Federalism-Provincialism-Devolution Of Power(Important Articles)

[Roshan wadhwani]

Participatory federalism at work

Comment By Zafarullah Khan

After the 18th Amendment, a reformed and restructured Council of Common Interest (CCI) has become an effective forum for dispute resolution between the federal and provincial governments, shared decision making in subjects in the Federal Legislative List-II, and exercising supervision and control over related institutions.

The spirit behind this notion of 'shared responsibilities' is to loosen the tight federal control of the past and to promote a culture of participatory federalism. The CCI was created in 1973 as a constitutional body after the bitter experiences of One Unit characterized by centralized decision making and denial of provincial rights. For long, it remained a dormant body as the constitution itself was either suspended or was put in abeyance.

Of the 19 total meetings CCI has had since its inception, only 11 took place in the 36 years from 1973 to 2009. The first three meetings were held during the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto era, without framing rules for the council.

On January 12, 1991, then prime minister Nawaz Sharif realized the efficacy of the forum and formulated its rules. He convened three meetings of the council during his first stint in power (1991-1993) and another three in his second term (1997-1999). He was able to cobble up the Water Accord through this forum.

A typology of the meetings reveals that if you have more than one non-coalition chief ministers then the meetings of the CCI are rare. This was precisely the predicament of Benazir Bhutto during 1988-1990 and 1993-1996.

The council is now required to submit its annual report to both houses of the parliament. The parliament, in a joint sitting, may also issue directions to the council through the federal government by resolutions. Such parliamentary directions will be binding on the council. If the federal or provincial governments are dissatisfied with a decision of the council, they may refer the matter to the parliament, in a joint sitting, whose decision in this behalf will be final. This clause has never been invoked.

After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the council has held eight meetings since July 18 2010, and has deliberated on vital issues and taken decisions on matters relating to the federation, with the full participation of the provinces - with the exception of the last meeting where the chief minister of Balochistan was absent.

On March 8 2012, for the first time in the country's history, Federal Minister for Inter-provincial Coordination Mir Hazar Khan Bijirani presented the Annual Report of the Council to the parliament. But it is yet to be properly debated and discussed. Unfortunately, the report also couldn't get the attention of the media and the progress went unnoticed. With one delay of 165 days, the council has met every quarter. In quantitative terms, the report reveals that instead of constitutionally required four meetings, the CCI had six meetings during the first year. In total, the CCI decided on 36 summaries/issues - ie six decisions per meeting, on average. Of these 36 issues, only one was presented by Punjab. Interestingly, the provincial point of view prevailed on electricity generation. The 'federalism filter' was applied on 10 summaries and the matters were referred to solicit provincial perspectives and opinions.

The qualitative analysis of decisions made at these meetings inspires confidence in the efficacy of the strengthened institution to promote participatory federalism in Pakistan. Eleven summaries discussed by the council were related to the energy/power sector, seven were about post-18th Amendment devolution and corresponding constitutional obligations and financial costs, four summaries were related to water/dam related issues, three pertained to regulatory bodies, two were about a coordinated response to disasters (floods) and relief and two related to harmonized agri-tax and tube-well subsidy, and one each was about census, food security, economic zones and railways. At least two summaries were rejected on the pretext of quality and being exclusive domain of the provinces. This reflects that 'new federal culture' is emerging in Pakistan.

It is a time for the provinces to wake up and make the best use of this constitutional forum. We have Punjab, Sindh, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan Houses in Islamabad but they are nothing more than elite guest houses. The provinces can consider converting them into their advocacy secretariats to negotiate with the federal government. Secondly, there is no representation of the federal capital Islamabad, FATA and Gilgit-Baltistan in the council. At least one case about Islamabad's water share discussed in the council highlights this need.

The legislators must discuss and debate these reports to make the entire accountability and transparency exercises meaningful. And the media should also not miss these amazing stories.

Zafarullah Khan is executive director of Centre for Civic Education Pakistan with research interest in federalism and democracy. His email address is: xupher@gamail.com

Friday Times

[Roshan wadhwani]

The debate for more provinces

April 11, 2012
By Asad Rahim Khan

Demanding the creation of new provinces is in vogue nowadays but actually creating them, not so much. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, semi-besieged as he is, still finds the time to throw his ruling PPP’s weight behind a new Seraiki province. The PML-Q says that they joined this coalition on the condition that a Seraiki province will be created. The PML-F, less functional than feudal, made the most endearing case for their southern Punjab stronghold gaining provincial status: they criticised facilities enjoyed by politicians in Lahore, saying assembly members had to forego their own backward areas for the provincial capital to live ‘a decent life’.

The supporters of new provinces aren’t limited to cynics out to dent the PML-N’s vote bank. The Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief Imran Khan promised the Hazaras a province of their own. The MQM also tabled a bill in January pushing for new provinces in both the Hazara region and the Seraiki belt. Even Maulana Fazlur Rehman wants to restore the Bahawalpur province, a relic from 1955.

A consensus among Pakistan’s political parties is evolving that more provinces mean more rights for disaffected peoples, more funds for their representatives, and less sway for parties with majorities in the current provinces, like those enjoyed by the ANP in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the PML-N in Punjab. If nothing else, it’s hoped that constituents might vote for imaginary provinces that will empower them in ways unspecified.

The PML-N sits sullenly in the middle of all this. It says it only supports new provinces that are devised along administrative lines, not ethnic ones. The PML-N is right, even if out of self-interest.

Devolution has been made a mess of, alternating from divisions to local governments back to divisions again. More provinces based on administrative ease would strengthen the federation rather than weaken it. During the 1980s, the Federal Shariat Court’s Justice Tanzilur Rahman floated the idea that the existing four provinces be dissolved and the 20 administrative divisions become new provinces in a federal system with greater devolution. It didn’t happen, poisonous as it was to provincial bosses.

Pakistan is too diverse to impose a single nationalist identity on the country. But in a nation already corroded by identity politics, whether there should be new provinces marking more ‘ethnolinguistic differences’ is the wrong discussion to be having in 2012. ‘Seraikistan’, rather than protecting the Seraiki people’s ethnolinguistic interests, would imply being content with just three lower divisions proposed from Punjab –– hardly befitting an ethnic group spread across all four provinces. Nor would it encompass Tank and Dera Ismail Khan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa’s Seraiki-speaking districts, lest it depress the PPP-allied ANP.

And provincial status goes only so far towards addressing ethnic grievances. Ask the Baloch, Seraiki people, and the Hazara community. They are murdered in Balochistan and marginalised in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. But if ethnolinguistic interests are what our politicians strive for, then the PPP should continue playing the Sindh card, the PML-N should keep hiding from the Punjabi Taliban, and the ANP did well to change the NWFP’s name to something more representative of its Pashtun majority. The ANP’s only visible achievement over four years was antagonising the province’s Hazaras as other problems of gross corruption, mass illiteracy, and the debasement of women still remain.

Legislators baying for more ethnic-based provinces are the same landowners who made a career out of keeping the Seraiki belt impoverished, underdeveloped and its people dependent. Ideas like those of Tanzilur Rahman are worth considering; more administrative units will lead to more autonomy and preservation of cultural lineages. Instead, the government dangles a carrot in front of people’s ethnic sensibilities during election season. It’s depressing that when the hopeful step of creating new provinces is finally being discussed, it reeks of encouraging the petty divisions that Pakistanis lose blood over every day.

The Express Tribune