Urban governance of Sindh under ‘judicial review’

• Can democratic accountability of elected governments be left to five-yearly electioneering?

Sindh is the most urbanised province of the most urbanised nation in south Asia. Even as per conservative estimates based on administrative divisions of what is ‘urban’ and ‘rural’, more than half of its population lives in cities — more precisely, concentrated in three cities, Karachi, Hyderabad and Sukkar. The people living in these cities or other towns of lower tiers in the province are experiencing the quality of urban services being provided by the government. The people outside of the province, through the social or for-profit media, are aware of the level of care and response from the Sindh government.

In the midst of urban chaos in these ever expanding human settlements and perhaps in response to the apparent apathy of the ruling elite there, the honourable CJP recently reviewed urban affairs of Sindh – from water management, land, housing and building regulations to the balance of power between city councils and the provincial government on delivery of basic municipal amenities, etc. The judicial intervention received mixed response from different quarters concerned. The chief minister of Sindh raised a question about the constitutional jurisdiction of the institutions. Commenting on the Water Commission constituted by the honourable Supreme Court, he said, ‘Let judiciary take care of its own work. If it interferes in administration’s work the issues will not be resolved… so let everyone take care of his own job’.

In the prominent absence of accountability and participation by the community to shake its political leadership that is failing to deliver but quick to take up moral and legal question of institutional jurisdiction, what should be the course of action here?

This is a valid question even if one is using the arguments (of broader debate on division of spheres between the executive and the judiciary in statecraft) in one’s favour just as an excuse. The question prompts another obvious one; if the chief minister of Sindh is ‘taking care of his job’ then who will or can ask him that in Sindh? Is the community doing its job? I mean the democratic accountability of the elected governments which we all understand cannot be left to five-yearly electioneering. Are the voters, the community, especially the educated urban middle classes, fulfilling their responsibility of engaging their representatives and the officials working with them? Are they asking the government why they are constantly strengthening ethicisation of urban governance by depriving the city councils (led by a different ethnic group) their basic municipal powers like water, solid waste, building control, slums improvement and development works, etc. And if they are retaining a long list of functions with them, where do the cities stand on all kinds of basic indicators – water supply, sewerage collection, transportation, housing and security?

This scenario comes to the fore in sharp contrast to the politics of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where voters are (at least) changing regimes on some measures of performance. In Sindh, the issue of community action that constantly pushes the government to do more on urban challenges is far more important as the ruling party has gone way more into the cultural constituencies besides the political ones. Its roots are growing without the proportional increase in the trend of democratic answerability and responsiveness from the government in such a long time they have been holding power in the province. Rather the class contempt on the part of its leadership has been witnessed to become severe in a few cases made viral on the social media not long ago. Little has changed with the change of faces at the top – the CM and the party leadership. The young leadership, unfortunately, opted for the same old line of sickening rhetoric instead of meaningful and quality actions on urban challenges facing Sindh.

In the prominent absence of accountability and participation by the community to shake its political leadership that is failing to deliver but quick to take up moral and legal question of institutional jurisdiction, what should be the course of action here? For the people who are concerned about the quality of life in these cities, whether or not this is the very situation where they are forced to accept ‘doctrine of necessity’ in urban governance – i.e. the judiciary guiding on the urban policy and management. Granted! Every institution has got its defined sphere. But one wonders how long will the power imbalance among the institutions play its role in governance to either blame each other for not delivering or to push the weaker for performance?