The local government (LG) system enables delivery of people’s rights at their doorstep and ensures remedy of grievances at the earliest and is much better than the commissioner system, which was introduced during the British rule to control the masses through an appointee of the regime, social scientist Dr Rasool Bux Raees said on Monday.
Comparing the LG and commissionerate systems, he said though not an ideal one, the LG system was far better than the system of political manipulation. “Under the commissioner system, an appointee of the chief minister is supposed to directly control the masses while the LG system provides for rule through elected representatives of the public,” he said.
“Successive regimes have protected the commissioner system as it helped them manipulate at local level,” he added. According to Raees, during colonial rule, the feudal used to be the clients of the respective deputy commissioners and got benefits and privileges from the empire, adding that role of the feudal was to mediate between the ‘Raj’ and the general public. After independence, they continued to use it as a tool of exploitation. He said those advocating the commissioner system did not want to share power with the people.
Raees, however, said there was a degree of political influence in the LG system. “This can be overcome through accountability and proper checks and balance,” he added.
He termed the commissioner system “one-stop devolution” and said the head of the district acted according to the wishes of the province’s chief executive. “He can transfer or make a bureaucrat OSD (Officer on Special Duty) if he goes against his wishes.”
He said the incumbent governments wanted to win the next elections through bureaucracy and that was the reason why they advocated the commissioner system and ran away from devolution of power at the grass roots level. He said the logical consequence of not sharing power with the masses resulted in the demand for new provinces.
Another prominent analyst Dr Hassan Askari Rizvi, however, differed with Raees, saying it would not be fair to term any of the two inherently good or bad. “Both the systems had been in place in the country and worked up to the satisfaction of the governments,” he noted.
He said both systems had flaws but a particular political party advocated the system which was politically convenient for it. “MQM wants to control the city administration through its elected representatives while the rest of the three provinces want the system run through bureaucracy,” he said.
The LG system, introduced by the Musharraf regime, was based on three tiers: Union Council, Tehsil or Town (only in big cities) and District or City District. Under Article 140-A of the constitution, political, financial and administrative powers lie with the elected representatives. Under the LG system, 13 departments including health, education, roads, works, revenue, community welfare and police were devolved to the district level.
The budget of tehsils/towns and districts was prepared by the administration and passed by the district assembly which monitored the development projects. It was authorised to summon the officers of district administration to check the projects and their financial cost. The nazim was bound to act on the orders of the chief minister and in case of any violation, the nazim could be suspended. In this case, he had to appear before the provincial inquiry committee for investigation.
The details of annual and monthly expenses of the local government were placed outside the administration offices for public inspection and open courts were held to review the objections raised by the district accounts committee. The budgets and taxation system of the district was checked by the provincial government while the Accountant General of Pakistan was responsible for the audit.
Projects were approved by the nazim and it was implemented by the department concerned through the district coordination officer (DCO).
In the LG system, the Police Act 1861 was abolished and replaced by the Police Order 2002 wherein police were made subordinate to the elected representatives.
On the other hand, the commissioner system was based on division, district and tehsil while the union council was completely ignored. All the powers lied with the deputy commissioner (DC) who also acted as the district magistrate. The DC was executive, judicial and revenue head of the district. All the powers were concentrated in one office. As judicial head, police was also under the DC. He could accuse a person, could remand the accused to police for 14 days and could punish them for three years.
Whereas in the LG system, judicial powers were handed over to judiciary while the revenue powers had been given to the executive district officer (Revenue). The District Public Safety Commission (DPSC), a body consisting elected representatives, controlled the police.
In the commission system, the DC was free to spend funds and there were no checks. He was not accountable to anyone’s command and though he was a public servant, the people had to appear before him. In the LG system, the district was directly connected to the province while in the commissioner system it was connected to the division. In the LG system, the office of commissioner was totally abolished.
