most seats in the first round in Punjab. All that is not necessarily due to these parties doing a great job or providing good governance to their respective provinces. The reasons for their successes can be attributed to nepotism, cronyism, and patronage and biradari politics.
The PTI was routed even in its strongholds in Lahore. The results in other central Punjab districts were not satisfactory. The PTI’s failure is due to its inexperience or lack of understanding of the complexities of local politics. The party also seems to be in complete disarray with internal conflict exacerbated by the influx of a large number of defectors from other parties. As a result of its defeat, the party’s Lahore organiser Shafqat Mahmood gracefully accepted responsibility and stepped down.
Experience has shown that in comparison to federal and provincial governments, local government is more accessible, sympathetic and swift in responding to local needs. It is at the local level that citizens come in contact with governmental structures on a daily basis. In local democracy, necessary information is more readily available, and local authorities are obviously more knowledgeable about a local situation than authorities that are far away the grassroots level. It is also easier at the local level to hold officials and elected office-bearers accountable.
These bodies are primarily calculated to further devolve power to the local level. However, the ground realities suggest that the upcoming local bodies will be beset by some obstructive issues deeply entrenched in the exclusionary politics of the country.
First, MNAs and MPAs are totally disinclined to transfer their burgeoning financial and administrative powers to the local bodies. They are apprehensive that once the local bodies are firmly in place, they (the MNAs and MPAs) will be deprived of development funds and long-lasting sway over local communities. That would create a conflict between the two as seen between 2001 and 2009 when there were repeated complaints of conflicts of interest between the district nazims and the parliamentarians. Thus, these provincial and federal lawmakers would strive to impede both power and resources to be transferred to local.
Second, the bureaucracy will create mounting problems for the local bodies. These unelected office bearers will not tolerate ‘uneducated and incompetent’ representatives sharing their power and resources with the local representatives. The bureaucrats will delay consent to development projects envisioned by the local bodies, thus discouraging local representatives from serving the people at the grassroots level.
Third, lack of adequate financial resources at hand will also hinder the constructive work of the local bodies. As seen in Balochistan, most union councils have not done any development work due to the scarcity of plausible financial resources. Similarly, the local bodies in Sindh and Punjab will also face the same issue given the non- participatory nature of the country’s politics.
Fourth, in Pakistan, local representatives are deprived of requisite training for public management and administration, which is exclusive to bureaucrats. Therefore, these minor politicians can fail to assess the nature of issues existing in their areas, inhibiting them from sorting out these local problems with sagacity. As a result, a large sum of development funds could end up being be misappropriated and misused at local levels without any benefits to the people.
Fifth, the public is divided into those who tend to prefer personal interests and those who favour local or national interests. The former will show an indifference to local bodies and their work which therefore provides the local representatives an opportunity to use their offices for personal gains.
Lastly, it is also likely that the local bodies will be plagued by the spectre of corruption. Corruption and nepotism have become so rampant in Pakistan that it will be hard to make sure that administrative powers and state funds are judiciously used by the elected representatives at the local level. In the absence of stringent checks and balances, the local bodies will either misuse public resources or utilise them for their sectional and personal interests at the cost of the country’s larger interests.
The aforementioned hurdles existing in society and the democratic system of the country will instigate the people to further dislike and disown local bodies, increase loot and plunder of national resources and cause a tug of war between the powerful bureaucracy and the local bodies.
It is time required reforms were prudently crafted and immediately implemented for the sake of democratic growth. Both the federal and provincial setups should plausibly decentralise power to the local bodies, equip them with modern training of effective and efficient public administration, remove bureaucratic hurdles and create a friendly environment between the bureaucracy and the local bodies while also keeping in place strict checks and balances against corruption.
The writer is an independent researcher, blogger, columnist based in Karachi.
Email: ayazahmed6666gmail.com
Twitter: ayazahmed66665