Why have successive military

regimes in Pakistan introduced

local government system and/or
elections?

sqjafery
 DECENTRALIZATION
 Decentralization is essentially the devolution of
power to the citizens at the grass-root levels
through the setting up of local governments, as
well as the devolution of power from the federal
to the provincial level.
 Devolution can be political, fiscal as well as
administrative power, each of which empower
the people to different degrees and ideally,
decentralization plans should encompass all
three aspects.
 AYUB – LOCAL GOVERNMENTSFOR
THE SAKE OF POLITICAL
LEGITIMACY
 The new local governments (as the only
representative tier), established under the Basic
Democracies Ordinance , 1959 and the Municipal
Administration Ordinance 1960 , were a
hierarchical system of four linked tiers.
 Reminiscent of the British system , the
controlling authority was vested in the DC ,
COMMISSIONER and the GOVERNMENT for
various tiers.
 BDO - BASIC DEMOCRACIES
ORDINANCE
 Ayub used this system to legitimize unitary
Presidential Constitution (1962) , which gave
effective state power to the armed forced
through the office of the President.
 80,000 Basic Democrats constituted the electoral
college for electing the President as well as the
national and provincial assemblies.
 Rural/Urban Divide
 Ayub’s reforms maintained a legislative
divide between the MAO in the urban
areas and the BDO in the rural areas.
 Ayub increased the share of federal and
provincial development resources for the
rural areas because his main support lay
in these areas.
 Basic Democracies: Democracy
or “Representative
Dictatorship”?
 Zia - Local government reforms
1979-85
 Zia-ul-Haq again revived local
governments.
 Increased focus on local government
bodies was not matched by any significant
increase in financial and administrative
powers.
 Comparison of the MAO and BDO with
Zia’s LGO shows little progress.
 Centralization of Power and
Populist measures
 Local governments had no constitutional
protection. The provincial government controlled
by Zia could abrogate any legislation.
“Prohibits the doing of anything proposed to be
done” (section 156 ( c) )
 Zia adopted populist measures and implanted
Bhutto's unimplemented LGO’s
 Abolished the direct control of bureaucracy in
the local government.
 Non-party elections and
de-politicization
 Zia attempted to neutralize political
parties by holding non-party
elections.
 Removal of organized political groups

made way for active clientalist groups

to practice personalized politics.
 Rural/Urban divide
 Zia retained urban-rural divide
 Thee urban areas were under no
obligation to provide finds for the rural
areas, thus they became dependant on
the provincial administrative structure for
support.
 The growth of the urban economy
strengthened the anti-Bhutto urban middle
classes.
 Personalization of Power &
Clientalism
 Revival of non-party elections in 1985
reinforced personalization of power
 Culture of local level bodies was
transplanted to the national and provincial
level.
 This personalization of power did not end
despite party election in 1988.
Current Local Government Reforms
Caters to Development
District Administration Needs Like Health

Caters To Municipal
Tehsil Administration Needs and Services

Union Administration Elects Members of the

Higher Tiers

CCB’s and VNC’s

 Overview
 Provincial to Local Decentralisation, with no
Federal Devolution
 Limited Constitutional Support for Local
Governance
 Separation of Service Delivery Functions
 Some Services Retained by Provinces, Others
Devolved to Local Level Such as Health and Education
 Budgeting, Planning and Development Functions of
Services Devolved to Local Level
 User role in service delivery
 Overview-contd.
 Accountability to Citizens Through
Electoral Process
 Electoral Process Creates Linkages Between
Different Levels of Local Government
 Union Councilors Elected Through Majority
Vote
 District and Tehsil Council Made Up of Nazims
and Naib Nazims From the Union Level
 Seats Reserved for Women and Peasants
 Analysis:
 Attempt to Institutionalize Role of Military at
Centre Through Presidential Power and NSC
 Elections on Non-Party Basis
 Enables Military to Create Complete Tier of Local
Level Political Collaborators
 Lack of Linkages Between Political Parties and Local
Governments Creating Rivalry
 Clientelist Politics
 In Punjab, 30% Nazims Former MNA’s or MPA’s, 90%
Members of Political Families
 In Rural Areas, 70% Seats Won by Traditional Elites
 Analysis-contd.
 Provincial Bureaucracy Cannot Suspend Local
Governments
 Although DCO Under Nazim, Fiscal Planning and
Personnel Remain Domain of DCO
 Nazim Lacks Power to Suspend/Transfer Official
 Provincial Level Bureaucracy Maintains Control
Over Appointments Limiting Autonomy of
Nazims to Effect Change
 Conclusion
 Decentralization – Politics of Clientelism

 Historical Purpose:
 Domestic Regime Legitimacy – Creation of
alternate power base
 Substitute National & Provincial Democracy

 International Recognition – Donor Support

 Undercut established political adversaries

 Conclusion
 Consequences:
 Federalism undermined
 Pressure to de-politicize governance

 Weakened Federal and Provincial Tiers

 Localization of Politics

 De Facto Centralization