HOW IMPORTANT IS LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PAKISTAN?

Local governments can be an essential vehicle for democratization. They bring politics to the grassroots, helping end dynastic politics and strengthen democracy.

But if Pakistan’s central government is reluctant to decentralize, it can create alienation between citizens and local elected leaders. The ladder model of participation demonstrates that this alienation increases as the governance level goes up.

BASICS

The Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center and South Asia Democracy Watch co-hosted a discussion on the importance of a well-functioning local government system to improve governance in Pakistan.

This research explores the barriers to citizen participation in Pakistan’s local government system. It demonstrates that introducing new systems is not enough when there is no firm commitment from the national government to pro-citizen participation. Even if the approach is appropriately structured and well-resourced, citizens will still face barriers such as low trust levels, lack of information, and corrupt officials.

Local governments in Pakistan are constituted at three levels: district, town and union. These are g    overned by the local government acts of each province, which determine their mandate and structures. Grassroots organizations such as village and neighbourhood councils are also formed to promote participatory governance at the grassroots level. The design and functioning of local governments differ significantly across the provinces. This reflects the fact that different provinces have their visions about decentralization.

 

HISTORY

In Pakistan, the local government had a checkered history. Various military regimes used the institutions to cultivate loyal cadres of politicians that could be pitted against democratic forces.

Following the elections, there has been a lively and sometimes acerbic policy debate on local governance. This debate has included representatives of multiple government levels, scholars and academics, columnists and media commentators, and members of civil society organizations.

But the debate has missed one voice-that of citizens. A recent UI/Nielsen survey finds that citizens are highly critical of their local governments. They believe that corruption is rampant in districts and tehsils, whether in the form of small bribes for services or corrupt bidding for contracts. The system is also opaque and obstructs accountability. Recognizing these shortcomings is an essential step to improving local governance. But this will require a fundamental shift in political culture. It will require that elected representatives, as well as the tehsil and district nazims, recognize their responsibility to represent the needs of their constituents and bolster transparency in decision-making.

FUNCTIONS

Local governments provide an essential opportunity for poor people, minorities and women to participate in governance decisions that are most closely related to them. They also bring politics to the grassroots level and function as a nursery for future political leaders, curbing dynastic rule and strengthening democracy.

Provincial governments devise their own local government systems, which differ in terms of the tiers and categories of local government units. They include district government units, tehsils and townships (or union councils in some provinces) at the lowest levels and village and neighborhood councils in some regions.

Despite the glimmer of hope generated by the passage of the local government act in Baluchistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) in 2010 and 2013, the prospects for improvement remain bleak. Among other issues, internal accountability mechanisms are weak, corruption is rampant in districts and tehsils, and the district nazims’ offices and the quality of development works are sub-standard. The Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center and South Asia Democracy Watch are holding a conversation on the role of local governance in Pakistan’s sustainable development.

ORGANIZATION

The Pakistani government has passed several local government acts and ordinances without the consultation of stakeholders. It is also imposing new laws on districts and tehsils without proper review. This erodes the spirit and autonomy of these bodies and increases alienation between citizens and governance structures.

Moreover, these elected local politicians are feared to be part of a large patron-client network which extends up to the provincial and federal political arenas. Therefore, public participation at the local level would expose the evil use of public funds by these politicians to serve their interests.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a political culture that could hold local political elites accountable is another key reason for the lack of public participation. The elites benefit from an illiterate, poverty-stricken and politically unaware general public that they can manipulate to their advantage. They thus prefer to avoid inviting the citizens to participate in their decision-making, which would reveal their character and influence to the public.