The merry-go-round

Governments in Pakistan seem to have a knack of running around in circles when it comes to making significant changes in the political or administrative structures. One instance that instantly springs to mind involves adjusting the powers of the president – vis-a-vis parliament –and the prime minister through amendments to the constitution.

Another example that one can recall without much ado is creating and abolishing the office of the nazim in the local government setup. In a related development, Punjab government through the Civil Administration Ordinance (CAO) 2016 – promulgated in the last week of the outgoing year – resurrected the deputy commissioner’s (DC) office. The other three provinces have already revived the post which was done away with as part of the administrative reforms introduced by the government of Gen (r) Pervez Musharraf in 2001-2002.

Prior to the Musharraf regime, the commissioner and DC were administrative heads of a division and a district, respectively. The DC was also vested with judicial powers and was called district magistrate (DM). The Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001 abolished divisions as administrative units together with the office of the commissioner. The district nazim was made the head of the district government and a set of district offices was put in place. The office of the DC was replaced with that of the district coordination officer (DCO).

The office of the DCO was only a shadow of the DC or DM’s office, which was a relic of colonialism created by the British rulers of India to subjugate the local population.

Initially, the DC was called the collector, his basic duty collecting revenue. The British also set up the magistracy system consisting of executive officers who exercised judicial powers. At the district level, the office of the district magistrate was created and the collector was given those powers. The magistrates worked under the DM in both judicial and administrative matters. They exercised enormous powers, including the power to issue search warrants, get public property vacated, supervise police investigations, prevent commission of crime and try and sentence accused persons.

Though British colonialism came to an end on August 14, 1947, the colonial psyche persisted and the magistrates, responsible to the executive, continued to wield their pre-Independence powers. Special mention may be made of the powers of the DM which were exercised under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 1898. For instance, he was authorised to detain any person under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (MPO). The district police officer was answerable to him and he was empowered to detain any person during police investigations. He was also empowered to cancel bonds and ban congregations.

In the wake of amendments to the CrPC in 2001, the judicial powers of the executive magistracy came to be vested in the judiciary ie judicial magistrates. The accused began to be tried by judicial officers rather than executive-cum-judicial officers. The judicial powers of the DM were transferred to the sessions judge, while the power to impose Section 144 was vested in the office of the nazim. The countrywide Police Order 2002 further attenuated the powers of the district administration by making the district police officer responsible to the nazim.

Those changes cut the size of the District Management Group (DMG), subsequently renamed Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS) and Provincial Civil Service (executive group), subsequently renamed Provincial Management Service – which occupied senior positions in the divisional and district administration. With their judicial powers gone and their executive powers attenuated, these people went on clamouring that the devolution system and the concomitant administrative changes had proved to be an abject failure and the old system must be revived.

Partly because of the efforts of these two groups – who dominate the federal and provincial bureaucracy – and partly because those changes were introduced by the previous government, the office of the commissioner was revived in all the four provinces and now the DC office stands restored all over the country.

The Punjab Local Government Act 2013 replaced district governments with metropolitan/municipal corporations, abolished the office of the nazim and revived the post of the mayor. It was under that act that the last year’s local body elections were held.

Under the CAO 2016, the DC has once again been made answerable to the provincial government. He has been authorised to take, in consultation with the DPO, appropriate measures for maintaining law and order and securing public safety. He has been empowered to hold an inquiry into alleged neglect or misconduct by any employee serving in the district. The commissioner, DC and assistant commissioner have been made justices of peace within their respective jurisdiction under Section 22 of the CrPC. However, the ordinance falls short of conferring on the DC the powers of the DM, ostensibly because such a move would not have gone well with the judiciary.

The civil administration system of Punjab, or for that matter that of any other province, is replete with severe shortcomings – borne out of the unsatisfactory level of service delivery at the grassroots level. But these shortcomings can’t be overcome by resurrecting the old system which remained in force in the country for half a century and failed to deliver value to the people.

The basic argument that the advocates of the DC-centric system advance is that unity of command is essential for efficient service delivery. The DCO, the argument continues, being merely the coordinating head, could not provide the unity of command. Such an argument, which is reminiscent of colonialism, may make sense in military matters. But when applied to a service delivery-driven civilian setup, it turns out to be fallacious.

The reasons for the low level of service delivery are several – lack of accountability, scarcity of resources, political interference, poor motivation among employees in terms of remuneration, and inadequate performance capacity. Such problems can’t be resolved through the so-called unity of command which the revival of the office of the DC avowedly promises. Instead, they need specific solutions.

For instance, would DCs be less susceptible to political pressure than DCOs? Can DCs generate more resources than DCOs? Will DCs bring more professional expertise than DCOs who are from the same occupational groups?

An affirmative answer to any of these questions would mean that our approach is only skin-deep, that we believe in quick-fix solutions and that we are skirting the real issues.

The writer is a freelance countributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com