ALTHOUGH local government is a provincial subject, it was kept in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution until January 2010, thereby robbing the provinces of their right to legislate on the subject on their own. This encroached upon provincial autonomy.

A grade 20-21 district coordination officer (DCO) was also introduced. Whereas a DCO can manage a district's affairs from the district headquarters, no deputy was given to him to oversee affairs at the tehsil level. So he has to use the services of the DDO(R) and tehsildar of the tehsil concerned, who are officials of the revenue department and have nothing to do with so-called coordination and administrative assignments.

All revenue officers were made subordinate to the district nazim, which is a political office. Revenue officers also run revenue courts and hear land cases worth billions of rupees. So if there is a revenue case between the district nazim or anybody close to him versus some common citizen, what would be the decision of the revenue officer? After all he is answerable to the district nazim and relies on him for his posting and issuance of annual confidential reports.

The police were given unbridled powers under the Police Order 2002. No civilian check exists on the police at the district level. Astonishingly, whereas divisions (commissionerate) were abolished, regions were created for the police hierarchy.

This so-called devolution plan envisaged a parallel sort of government, where districts were seen interacting with the centre, bypassing the provincial political set-up. So the very concept of federalism has been put at stake. If this system was so successful (as has been claimed) it should have been introduced in 52 cantonments and Islamabad as well.

Whereas in the old system an assistant commissioner (AC) or deputy commissioner (DC) could be suspended, removed, dismissed or terminated from service due to negligence, carelessness or dereliction of duty, a district or tehsil nazim cannot be touched in any official manner. It seems that the makers of the devolution plan thought that only saints would become district or tehsil nazims.

In the old system there was one AC and one DC. Now these officers has been replaced by DDO(R), DO(R), EDO(R) and DCO. Similarly the Police Order has separated watch and ward and investigation. Previously one had to bribe the local SHO only but now one has to bribe the SHO and SIO (station investigation officer) as well. The masses (prey) are the same while the officers (hunters) have increased.

The chain or unity of command —the hallmark of the old system under the umbrella of the deputy commissioner — is no more available. The new system created a number of centres of power and thus weakened the very writ of the state, particularly at the district level, the most important administrative unit.

Each local unit was made independent of the other. Districts are out of bounds for the province, tehsils are out of reach for districts and union councils are out of control of tehsils. In essence a system of states within a state has been created! Caste-based fiefdoms were established throughout Pakistan at the district and tehsil levels. The system was designed in such a way so that the rulers of the time could manage, manipulate and manoeuvre it.

The stalwarts of the devolution plan claim they had tried to replace a repressive British imperialist system of executive magistracy. If this is the criteria then our police and army are also symbols of imperialism. Should these two institutions be abolished as well?

This system might have been suitable for a highly civilised society where people are not only conscious of their rights but also care for their duties. But though ours may be a rights-conscious society, at this stage we are not ready to accept our duties as for example towards encroachments, etc.

Billions of rupees have been injected into this system for its survival. Most of these billions went into the pockets of engineers of the works and services department of the district governments and infrastructure department of the TMAs and their contractors. So this system is not for the benefit of the masses but of the engineers and contractors.

The transfer of magisterial powers from the executive to the judiciary not only overburdened the judiciary but also created problems for departments functioning at the local level with regard to implementation of local and special laws.

The DC was a neutral entity whereas the district nazim is a political entity. Our politicians, particularly at the local level, can never shake off their party prejudices and often serve only their partymen, ignoring others.

This system is a confused one. In a less-educated society the functioning of so many officers is a source of continued confusion and chaos. The larger the size of government, the more the red tape.

It would be beneficial if a system based on the experiences of the local government ordinances of 1979 and 2001 may be adopted, keeping the good aspects of both. It would also be a good idea if the offices of ACs and DCs are reintroduced all over Pakistan, as has been done in Balochistan.

The writer is District Officer (Revenue) Nawabshah.