Our Reluctant Democrats

By Amir Zia
The News
Monday, July 29, 2013


If allowed, both the PML-N and the PPP would prefer to continue running the show without local governments. However, following the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s order that elections for the local governments be held by end-September, these parties have no option other than to comply – albeit reluctantly.



Call it an irony, or the complete absurdity, of Pakistani politics that the local government system always thrives under military rulers and gets squashed by the elected governments. Given a choice, even today some of the traditional mainstream political parties would not like to have local bodies’ elections in their domains.
The bitter aversion to the local bodies system by parties like the PML-N and the PPP is understandable. They see the devolution of power to the grassroots level and empowerment of local representatives as a threat to their political and financial control and dominance. It is no wonder then that during their last stint in power, the two parties successfully managed to prevent local bodies’ elections from taking place in the country.
The parties are okay with the devolution of power and distribution of resources from the federal government to the provincial level. But beyond that it seems to be a firm ‘no’ in their standard operating procedures.
For the military rulers, the local government system remains ‘a necessary evil’ to fill the void they create by banning political parties and dissolving parliament. Therefore, from Field Marshal Ayub Khan in the 1960s to General Pervez Musharraf in the 2000s, military rulers gave the country strong and functioning local governments, which performed better than the way these institutions usually function under democratic rule – when they are mostly run by hand-picked administrators and political appointees.
The support of the military rulers, however, does not mean that the local government system should be seen as undemocratic in its essence or a mere tool to undermine the civilian political forces. In all mature and functioning democracies of the world, local governments – including the powerful city governments – are seen as a main pillar of the democratic order. These institutions help resolve the day-to-day civic, development, health, education and even the routine law and order issues of citizens, leaving the broader policy, legal and constitutional matters for the national and provincial legislatures.
This is not so in Pakistan, where the traditional democratic forces, for their narrow self-interest, see local governments as challengers to their authority and power.
The PPP took one of its key coalition partners, the MQM, for a ride on this issue all through its previous 2008-13 term. The PPP held long negotiations with the MQM and finally managed to reach an agreement on a much diluted local bodies system compared to the one given by former military ruler General Musharraf in 2001 in which the local representatives had tremendous powers, including power over financial matters. The PPP-MQM duo got their Sindh People’s Local Government (SPLG) Act, 2012, passed in the provincial assembly with a thumping majority amidst an uproar by the small Sindhi nationalist and opposition groups opposed to the system.

But ‘insincerity, thy name is politics’ – at least in Pakistan. With the MQM parting ways just ahead of the 2013 elections, the PPP got this bill scrapped in the Sindh Assembly, and replaced it with the General Ziaul Haq era local bodies system. Those PPP leaders who once highlighted the positives of the SPLG and declared it to be the best thing that had happened to Sindh, switched to the opposite extreme.
In the populous Punjab province, the PML-N too showed its preference for the old order of the local bodies system than the Musharraf-era Local Government Ordinance (LGO) of 2001. But even after scrapping the 2001 LGO, the PML-N did not go for local elections. Instead, it kept writing and rewriting the so-called new system which in its spirit and structure remained committed to General Zia’s local bodies order. Come 2013, and the PML-N government continues the process of tinkering with local government laws in an attempt to make it as toothless as possible.
Under the previous PPP rule, the Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial legislatures followed their allies at the centre. Members of the national and provincial assemblies in the country took upon themselves jobs meant for local representatives. The huge development funds at their disposal were good enough reason to do so.
If allowed, both the PML-N and the PPP would prefer to continue running the show without local governments. However, following the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s order that elections for the local governments be held by end-September, these parties have no option other than to comply – albeit reluctantly.
It is not just the Supreme Court order; the political scene has also transformed drastically following the May 2013 general elections. Both the PML-N and the PPP will be facing a much more robust and aggressive opposition in the coming local bodies’ elections, likely to test them to their limit in both Punjab and Sindh.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which had even before the Supreme Court order announced its willingness to hold local elections in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where it is leading the provincial government, sees these elections as an opportunity to bounce back – especially in Punjab.
Imran Khan’s team would certainly like to make an impact in the PML-N stronghold to justify its allegations that the May 2013 general elections were ‘rigged and manipulated’ to give a landslide to its main rival in Punjab. In Karachi, too, the PTI can hope to get a slice of the seats in the local elections given its unexpectedly good performance in the May elections in which its candidates won one national and two provincial assembly seats and finished on the number two positions on many others.
The PTI seems all set to replace its ally, the Jamaat-e-Islami, as the main rival to the MQM on some of its key turfs in Karachi if Imran Khan and his team concentrate on campaigning and reorganising their party in the port city.
The MQM, also a firm supporter of the local government system, will have to go for a more aggressive stance against the PPP if it aims to do well in the local bodies’ elections. The PPP’s continued support to gangsters in Lyari, its slapping of higher taxes on the urban areas in the recent provincial budget, the decision to extend the rural-urban quota for another 20 years, and the plans to impose a diluted local government system have not just made it difficult for the MQM to justify any cooperation with its former coalition partner in the future, but also sharpened polarisation in Karachi, a city already plagued by lawlessness, crime and violence.
The PPP’s current mood regarding local governments was articulated by Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah when he said that his party would request the Supreme Court for six more months so that it could make arrangements for the local elections and make some more changes in the local bodies government law of 1979. He also cited the law and order challenge, which he thinks remains an obstacle in the holding of these elections – although the same challenge could not derail the general elections only a couple of months ago.
Much like the PPP in Sindh, the PML-N in Punjab is also going all out to transform the 1979 local government system according to its wishes. The fondness of both these parties to the bureaucracy-driven and dominated local government system should be disturbing for those who want to see more powers for elected representatives at the grassroots level – as was the case in Musharraf’s 2001 LGO.
However, the country’s two biggest dynastic parties have little appetite for the ‘grassroots kind’ of democracy. They want to keep all power concentrated in the hands of the few at the provincial and federal level. How long will they be able to deprive the people of powerful and functioning local governments? The pressure is building and awareness expanding on this issue at every level that would force the vested interest to bow to the public demand.
Devolution and empowerment at the local level is a cornerstone of democracy. The PML-N and the PPP cannot continue with their anti-people antics for an extended period now.

Governance: Back to British Raj

By Amir Zia
The News On Sunday
July 24, 2011

The elected local governments flourished mainly under the military rule, while the democratic governments maintain a record of stifling them. The affection of military rulers toward the local governments stems from the fact that they wanted to alienate the mainstream political parties. The democratic governments abhor the local governments and in most cases chose to run them through hand-picked lackeys as they could never truly digest the concepts of sharing and devolution of powers.


On July 13, the Sindh Assembly restored the time-tested legacy of British Raj, known in our part of the world as the “commissionerate system.” In what may appear as a befitting tribute democracy La Pakistani-style, the Sindh Assembly lawmakers belonging to the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and its allies passed three controversial ordinances by a simple majority in barely 15 minutes, which repealed the former military ruler Pervez Musharraf’s Local Government Order of 2001 and amended the Sindh Land Revenue Act of 1967. One of the bills revived the British-era Police Act of 1861 by scarping the Police Order 2002.

The move is being described by the government loyalists as a victory for the democratic forces, though it is all set to increase polarisation and division in the ethnically diverse and volatile province of Sindh, which drifts from one crisis to another.

The PPP Sindh leaders claim that the Musharraf-era system remained alien to both masses and the administration and they wanted the old system back. Their rivals say that it gave powers to the grassroots level.

The government’s move first came in the form of Ordinances soon after its one-time ally, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which supports the Musharraf-era concept of local governments, quit the treasury benches and its Sindh Governor tendered his resignation. Within four days of the passing of the controversial ordinances, which restored the commissionerate system, the government got them passed in the assembly despite the bitter opposition of the MQM.

Although Sindh Governor Dr Ishrat-ul Ibad resumed his responsibilities on July 18, indicating a thaw in the relations of these two parties, the brewing crisis over the commissionerate system appears far from over.

As the MQM continues to sit on the opposition benches despite having its man as Sindh Governor, one of its leaders, Wasay Jalil, says that his party will continue its campaign for the restoration of Musharraf-era local government system. “We say that if there were flaws in the 2001 Local Government Order, they should be removed,” he says. “We are demanding this not just for Karachi, or Sindh, but for the entire country. Instead of living in the 21st century, the vested interests want to drag us back to the 19th century. We only harm ourselves by repeating the past experiments.”

Sindh remains the only province where the Musharraf-era system has been scrapped altogether by the elected representatives. In Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, nominal changes have been brought in this system through executive ordinances.

Fahim Zaman Khan, a former PPP-nominated mayor of Karachi, who now leads a civil rights group, says that Sindh has reverted back to the 1979 Local Government Ordinance, while other provinces have made only symbolic changes, including restoring the old administrative titles. “Under the constitution, the local government is a provincial subject. The Musharraf government took the political, administrative and financial powers away from provinces and gave them to districts in the name of devolution and decentralisation. However, the military government made no attempt to transfer powers from the centre to the provinces. The step was taken with bad intentions from the day one,” Khan said.

“It was akin to Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracy, which was aimed at weakening political parties and dividing the people on the basis of ethnicity, clans, tribes and regions. Musharraf followed the footsteps of Ayub in his bid to eliminate the provincial authority.”

The traditional political forces viewed the 2001 local government system as full of anomalies and contradictions compared with the Municipal Act of 1848, enforced by the British East India Company.

Under the Musharraf’s planned system, police had to report to the elected nazim, but this part of the reform was never implemented, which, for many of its critics, led to the police becoming a “monster”.

Under the British Raj, they say, responsibilities and duties of police remained clear. For instance, police were not allowed to open fire without orders from the magistrate, but Musharraf gave this power to the police force itself.

Taj Haider, a senior PPP leader, says that Musharraf’s ordinance also remained in conflict with the constitution. “The system was full of loopholes… indirectly elected people were given vast financial powers.”

He says the PPP reverted back to the Ziaul Haq-introduced 1979 ordinance because it was closer to the spirit of constitution compared with the one introduced by Musharraf, which could not be reformed.

However, in line with its policy, the government ensured the separation of administrative and judicial powers, he says, adding that the recently resorted system will be improved further. “The government has setup a task force to decide whether commissioners, deputy commissioners and other officials report to chief secretary or the elected representative.”

Analysts say that the traditional political forces, especially belonging to the rural areas, felt that the powers of ministers were slashed under the Musharraf’s local body system. That was the reason many influential feudal lords chose to get themselves or their relatives elected as nazims rather than going for the provincial or national assemblies.

Danial Aziz, a former federal minister, who is leading a campaign for the devolution of powers and restoration of the 2001 local body system, says that vested interests are opposed to it because Musharraf’s system loosened their grip on the power structure. “These so-called democratic politicians, who run parties as their fiefdoms and nominate their heirs, saw a dark future because power was being transferred to the grassroots level.”

“They use deputy commissioners and other bureaucrats as their political agents. Obviously, they won’t like institution-building and decentralisation of power where people take ownership and hold elected representatives accountable,” Aziz says.

Sardar Ahmed, a senior MQM leader and a former bureaucrat, says the commissionerate system fitted the needs of colonial times and undemocratic rule, but enforcing the 19th century system in this day and age remains a cruel joke. “Only local representatives remain in a position to address problems of their people. It is not the job of members of the national or provincial assemblies or ministers to do this. The PPP never reconciled with the concept of transferring powers at grassroots.”

Differences over the local body system remained the main bone of contention between the PPP and the MQM even when they were allies. But PPP officials say that they can work together even with difference of opinion on this vital issue.

The elected local governments flourished mainly under the military rule in Pakistan, while the democratic governments maintain a record of stifling them. The affection of military rulers toward the local governments stems from the fact they wanted to alienate the mainstream political parties and create an alternate. The democratic governments abhor the local governments and in most cases chose to run them through hand-picked lackeys as they could never truly digest the concepts of sharing and devolution of powers.

One can call it the absurdity of Pakistani politics that our ruling elite keeps reopening and revisiting issues, which should have been decided long ago. The PPP government’s attempt to address the problems of 21st century Pakistan with the 19th century system remains ironic in itself, underlining the intellectual bankruptcy of our times in which past not just continues to hound us but seen as a panacea of all our ills. Pakistan, indeed, is set for more testing times.