Deprived of responsibility and authority
Local governments will be in place in all the four provinces next month. The grass-roots governance is aimed at bringing democracy to the people’s doorsteps by involving them in decision making at the local level. Unlike the members of the provincial and national assemblies, who are not easily accessible, those elected from nearby villages or living in the next street in urban areas are easy to contact. The local leaders are also better aware of the felt needs of the people on account of their constant interaction with them. The local government councils can also evolve better solutions for local problems compared to bureaucrats sitting in far-away provincial or national capitals.
But do the local governments elected under the acts passed by the four provincial assemblies have the capacity to do the job expected from them?
Article 140-A of the constitution lays down the scope of the local governments clearly. It says “Each province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments”.
The provincial administrations led by four parties visualise the grass-roots bodies as no more than a department of the provincial government. The Local Government Acts passed by the provincial assemblies fail to devolve the powers that are necessary to allow theses bodies carry out their responsibilities. Local governments have not been provided full autonomy in terms of fiscal management, control over service deliveries, revenue, tax and police departments.
The acts show that the provincial governments are determined to maintain the status quo by holding back a genuine devolution of power. After delaying the holding of LG election year after year on one excuse or another, they reluctantly agreed to go for the polls only under the relentless pressure of the Supreme Court. They have, however, ensured that no real devolution takes place. All the four provinces have restored the British era Commissionerate system, which helps the provincial governments exercise full control over the LG through bureaucracy.
Article 140-A of the constitution lays down the scope of the local governments clearly. It says “Each province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments”
All the four LG laws are similar in their basic features. The chief ministers have the authority to dismiss a local government and suspend or remove the head of an elected local government and appoint new office holders. Can anyone imagine allowing a prime minister to similarly dismiss a chief minister and nominate another one in his place? The LG fund is to be is managed by the finance minister. Thus the bodies have neither financial nor administrative autonomy. Most of the important functions devolved to the LGs under the system introduced by Musharraf are now under the control of the CMs.
While the acts devolve minor service delivery functions to local governments, provinces have made exceptions to retain large entities such as the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Sindh Building Control Authority, Lahore Development Authority (LDA), and Lahore Waste Management Committee.
The Punjab and Balochistan LG Acts state that the District Councils will function under the directives of the provincial government, giving the provincial government leverage over the local governments. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh Acts give greater autonomy to the provincial governments to supervise and inspect local governments.
There are, however, minor differences in the Acts.
In Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan, the police are not under the local government, whereas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa the Village and Neighbourhood Councils have powers to supervise the police and make recommendations to the district government.
The LG Acts of 2013 are not consistent on the term limits of the local governments. Punjab provides for a term of five years, Sindh and Balochistan of four years, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of three years.
The leaders of the political parties in this country have been addicted to accumulation of power in their own hands. The mindset has determined their attitude towards local governments also. The idea of devolution of power is an anathema to the chief ministers, their cabinet members and the legislators in general. There is a perception that since they have been elected by the people they have the mandate to monopolise power.
The Charter of Democracy, the widely acclaimed agreement between the PPP and PML-N, assiduously avoids using the term ‘local government’ as it connotes empowerment. The document prefers to use the term ‘local bodies’. While the CoD provides for party based “local bodies’” election and pays lip service their autonomy, it steers clear of defining their powers.
The thinking is enforced by the fear that empowered local governments would corrode the leadership’s authority by depriving it of the traditional ways of retaining authority, funds and patronage. It is sometime maintained that LGs would be unable to manage the funds.
The party system in Pakistan remains weak. Organisational flaws are covered up during the elections by huge spendings. For this the parties in power want to have full control over public funds which are used to buy the loyalties of local elites through fraudulent development schemes and for election related expenses which have skyrocketed over the years.
With funds fully under the control of the chief ministers, these are used on high visibility development schemes prepared with an eye on the next elections. Even funds spent during natural calamities are aimed at political projection of the ruling party leadership.
Whenever there are floods in Punjab the CM takes packages of food rations aboard a helicopter and is shown personally dropping them to the marooned people. This is personal publicity with public funds.
Whenever a gang-rape victim denied justice burns herself alive, the CM takes his media team to the bereaved family’s house and is shown handing over cheques personally to the family head. After the donation he feels confident of having done his duty. He makes no attempt, however, to improve the police system or remove the legal lacunas that save the criminals.
The LGs need to look after the schools and ensure the teachers are properly trained and come to the schools regularly. For this local education should have been under the local councils
With the funds in their hands the chief ministers can indulge in numerous publicity stunts. Yellow taxi scheme, green tractor scheme, Benazir tractor scheme, laptop scheme are some of these. Billions of rupees have been spent on such schemes without conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
Cronies can also be favoured through these schemes not long ago, the extended family of an MNA from Layyah, which owned thousands of acres of land, bagged 48 out of 63 tractors meant for small farmers. And that too in a supposedly random computerised ballot.
National priorities like health, education, and job generation schemes, meanwhile, remain ignored.
The LGs under the present laws have meagre financial resources at their disposal. In Lahore commercialisation of urban land remains under the control of LDA, while parking and solid waste management are being handled by independent companies. Similarly Metro bus and metro train are out of the LG‘s purview.
The LGs need to look after the schools and ensure the teachers are properly trained and come to the schools regularly. For this local education should have been under the local councils. But the MNAs and MPAs insist on appointing their retainers as teachers who draw salaries from government exchequer but are most of the time at the dera of the politician who appointed them instead of performing their job at the school. There have been reports on the media of village schools being used as cattle sheds by influential landlords.
To put an end to thana culture the local governments should have been given a meaningful role in maintaining oversight over the police stations. This has not been done because the CMs want to use police to retain their party’s hold on the province. The LGs therefore must remain deprived of financial and administrative responsibility and authority.