After 78 years of Pakistan as an independent state, it is time to look back and question the achievements of democracy, such as freedom, dignity and meaningful participation for all the citizens of the country. The history of democracy in Pakistan has been largely defined in terms of national and provincial electoral politics and power struggles for roughly eight decades, with local-level politics still in the doldrums and underutilised.

A democracy is not just about periodic elections; it is about people having an impact on decisions that shape their lives in everyday affairs, whether it is education, healthcare, clean drinking water, sanitation or local development and public safety. The governments at local levels are the nearest tier of government that immediately responds to these basic needs of citizens.

Under Article 140-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, every province shall have a local government system that shall by law provide for the devolution of political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to local governments’ elected representatives. It also establishes that the Election Commission of Pakistan shall hold local governments' elections periodically. Unfortunately, the situation of establishing local government and its functioning has remained inconsistent throughout political and democratic history. If somehow elections were ever held in any of the provinces, the true devolution of power was never transferred to local tiers.

Nevertheless, one such important effort to reform local governance was made by the then government of General Pervez Musharraf in 2001. The Devolution of Power Plan brought a three-tier system of governance at the local level, including district, tehsil and union-level institutions. It aimed to involve citizens in decision-making and to increase the participation of elected representatives in local administration and development. This 2001 framework showed that substantial administrative devolution was possible, and it is generally believed to have delivered too in Pakistan. It also provoked a lot of discussion at the local level about the role of elected representatives in development planning, service delivery, community participation and public accountability.

The idea of decentralisation, however, has lost its fervour since the second tenure of this devolution plan. All mainstream political parties, including PML-N, PTI and PPP, introduced new local government legislation time and again and held intermittent elections; however, the decentralisation of power process never achieved its true sense. Despite the repeated promises made by successive governments, the lack of political will to decentralise political, administrative and financial power to the local level is indicative of a structural preference for centralised governance over participatory governance.

Resultantly, throughout the country, either local governments are not present or they are relatively very controversially created and operationally very weak. Therefore, citizens have become distrustful of democratic institutions and doubt that these institutions can do justice to the public interest. This challenge is more pronounced in Islamabad and Punjab, where stable, empowered and continuously operating local government institutions have yet to be realised.

The ongoing discussion on new provinces, administrative units and more powerful local governments is a great opportunity to rethink the governance of Pakistan. Politicians, policymakers, technocrats, civil society and other stakeholders in Pakistan are debating the redrawing of the boundaries of new provinces, the division of administrative units into smaller ones, and the strengthening of local governments, or a combination of these options, with the fiscal devolution principle. Another question that has come up in the debate is whether administrative boundaries in Pakistan should be redrawn or whether the administrative, political and financial system should be brought in line. It is indeed a governance quandary. There is now a growing demand for more responsive institutions, which is being discussed by business representatives, lawyers, academic experts, civil society organisations and governance experts. Meanwhile, there are also fundamental variations on whether there should be any new provinces or administrative bodies and on their shape, size and strength. Reducing the size of the provinces is a topic of debate for some, while empowering existing provinces by strengthening local governments is a topic for others. Therefore, the political leadership, technocrats, governance experts, business and professional communities, academia, civil society and, most importantly, citizens should play a meaningful part in deciding on the type of governance structure that can provide better service, accountability and public participation.

Published in The Nation