In defence of LG system
By Sajid Mansoor Qaisrani
Sunday, 02 Aug, 2009


THE local government system introduced under the Devolution of Power Programme was one of the best things that could happen to this country. Under this system, judiciary was separated from executive, (a constitutional requirement that governments failed to fulfil till 2001), police was taken away from the executive control and placed under public scrutiny, public representatives were made part of the decision-making process at the district level and women given a 33 per cent representation in the governance matters.

Actually it was Pakistan People’s Party which during its election campaign in 1993 had promised to give people “district governments and a new social contract”. It is an irony that the promise was to be fulfilled by the military government of Pervez Musharraf and its last rites to be performed by the PPP government.

Prior to this system, the federal and provincial governments used to run the districts. Pakistani democracy meant that the people were allowed to elect once in every 3 to 5 years their representatives to sit in the legislatures who, after being elected, would disappear from their home districts and stay in the federal or provincial capitals. People had no say in the affairs of their towns and were at the mercy of petty officials. The plunder of the districts’ resources went unhindered. The state machinery was brazenly used to dole out favours to supporters and victimise opponents.

The districts in the smaller provinces were mostly and normally run by Punjabi bureaucrats from the federal civil services. So when the devolution scheme came, there was much noise against it. Bureaucracy decided to resist the new system.

However, as promised, political decentralisation was not followed by adequate administrative and fiscal decentralisation to ensure quality service delivery to the public. Key positions at the district level (such as DCO) were held by officers appointed by the provinces and who remained primarily accountable to the provinces. Provincial control over the hiring, firing and transfers of senior district staff, senior teachers and health workers undermined the managerial powers of district government officials and impeded efficient governance. The deadline for the adoption of the new district cadre which was December 31, 2005 passed without the creation of such a cadre.

Fiscal decentralisation did not take place at the district level, with district governments remaining dependent on provincial governments for fiscal transfers. Funding for health and education services continued to be provided by the provincial government in the form of grants to the district governments. District governments were asked to deposit all user fees collected from health facilities and schools (for children’s school leaving certificates) in the provincial account. The funds were then distributed among the districts according to the PFC award formula, rather than in proportion to the actual amount collected in each district.

Monitoring Committees remained powerless. This led local officials to ignore their authority and instead look to provincial officials who could help them in their careers. Even after eight years the system is not fully operational to date and its important instruments like District Mohtasib and public safety commissions remain non-functional.

Keeping in view all this mess, provincial officials claim that the local government system has failed to deliver. The question to ask is when has it been allowed to function?

Gen Pervez Musharraf, during the referendum campaign, came to realise that he had committed a blunder when the district Nazim of Multan (now foreign minister) Shah Mehmood Qureshi refused to receive him at the airport and contribute funds towards his campaign. It was the same in Sindh where about a dozen district Nazims cold-shouldered him, forcing him to cancel his tour.

The general then started making changes in his system or weakening the system by introducing amendments in it in 2005. Local government elections of 2005 were massively rigged and mostly puppets were declared winners. The public had no confidence in them.

The federal government has abandoned Musharraf’s LG system and has left its future in the hands of provincial governments but none of them is willing to keep it alive. One has the feeling that behind this move the hidden agenda is to further dispossess the already dispossessed people in the country. (MQM is the only political party which understands this and is opposing the government move).

The end of devolution system also means that Civil Service officers, mostly from Punjab, will again be ruling the districts and divisions of the NWFP, Balochistan and Sindh without any local check on their deeds. The politicians in an effort to take everything under their control are in fact making bureaucracy more powerful. The PPP, being a grassroots party, should have opted to retain and improve this system rather than disband it. All the western democracies have very strong local government institutions. It was very much functional in the subcontinent under the British rule. However, in Pakistan the system was wound up soon after independence.