violating this clause as all political, administrative and financial powers are not being devolved. Moreover, political power remains intact as decision-making is still with the provincial chief ministers and trusted bureaucrats.
Though the provincial governments of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Balochistan have held elections for local bodies and Punjab and Sindh are set to hold the polls in September this year, true devolution of power would remain an elusive dream.
The traditional political families and their cronies in all the major political parties have made sure that no reform could be brought into the local government systems introduced by the four provincial governments, which could allow the commoners to get the powers devolved from a few to the grassroot level.
A deep and thorough analysis of the local government systems introduced by the four provinces reveals that it was actually based on the local body system introduced under the Local Government Law of 1979. And all provincial governments have implemented it with small or major changes.
The local government models introduced by Punjab, Sindh, KP and Balochistan governments reveal an old, outdated and flawed system of devolution. The study reveals that the Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan governments have made sure that the administrative, political and fiscal powers should not devolve to the lower tiers, hence, making sure that the hold of the ruling elite remains intact.
It is only KP where the ruling party has introduced a model which reflects some symptoms of modern devolution.
On the other hand, the so-called democratic leaders reversed all the good work done by a dictator and now all the bureaucratic and financial powers have again been confiscated by the chief minister and chief secretary.
PPP, PML-N, ANP and other nationalist parties have been drumming for democratic order in the country, but in fact the leaders of all these parties are fascists who do not want to devolve power to lower levels.
PPP, PML-N, ANP and other nationalist parties have been drumming for democratic order in the country, but in fact the leaders of all these parties are fascists who do not want to devolve power to lower levels
Decentralisation, or decentralising governance, refers to the restructuring or reorganisation of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity, thus increasing the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels.
Under the new models of devolution, decentralisation could also be expected to contribute to key elements of good governance, such as increasing people’s opportunities for participation in economic, social and political decisions; assisting in developing people’s capacities; and enhancing government responsiveness, transparency and accountability.
While decentralisation or decentralising governance should not be seen as an end in itself, it can be a means for creating more open, responsive, and effective local government and for enhancing representational systems of community-level decision making.
By allowing local communities and regional entities to manage their own affairs, and through facilitating closer contact between central and local authorities, effective systems of local governance enable responses to people’s needs and priorities to be heard, thereby ensuring that government interventions meet a variety of social needs.
Decentralisation stimulates the search for program and policy innovation, first of all because it is, per se, an innovative practice of governance. Second, because through its implementation, local governments are required to assume new and broader responsibilities in order to provide public services for all. The assumption of new responsibilities through decentralisation often requires improved planning, budgeting and management techniques and practices; the adoption of new tools; and the development of improved human resources to operate the decentralised programmes.
Mudassir Rizvi, noted expert and head of programmes of Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN), said the devolution model introduced by General (r) Pervez Musharraf was in line with modern, advanced and successful models in the world.
“With some minute flaws, Musharraf’s devolution model was best as it ensured devolution of political and bureaucratic powers to the grassroot level. Except for fiscal powers, all 13 powers had been devolved. A major achievement was that bureaucracy had been brought under an elected nazim at the district level. All DCO, DPO or EDOs were bound to obey the orders of the local elected leadership,” Rizvi said.
Rizvi believes that without introducing decentralisation in the bureaucratic, financial and political powers, the dream of a successful model of local government system in the country would remain elusive.
Asked to comment on the models introduced by Punjab and KP governments, Rizvi said Punjab’s model reflected that the political leadership in the province wanted to keep all powers with the chief minister and despite local bodies in place, the chief minister and chief secretary would have the final word.
“In comparison, KP’s model is much better, where some devolution is ensured and each union council would have an elected member,” he said and added that the delimitation process was also fair in KP as an independent delimitation body had been installed, which oversaw the delimitation process.
“In comparison, KP’s model is much better, where some devolution is ensured and each union council would have an elected member,” he said and added that the delimitation process was also fair in KP as an independent delimitation body had been installed, which oversaw the delimitation process
While in comparison, Punjab government had formed a delimitation body under its own control, making sure that all its candidates may have a say in the delimitation process to help win upcoming local government polls, Rizvi added.
Rizvi however also said that despite all critique, the holding of local body polls itself is a huge and positive change as political activity at local level would help develop a new breed of politicians. Political discourse would grow and a new leadership would come to the fore.
Dr Rasool Bux Raees, a prominent analyst, said political leaders have a feudal mentality and they did not want to delegate powers and hold to the grassroot level. He said the local body polls would help decentralise power from center to the grassroots level.
Asked how could the local body polls would help decentralise powers when the governments had planned to introduce the flawed system of 1969, Dr Raees said decentralisation was a gradual process and it would take time.
“Devolution is a gradual process. Finally the rulers would have to devolve powers to the union council level. No one can stop this process now,” he added.
While we have political parties with highly incompetent, compromised and corrupt leadership, there is a similar bureaucratic system which breeds on favoritism, nepotism and cronyism rather than personal integrity or competitive abilities.
Under such an environment, neither the political nor bureaucratic elite wants the local body system to develop, grow and succeed. However, this alliance between the political and bureaucratic elite can’t survive in Pakistan, where the youth is highly educated and wants change.
With the passage of time, the demands of the people have changed and now the masses want a positive change at administrative, financial and political levels. Qualitative changes are needed in bureaucratic system as well.
In a bid to meet these changing demands, there is a dire need to develop parallel delivery systems at the lower levels which could help address the demands of the people at large.