Demolition via devolution

By Syed Mohibullah Shah

THE devolution plan introduced in 2001 was rendered dysfunctional in three provinces and no one delivered a eulogy over its virtual demise. In Sindh, instead of harmony and stability, it has been the cause of disharmony and instability as was amply demonstrated by the somersaults of midnight ordinances.

Devolving more local government functions to elected councils is not grudged by anyone. Increasing people’s participation in managing their affairs is welcome and so is bringing service delivery nearer to the people. What cannot be welcomed is the creation of all-powerful and unaccountable rulers — whether at the local, provincial or federal levels of government.

Planned by Pervez Musharraf, this devolution creates nazims in Musharraf’s own mould — all powerful, unaccountable, with
‘unity of command’ hanging over the heads of all who exist in their domain. That was the first problem with this devolution plan as nobody wants mini-Musharrafs sprouting throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Instead of incremental improvements in the existing administrative structure of the country as well the local government system, wholesale demolition was performed via the devolution plan of 2001. And it was carried out by two individuals, neither of whom are said to have had any previous experience of serving in any elected local council or a position in the country’s civil administration.

As for the rhetoric that the devolution plan was a breath of fresh air and brought freedom from the administration of the colonial era, let us remember some hard facts.

Unlike Pakistan, where neither democracy nor administration has been spared by various adventurers, India next door has had a strong, deep-rooted and continuous democracy. Yet it has never felt the need or justification for doing away with the ‘neutral and professional’ administrative system introduced by the British in the subcontinent. The DCs, the commissioners and the commissioner system continue to operate side by side with elected local governments.

While we are at it, let us jolt our memory further. We take legitimate pride in these policies and institutions, but who brought the ‘elective system of government’, or the ‘separation of powers among various branches of government’ or a ‘professional standing army’ to this part of the world except the colonialists? So let us be rational in our arguments and not exploit people’s emotions.

Like many issues of public policy, arguments for and against can be made against both systems of local government. And these are now being communicated by various media outlets. A synthesis, combining the good features of the 1979 and 2001 LG Ordinances as well as good practices from neighbouring countries could emerge from open and rational discussions and provide a durable system of local government and administration for Pakistan.

In this space, the merits or otherwise of various aspects of governance cannot be discussed. So this article flags two fundamental issues at the heart of the problems afflicting the LGO 2001, that have affected the atmosphere to such an extent that discussion of any merit in that system has fallen by the wayside.

The first: this devolution plan assumes Pakistan to be a unitary state with only two tiers — a federal government and a local government. It essentially refuses to recognise the federal character of governance in the country where the provinces are fundamental constitutional units of governance and local government institutions are creations of the provincial governments.

The plan assumes no other tier under the federal government and builds up a new district government as a competitor to the provincial government. The cascading tiers of governance into smaller units under the province — the division, district, tehsil/taluka and the union — are meant to decentralise powers and functions for the convenience of the people.

That is why LGO 2001 is not satisfied with merely devolving more functions to the lower tiers of governance. It wants to
demolish any office or institution that could question the nazim and the ‘unity of command’ in his domain.

Therefore, it demolished altogether the divisional level of administration and local governance, and would have liked to do away with the provincial level also, but for the fact that he provinces are constitutional pillars of Pakistan and cannot be done away with. It then did the next best thing: it allowed the district level to not only fill in the space of the divisional level but also rise as a parallel to provincial governance.

When applied to Sindh, this system brought in additional features which raised new concerns. While the existing five districts of Karachi were demolished and made to form ‘one unit’ with a population exceeding 15 million, the district of Hyderabad with 2.5 million people was demolished and four new districts created, each with a small population of little over half a million.

This defied all logic of universally accepted principles of good governance, administrative efficiency and service delivery.

Such a lopsided and untenable devolution plan carried the seeds of its own destruction. Its planners did not really design the system to stand on its merit once Gen Musharraf’s umbrella was removed. Its illogical features have neither done any service to strengthen responsible democratic governance at the grassroots level, nor have they advanced peace and harmony among communities.

Laws and institutions should be inclusive and built to last. They should build bridges and integrate people and not divide and segregate them. Now, after this demolition of its working institutions, Pakistan must pick up the pieces again and work to put in place a durable administrative and local government system with checks and balances on the exercise of authority at all levels of governance.

The writer formerly headed the Board of Investment.

smshah@alum.mit.edu
-Dawn