Evaluating the process

Is Pakistan equipped for local governments?

The word ‘elections’ has created a buzz in the media in the recent times, sometimes for the right and sometimes for the wrong reasons. General election, by-election, and now the local governments are discussed over and over again.

That makes evaluating the local body elections and what they hope to bring to the country an absolute necessity right now. Why would that be so? Well, if we somehow get comfortable with the whole idea, we might finally see the sun of democracy rising from the horizon?

What the local governments will bring is unpredictable at the moment.

“This is a premature question,” said Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi, an eminent political scientist.

“We can only judge the effectiveness once the system is running, and we get to see what issues are being tackled and how much funding is being raised.”

However, local governments not being fully elected yet do not make the topic null and void, he added.

“So far we can just comment on the elections that are taking place.”

This time around, the local elections were carried out in phases. With some phases done and some still to go we are in some position to analyse the current situation nevertheless.

A dictatorial adventure

The interesting part about devolution of power in Pakistan is the fact that despite it being the bedrock of democracy, the martial law administrators are seen to be fonder of the process than their elected counterparts. Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf all were involved in the devolution of power in some way.

“Martial law administrators try to create an alternate government system,” Rizvi added. This makes sense, since the local governments, while powerful, are still not big enough to challenge the regime itself.

Ejaz Chaudhry of PTI thinks along similar lines.

“Martial law regimes are generally looking for legitimacy,” he commented.

“They use local governments as a tool, therefore, so fake elected leaders assemble around them. They just want roots in the masses.”

Various stakeholders speculate various reasons behind the lack of effective work done by the elected governments in this regard. Some think these are due to greed for unbridled power, others think the system just takes time.

Daniyal Aziz was one of the architects of devolution during the Musharraf regime. While talking to DNA, he declared the bureaucratic bottlenecks to be the reason.

The interesting part about devolution of power in Pakistan is the fact that despite it being the bedrock of democracy, the martial law administrators are seen to be fonder of the process than their elected counterparts. Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf all were involved in the devolution of power in some way

However, is the bureaucracy the only culprit? The rule of thumb is that elected governments do not treat local governments as the apple of their eyes either.

“Most of our democratic governments themselves are the creation of martial laws,” Chaudhry said.

“If you look at PPP, it never conducted elections at the grass root level. Whereas PML-N did it once earlier, and it was on non-party basis.”

Dr Rizvi holds similar opinions.

“Our MNAs and MPAs do not like to part with powers,” he observed. “Provincial governments have over-riding powers in Punjab and Sindh. KP is somewhat better.”

Well, the verdict of these stakeholders is clear. Martial law administrators have been trying to prove they are sincere with democracy, whereas the elected governments do not want to share powers on grass root level. However, it is too early to graph the intentions of the civil machinery, since devolution of power is still in the embryonic phase – it is evolving right now

Oh these elections – even phasing did not work

This time the local body election was held in various phases. Some are over, while some are underway. Due to the magnitude of the process, it is quite a favourite theme of the media these days.

This election was conducted in phases for the right reasons. While new in Pakistan, this is generally a good practice.

Senator Nehal Hashmi of PML-N expressed the same opinion while giving his comments to DNA.

“This happens all over the world, and hence is nothing new,” he said. “This is done in various countries as per their provinces or divisions. Phasing out generally facilitates the voters. They can give free and fair vote easily. Even there are financial advantages, as the election conducting body has to deploy lesser human resource.”

However, the elections were not really an eye candy. All of us know that. There was violence, and then there were various other problems that were reported.

“There were problems despite conducting the elections in phases,” Dr Rizvi lamented. “Violence has taken place. There have been electoral integrities as well. So the potential efficiency has not been generated.”

But again, the question arises why it is so. Why cannot we, for once, see a smooth election without any irregularities?

“Yes there have been problems,” Hashmi admitted, but he does not consider it all bad news. “These are the initial phases and we will learn from our mistakes. Probably things will be better in another three to four elections.”

The opposition however does not take the irregularities so causally, and shedding light on the election saga is not even required, since everyone in the country is aware of it.

“Sadly, there is no rule of law,” Chaudhry said. The narrative is a familiar one.

“ECP is not competent; it not free or powerful,” he went on. “Even phasing out lost its advantages. The government machinery generally gets misused. Funds are used to benefit the government. Polling staff does not really listen to ECP; it is more concerned with the provincial governments. And again, there are things like threat of firing and transfers.”

However, let us hope that the government and the institutions take the required action in eradicating all the evils. This can happen only if the government takes the grievances of the opposition more seriously, and when the opposition too engages in mature dialogue rather than petty blame games. All the stakeholders need to come on board in order to achieve the desired end.

And as the debate over efficiency continues, let us look at other aspects as well.

Party basis or not?

DNA conducted a public poll few months back to figure out public opinion about local body elections. During the course of this poll, it was discovered that the masses do not consider political parties to be of use in these elections.

However, our interviewees this time hail from the political sphere and they think totally otherwise.

“The advantage generally goes to the ruling party in the local body elections,” according to Dr Rizvi. The results of the previous phases speak volumes in the favour of this statement as well. “Local considerations are there though.”

When questioned about the victory of independent candidates, Hashmi did not think that it alters party politics.

“Well, local leadership is generally chosen on the basis of reputation and performance. However, the party is still there. PML-N was predominant, and as far as independent candidates are concerned, many of them were from PML-N who could not get the ticket because of multiple candidates from each UC. There were even areas with three to four PML-N affiliates. In such areas, we did not offer the tiger sign to anyone, and they appeared as independents. They were to join us eventually anyway.”

So yes party base is important.

“PML-N appeared as the predominant party in Punjab,” Hisami continued. “Even in Sindh, MQM was not prominent other than Hyderabad. In second phase of Sindh, PPP enjoyed the predominant position. And it won 128-129 seats in diverse districts.”

Ejaz Chaudhry agrees as well, but answered his question from a different perspective.

“Last time the election was conducted by PML-N, it was on non-party basis,” he said. “However this is contrary to the constitution itself. Non-party basis is nothing. So PTI filed a petition through legal channels, and got the plea approved that party-basis should be followed in any such undertaking in future. This is in the light of 140 (A).”

This petition had its desired effect, and according to Chaudhry, Punjab and Sindh governments had to adopt party basis, while KP already had it. Baluchistan had been done already so this change was not relevant there.

However, the common man does not really consider it this way while evaluating candidates. This does sound weird, but caste, friendship, affiliations, etc, do pop in while selecting the local body candidates. Chaudhry finds this highly unfortunate.

“Obviously elections should be political,” he asserted. “This is unfortunately not the case, and is a stigma on the political parties. The manifestos of political parties should be taken seriously. Our society however is not politicised.”

However, what we tend to overlook is the fact that democracy is more than a passion for election and chanting slogans. The essence of democracy is making sure that the elected government caters to the needs of the people

According to him, various forces have kept the people divided. Obviously someone who does not know the ideology of the person he is voting for will hardly be able to judge if his favourite candidate is the right one.

Unfortunately, the civil and military governments both have not aimed for politicisation of the society. Masses are divided in artificial divisions. Gradually this should improve. People should realise and identify with the manifesto of the political party of the candidate before voting.”

Hence, while a common Pakistani might not be aware of the fact, party manifestos and the ideology of candidates should play an important role in the elections – local body or not. Making decisions on the basis of such superficial parameters as caste or mere affiliation does not constitute appropriate criteria.

The flaws in the proposed government mechanism

Ok, so local body elections are important, and talk about devolution has been stirred. However, what we tend to overlook is the fact that democracy is more than a passion for election and chanting slogans. The essence of democracy is making sure that the elected government caters to the needs of the people. Even before that the selection of the government officials, which includes local government officials as well, should be thoroughly democratic in nature.

“True devolution has not been proposed yet,” said Ejaz Chaudhry. “In Punjab there are authorities for everything – health, education, etc. Provincial governments will hold most of the powers. The local governments are not free at all. They can’t raise or collect any tax.”

As per these facts, devolution is just a name, and is not going to be enforced in letter and spirit. However this does not end here. Chaudhry also talked about the rural-urban divide that is a thing of past but still present in Pakistan. He also raised the issue of indirect elections.

“The seats of minorities, women, youth and peasants will not be through proper election. Rather the elected members will choose them. In KP, all are elected. There are even village councils. The devolution elsewhere still needs to improve. It wouldn’t have been there in the first place, had it not been for PTI’s pursuit and then the Supreme Court.”

Hashmi, however, does not relate it to anything grave.

“This is not something that only Pakistan does,” he flatly declared. “This just shows democracy is a multi-storey building with the ground floor, and then the first and the second on it and so on.”

He also cited examples of other countries, such as India, US and UK. “In Britain members of parliament choose the cabinet and the leader of the house. Such examples are also in India, the world’s largest democracy per se. This is just to get rid of the administrative strain and lessen the electoral load, nothing more”.

However the examples he cited hardly hold parity to the points raised by Chaudhry. What Ejaz Chaudhry was questioning implied transparency and will of the people, so that all the elected representatives cater to the interests of the masses – rather than those elected directly.

However, the process has started, and it will improve after healthy discussion and constructive criticism. Sticking to this commitment, close evaluation, politicising the masses, and enforcing devolution is what we need to focus on. And a time period should be set for it!