In paksitan first local bodies elections were held in 1979.the dominence of these local bodies translpanted their hegemony in national assemblies as well in PA assemblies too.This system inducted non-party base election system which collapsed the system of administration by breaking up linkages of different tires of government.this system cohere federal institution directly into local government and neglected the provincial tire of administration.that was the main draw back of this system which is now going to ammend .provinces had demanded their due shareand federal govenment is now going to do it. this ammendment has raised hue and cry by LGO .but your concerns are related mostly to DPO / DCO .I have`nt see you making commnet on its faults rather showing gravest apprehensions of institutional powers.


draw backs in LGO 2001

Discretonary specilaized programme has been introduced which give upper hand to provinces and federal institution thus giving them un-audited control over local development allocation(during 1990).This constrained the special capacity of local govenment for financing and initiating development projects .Musharraf LGO 2001 was introduced to devlove the powers of provinces .but this system was not uniformly implicated in all over the paksitan.system was intoduced to check the powers of decision making authority (whether political or bureaucartic in nature).tHIS PALN RE-STRUCTURED the sub-provincial powers .

1.Engendering eloctoral accountibilty.-------------powers of DC to DCO and mayor .


2.Reduced the power of AC / bureaucracy .


3.local govt exist before this plan but mayor was not granted with magistracy powers and revenue collection.This system has paralysed the revnue generation function becuse these mayor are`nt eligible for this. All power and governmental authority was in hand of mayors .


4.changed local electoral process


prior to devolution members of district and union councils were dirctly elected and then they elect the heads of their respective councils.under devolution union council heads and members were elected by public voting . This has created inter govenmental linkages by cofnessing tehsil and ditrict members (2/3) are elected heads and reamining 1/3 memnbers of district and tehisl council were elected directly by these heads .so Nazim do need majority of public votes rather majority of union couniclers and union nazims elected in district

5. ENLIGHTEN me how LGO has limited constitutional support because it ammended 1973 constitution in the light of 17th constitutional ammendment .



6.NO FEDERAL DEVOLUTION BUT ONLY PROVINCIL DEVOLUTION

7.REVENUE COLLECTOR ARE MAYORS /DCO but pays/salarys are given by provincial adminstration .projects for education,health and other develpments were handed to PG but finace TO LG.

8.EDOz AND mayors ----->DCO----->DC

POWER STRUCTURE .


Orders for restoration of Police Act 1861 issued

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan


I want to know the difference betwwen police order1861 vs 2002 order .only point major differnce as i did

According to the details, the Sindh Home Department has finally issued a notification to replace Police Order 2002 with Police Rule 1861 on immediate basis. The designation of Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) has now been replaced with Additional IG while the posts of Regional Police Officers and District Police Officer were removed.

I want to know about IGz CCPO .Kindly enlighten me

I see. Well, I guess we see to eye-to-eye on this issue
The way forward is to make amendments in the LGO 2001 itself. Bar political parties on that level. But the very next issue springing up is-will a party like MQM allow that? That is an issue we will need to deal with on a national level-as u also seem to imply. CJP's Karachi violence suo moto was a perfect oppo, but nobody can deny that it was an exercise gone futile. Had he given specific orders for dissolution of a 'set of activities' the 3 main political parties in Karachi carry out (mere announcement of disbanding of militant wings is silly cuz nobody really admits it) this would automatically have paved the way for reduced involvement of these parties in city politics. Further, relevant witnesses should have been brought out to testify against MQM's notorious leaders (eg, the ones mentioned in Ajmal Pahari's testimony).

Basically, a set of well planned measures can ensure barring procedure. But it requires something we have a dearth of. Honesty. In Karachi, until we deal with MQM's menace, nothing will ever get better. Im sure you agree.

Regards,

Well without mentioning about DC/DCO,DPO & Nazim, the discussion about LG is incomplete because these are the major players in the district in whatever LG system is implemented, and we cannot judge the effectiveness or usefulness of a system without mentioning about the roles played by the above mentioned designations.

Magistracy can be exercised by a person who has knowledge about the relevent laws...a Nazim who is hardly a literate. how can he exercise magistracy...for example how can he award the Physical remand of a culprit to the local police when he knows nothing about the Pakistan Penal Code,1860 and he also knows nothing about the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898? Moreover The Nazim was also given with the powers of District Collector, now how can a person act as a district collector who knows nothing about the Land Revenue Act,1967? Therefore as mentioned in my previous post the elected representatives should only legislate laws and policies and it should be left with the Bureaucracy to implement those laws and policies.

Now talking about the difference between the Police Order,2002 and the Police Act,1861...You just look at a place where this law is applicable. Like in Islamabad, GB,Sindh,AJK and Balochistan Police Act,1861 is applicable...whereas in Punjab and KPK Police Order,2002 is applied.

The biggest difference between these two is that in PO-2002 the IG is the ex-officio secretary to the Government of the Province but he remain to be an attached department of the Provincial Home Department. Whereas in PA-1861 the IG is just the administrative head of the provincial Police and he is directly reportable to the Secretary Home of that Province regarding allocation of budget and other administrative issues. Another difference is that at the district level all postings/transfers of police officers are done after consultation with the DC and DC acts as the Ditsrict Magistrat as well.



@ Sadia
Another big difference is that in PO-2002 the Investigation Branch has been seperated from the Operations branch...for example in PO-2002 the operations police only registers the case and aprehends the culprit wheras the investigation of each case is undertaken by the Investigation branch head by SP(Investigation) in each district...whereas in PA-1861 there is no such division The SP of the district heads the entire police and there is no designation of SP (Investigation) in any district and SP/SSP of the city police is all in all in operations and in investigations as well...similarly the designation of Investigation Officer (IO) at each PS level basis will stand desolved with the implementation of PA-1861 and the SHO will again be all in all whether to talk to talk about investigation and the operations.

PO-2002 introduced Provincial Public Safety Commission and District Public Safety Commission...these commissions were supposed to monitor the performance of the police but these never be constituted in real sense...there are no such commissions in PA-1861

According to PO-2002 the posts of Regional Police Officers (RPOs) were created at divisional (range) level but there is no such post in PA-1861

these are the major difference as per my knowledge, it would be better if Sir Nadeem adds to this, because he is the best person to comment on this topic

Another huge difference between PO-2002 and PA-1861, which i forgot to mention above is that is per PO-2002 the supervisory role over police was to be played by the Nazim whereas as per PA-1861 this supervisory role is done by the DC....add on to this as per PO-2002 the ACR of the DPO was to be written by Nazim but later by an amendment it was given to the concerned RPOs...On the other hand in the PA-1861 the ACR of the district SP is written by the DC...To put it in example, if we look at the case of Islamabad where PA-1861 is applicable the ACR of the IG-Islamabad is written by the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad...similalrly DCs in AJK,GB,Balochistan and Sindh write the ACRs of concerned SPs of the districts and this is why DC in above mentioned places is considered to be answerable if something goes wrong in his district

I also think sometimes that all our current laws are actually designed by the Britishers, for example Police Act,1861...Code of Civil Procedures,1908...Code of Criminal Procedures,1898...Land Aquisition Act,1894...Pakistan Penal Code,1860...Contract Act,1872...Partnership Act,1932...Sale of Goods Act,1930 etc I think we as a nation should also look to amend all these above mentioned as well...