LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PAKISTAN

Name: Aneela Ehsan

Class: BPA( FINAL YEAR)
Roll no: 04
Subject: LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Topic: LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN PAKISTAN
Ayub Khan Era

Basic Democracies a local government system introduced during the Ayub regime in the early
1960s. General ayub khan, President of Pakistan, introduced the concept of basic democracy
under the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 having made an attempt to initiate a grass-root level
democratic system. Of course, most of the political parties of East Pakistan had different ideas
about his scheme, and considered it a bid to usurp power in the hands of Ayub Khan and other
vested groups.
The system of Basic Democracies was initially a five-tier arrangement. They were: (i) union
councils (rural areas), town and union committees (urban areas); (ii) thana councils (East
Pakistan), tehsil councils (West Pakistan); (iii) district councils; (iv) divisional councils; (v)
provincial development advisory council.
At the base of the system was the union council which consisted of a chairman and usually
about 15 members. It had both elected and nominated members. Two-thirds of the members
were elected representatives and one-third consisted of non-official members nominated by
the government. However, the nomination was abolished by an amendment in 1962. The
members of the council were elected by the people from their respective unions on the basis of
universal adult franchise. The chairman of the council was elected by the members from
amongst themselves. In a way, it was at par with the erstwhile union board with minor
differences. The elected representatives of the union council were called basic democrats. The
total number of such councils was 7300.
In the second tier was the thana council which consisted of ex-officio representative members,
official and non-official members. The representative members were the chairmen of the union
councils and town committees. The official members were the representatives of various
nation-building departments of a thana and their number was fixed by the district magistrate of
the concerned district. The total number of official members could not in any case exceed the
number of non-official members. The council was headed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO)
who was the ex-officio chairman. In his absence the Circle Officer (development) would preside
over the meetings of the thana council as ex-officio member. In case of West Pakistan, the
thana was known as tehsil and it was presided over by a tehsildar. In all, there were 655 thanas
and tehsils in Pakistan.
The third tier was the district council. It consisted of one chairman, official and non-official
members. The number of members would not exceed 40. The chairmen of thana councils were
its members, and other official members were drawn from district level officers of development
departments and an equal number of non-official members. At least 50% the non-official
members was drawn from amongst the chairmen of union councils and town committees. The
district magistrate acted as chairman of the council while the vice-chairman was elected by the
elected members of the council.
In absence of the chairman the vice-chairman had to perform such other functions assigned by
the chairman. There were 74 district councils in Pakistan. The district council was the most
important tier in the basic democracy system. It was the successor organization to the district
board. So far as the composition of the council was concerned, it regressed beyond its 1885
position when 25% members were nominated.
The fourth and the apex tier was the divisional council. The Divisional Commissioner was the ex-
officio chairman of the council. It had both official and non-official (representative) members.
The maximum number of members was 45. Official members consisted of the chairmen of
district councils of the concerned division and representatives of development departments.
The total number of divisional councils was sixteen.
Basic democracies specified a provincial development advisory council for each wing. Its
composition followed the pattern of the divisional council except that only one-third of the
appointed members had to be selected from union council chairmen. The council did not have
any power. However, it was dropped with the introduction of provincial assemblies in both East
and West Pakistan.
Of the five councils created by the Basic Democracies Order only the union and district councils
had been given specific functions. The divisional and thana council performed mostly
coordinative functions. The union council had been entrusted with a variety of functions such as
agriculture, small industry, community development and increased food production in the
union. It maintained law and order through the rural police and had been given judicial powers
to try minor civil and criminal cases through its conciliation courts. The union councils were
given the responsibility of planning and implementing rural public works programmes for
construction of roads, bridges and culverts, irrigation channels and embankments. The union
council was empowered to levy taxes, impose rates, tolls and fees. The most important feature
of the basic democracy system was that it formed the national electoral college consisting of
80,000 members from East and West Pakistan for the elections of President, members of
national assembly and of the provincial assemblies.
The thana/tehsil council was mostly a coordinative and supervisory body. All the activities of
union councils and town committees falling within its jurisdiction were coordinated by it. All
development plans prepared by the union councils and town committees were coordinated by
the thana council including supervision of on-going schemes. It followed the directions of the
district council and remained responsible to it.
The district council had been entrusted with three types of functions: compulsory, optional and
coordinating. Some of the compulsory functions included construction of public roads, culverts,
bridges, maintenance of primary schools, plantation and preservation of trees, regulation of
public ferries, and improvement of public health. Optional functions included education,
culture, socio-economic welfare, and public works. In addition, the district council was also
given broad functions such as agriculture, industry, community development, promotion of
national reconstruction and development of cooperatives. Coordination of all activities of local
councils within the district was also a responsibility of the district council. The council was
supposed to formulate schemes and projects taken by nation building departments and make
suggestions for further improvement and development and recommend them to the divisional
council and other concerned authorities. The fourth tier, the divisional council, was least
important functionally. It was simply an advisory body at that level.
Apart from being the agent of local government, the basic democracies also performed political
and electoral functions to legitimize the government through popular support and
participation. In the referendum for presidential elections held on 14 February 1960 the basic
democrats voted for Ayub Khan. The monopolization of electoral rights by the basic democrats
was strongly despised by the vast rural and urban masses, which led to mass upheaval against
Ayub in 1969. As a political institution it not only failed to legitimize the regime, but also in fact
lost its legitimacy after the fall of General Ayub in 1969

Zia-ul-Haq Era (1979-85)

After the decline of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, local government was re-arranged
by Zia-ul-Haq. Under his military regime, he consolidated the political
centralization at federal level. The local government introduced by Zia-ul-Haq was different
from the system of Ayub khan. He demolished the bureaucratic control and declared ‘Elected
House’ as controlling authority. This is totally different from Ayub Kahn’s ‘Basic Democracies’.
He introduced the Deputy Commissioner as controlling authority and executive head of ‘District
Council’.
He introced an autonomous local council for urban areas, and which was the diversion from
‘Basic Democracies’. The district council has representatives for both urban (municipal
committees) and rural(Tehsil councils) coordination.
Zia-ul-Haq introduced the ‘Local Government Ordinance 1979’, which is also known as Sind
Ordinance. Following are the hierarchical division of administrators to arrange the local self-
government.

Local Government Ordinance, 1979

“In 1979, Zia introduced identical Ordinances for four Provinces on the local government
repealing the previous enactments on the subject. These were very elaborate statutes and were
generally welcomed as these statutes created a hope amongst the people for resolution of their
daily civil problems at local level. The new legislation provided for civics bodies both for rural
and urban areas with enhanced fiscal responsibility. The law also provided the concept of
metropolitan corporations. The local councils were empowered to levy taxes and duties, cause
removal of encroachments and nuisances as well as to initiate prosecution of the delinquents.
The new legislation certainly empowered the local government institutions to manage their own
affairs, particularly in matters relating to
previsions of civics services. It was considered that the new laws undoubtedly had taken positive
steps towards devolution of powers to the lower tiers of democratic institutions. Elections were
also held in all the Provinces under the new Ordinances, but these statutes were strongly
criticized for having too much official interference in the affairs of the civics bodies.”
The division of the local governments under Zia regime is based on four tiers.
1. Town Committee
2. Municipal Committee
3. Municipal Corporation
4. Metropolitan Corporation

To deal with rapid and lower level issues, introduced ‘Panchayat’ system. Panchayat was
actively did its duties. Society was represented including women, laborers, farmers and
minorities. These were elected by concerned council, while the minorities had their separate
electorates.

General Musharraf’s Era

General Musharraf’s introduced a new local government system, through Local Government
Ordinance (LGO) 2001. His LGO has some distinctions, and is therefore worthy of close
examination, as it substantially restructured the local governments. Previously the powers of the
local governments were somewhat limited, and most of the functions were carried out by
provincial line departments (a de-concentrated bureaucratic tier that did not report directly to the
provincial elected representatives) (Batool 2014; Cheema et al. 2005). Under devolution, a newly
elected government was created at the district level and politically linked to local governments at
the sub-district levels [Tehsil (town) and union council (see LGO 2001). The major distinction of
the Local Government Ordinance (LGO) 2001 compared to previous ordinances was that it
overcame the urban-rural divide and established the local government at three levels: Union
Council, Tehsil Council, and District Council (Batool 2014). The Union was the core unit and
the Union Nazims (mayor), and Naib Nazims (deputy mayor) were directly elected by the voters
and became members of the District and Tehsil Councils, respectively (Batool 2014). The LGO
removed the previously existing hierarchical relationship between the local and provincial
governments. Local governments were instead linked to the President’s office through several
institutions, such as the National Reconstruction Bureau and the Devolution Trust for
Community Empowerment (Cheema et al. 2005). Even after the quasi-civilian government was
reinstated in 2002 through a presidential referendum that elected Musharraf as the head of the
state, and the military-sponsored political alliance under the banner of Muslim League (Quaid-e-
Azam group) won the elections and formed national and provincial assemblies, for all practical
purposes the hold of the central government on local governments remained.
Unlike previous local government systems, Musharraf devolved administrative, financial and
development powers to the elected officials in the local councils and all the government
departments became accountable to the District Council. The devolution abandoned the Deputy
Commissioners’ rule, and their successors in office, the District Coordination Officers (DCOs),
were subordinated to the District Nazims legally and administratively (Batool, 2014). For the
first time, Musharraf also introduced the Provincial Finance Commission to provide an
institutional framework to allocate resources between provinces and local governments.
Previously only National finance commission existed to provide an institutional framework for
resource allocation between federal government and provinces. Another distinctive feature of the
LGOs 2001 was that it allocated 33 per cent reserved seats for women. Musharraf prided his
regime for empowering women for the first time in the history of local government in Pakistan.
The LGO 2001 also introduced District Monitoring Committees to monitor the work of
government departments, Citizens Community Boards to empower citizens to participate in
designing and overseeing development projects, and Citizen Police Liaison Committees for
promoting the rule of law and protection of civil rights (Hasnain 2008) Despite several
distinctions, however, the LGO 2001 had some similarities with previous local government
systems. For example, Musharraf also followed the legacy of previous military regimes and
conducted local government elections on the non-party basis that further entrenched the politics
of personalized patronage based on clan and caste loyalties.

Moreover, though Musharraf gave a short-term constitutional status to the local government up
till 2009 through a Presidential Order (i.e., up till 2009 no government could dissolve local
governments formed by Musharraf); the local governments were still not given a constitutional
status permanently. Also, though unlike previous military regimes, much fiscal decentralization
was carried out, the planning of the budget remained in the hands of the bureaucracy. The
District Coordination Officers (DCOs) and other bureaucrats appointed by the provincial
governments prepared the budget proposals, and the district Nazim could propose the prepared
budget to the council for approval. If the council failed to approve the budget, it would lead
to zero spending fourteen days after the expiration of the financial year (Cheema et al. 2005).

The council was, thus, effectively presented with a fait accompli when a bureaucratically
prepared budget proposal was submitted to it by the Nazim for approval. After the dismissal of
Musharraf’s government in 2008, the Pakistan People’s Party under the leadership of Mr.
Zardari introduced the 18th Constitutional Amendment that enhanced provincial autonomy. By
this time, the constitutional restriction on amending local government ordinance of 2001 had
already expired in 2009. After that, it became possible for provinces to legislate a local
government system of their choosing. Consequently, different provinces opted for different
structures for their local governments. The provincial assembly of Baluchistan passed the Local
Government Act in 2010, whereas the provincial assemblies of Punjab, Sindh and Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa passed their Local Government Acts in 2013 (UNDP2016).
 The Local Government Acts for each province, in their current form, provide limited autonomy
to the local councils concerning fiscal management and control over service delivery, revenue,
and tax and police departments. While all the Local Government Acts devolved some service
delivery functions to local governments, provinces still retained control of large entities such as
the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Sindh Building Control Authority, Lahore
Development Authority (LDA), and Solid Waste Management (SWM), etc. (UNDP 2016). They
also had administrative control of education and health service delivery (UNDP2016). Moreover,
The Local Government Acts of all four provinces subordinated the local governments to the
provincial governments in numerous ways. For example, they allowed the provincial Chief
Ministers to dismiss a local government or head of the council and appoint officeholders after the
dismissal of council leaders (UNDP 2016). Unlike Local Government Acts introduced by the
military regimes, the new local government laws introduced by civilian governments in different
provinces opted for party-based elections of local governments.
However, the laws provided were excessively deferential to provincial governments and were
limited in their scope in providing any meaningful ‘democratic ethos which is at the very heart of
the idea of Local Government’ (PILDAT 2013, p. 26). Overall, the reluctance of provincial
governments during the civil rule for establishing strong local governments was because
provincial ministers and members of provincial parliaments could keep the development funds in
their hands to build their networks of personalized patronage. Such a situation exists because of
continuous and long periods of military rule that systematically weakened political parties and
democratic political culture that could bring any meaningful change. The military force silenced
dissenting voices and promoted politicians loyal to the military. Local governments were
effectively used for this purpose and promoted the politics of patronage. Power and patronage
being zero-sum games, any real authority exercised by local governments could only comet the
cost of its political use by provincial and federal governments directly or indirectly controlled by
the military even during the civilian rule

Present Regime

A new government took power in Pakistan in August 2018 and Iran Khan, the cricket legend
from the 1990s, became the Prime Minister. There have been widespread comments in local and
international media that military establishment orchestrated Khan’s rise to power. Soon upon
assuming power, and in keeping with the tradition of military governments, Khan dismantled the
local government structures in the provinces controlled by his party and introduced a new
system.
In Punjab, the Local Government Act of 2019 codified the new system. Other provinces have not
yet introduced the new Local Government Acts. The 2019 Act dissolved the existing local
government institutions and gave the Punjab government until April 2020 to hold elections for
the constitution of new local governments (see Punjab Local Government Act 2019). It
reintroduced the rural-urban distinction and establishment of Metropolitan/ Municipal/Town
Corporations/Committees for urban areas and Tehsil Councils for rural areas. In a clear departure
from earlier local government regimes, the head of each local government will be directly
elected by the people. The elected head will have a cabinet to assist him in the discharge of
functions (an extensive list [including education, but excluding healthcare] provided in
Schedules 3, 4 and 5) by a set of councilors and professionals as specified in the 4th Schedule to
the Act (see section 19 in the Local Government Act of 2019). In another significant departure
from the past, the councilors will be elected on a closed-list proportional representation basis.
Thus, elections will be held on a political party basis, and each party will provide a list of its
candidates in order.

Depending upon the percentage of votes a party obtains in a local government; its nominees will
become councilors for the local governments concerned. In other words, each local government
will comprise a multi-candidate constituency.
Another unique feature of the new system is the establishment of panchayat and neighborhood
councils for rural and urban areas, respectively. These are envisaged as grassroots forums to
ensure democratic participation at the village and ward levels. These forums do not have any
inherent power or function under the Act, but hey can be assigned/delegated any function by a
local government forum. In other words, there will be institutions which can be used if the
Metropolitan/Municipal Corporation or a Tehsil Council intends to do so. Whether the higher
forums will be ready to delegate any of their powers and functions will depend upon the pressure
grassroots forums can exert. History of devolution in Pakistan, however, does not provide much
ground for optimism. As the previous experience since the 1950s has shown,
each governance tier wants the higher tier to delegate authority but is reluctant to delegate the
same to lower tiers.

The new law maintains the supervisory role of the provincial government by expressly requiring
local governments to comply with provincial directions. This oversight extends to financial
matters. Section 137 requires the Chief Officer of every local government to send to the
provincial government for prior appraisal every estimate of receipts and expenditure. The
provincial government may suspend any resolution or stop any action of a local government if
the same is deemed to be ‘prejudicial to public interest’ (see Section 228 of the Act). The Act
also authorizes the Minister, the Secretary or any functionary so deputed by them to attend (and
speak to) any meeting/proceedings of a local government.
Further, the Act envisages the creation of a new institution, namely, the Inspectorate of Local
Governments, with the exclusive function of inspecting, monitoring and reviewing local
governments. This Inspectorate will inspect in detail each local government at least once every
year and may commission as many special inspections as deemed appropriate. These inspections
are additional to the usual audit processes already in vogue. In a sense, all this undermines the
spirit of devolution by making local government subordinate to the provincial government not
only in policy but also implementation. Unlike the 2001 system, the new local governments will
neither be ‘governments,’ nor will they have an independent, robust revenue stream to support
their initiatives.