A HEATED debate has gripped the print and electronic media to determine whether or not the district governments should continue.
Some sections, led by the zilla nazims, are of the view that winding up the district government system will derail the democratic process in Pakistan.
Their view is based on the impression that these governments are, in fact, being wound up — despite the fact that no official representative of any of the four provinces has said that the local councils will cease to exist.
An objective analysis is needed.
The three local government systems that we have seen so far owe their creation to three military rulers. To make the current debate meaningful, all parties to this debate must admit to some fundamentals.
First, it is the constitutional and legal domain of only a duly elected provincial government to determine the composition and responsibilities of local government institutions. Second, the district, sub-district (tehsil), union council and the village are administrative units, as well as units of self-rule.
Third, local governments should be meant to cater to our own socio-cultural and politico-economic requirements and not to serve the whims of certain individuals. Fourth, administrative and regulatory governance at the district level is distinct from the attributes of self-rule. And lastly, the requirements of rural areas in terms of local government and self-rule are in contrast to those of the urban areas.
The designers of Pakistan's 2002 devolution plan committed two basic mistakes. They combined the institutions of district-level governance and the structures of self-government within the district; and they overlooked the principle of subsidiarity i.e. any activity which can be undertaken at a lower level must be undertaken at that level in preference to being undertaken at a higher one. They even terminated the distinction between rural and urban areas. Local councils, by definition and otherwise, should imply empowerment of local self-rule institutions for the twin purposes of (i) making plans for economic development and social justice for the concerned area and (ii) implementation of those plans in terms of the responsibilities devolved to the local councils. To this end, it is necessary to correctly identify activities that are related to the devolved functions of each tier without allowing them to overlap.
When it comes to devising state institutions and structures, it is helpful to seek guidance from models in other countries with similar historical and sociological backgrounds. For instance, the local government models of India and Bangladesh need a closer look.
The constituent assembly of India debated the outlines of India's constitution during 1948 and 1949. These debates included lengthy discussions on the role of the panchayati raj in Indian polity. Resultantly, the Indian constitution mentions village panchayats as units of self-government (Article 40) under the chapter of 'Directive Principles of State Policy'.
Subsequently, the 74th Amendment introduced two new parts in the Indian constitution. Part IX, titled 'The Panchayats' was substituted for the original (and repealed) Part IX and contains 16 articles and micro details about village councils. Part-IXA contains 18 articles with similar details about urban local councils i.e. ward committees, municipalities etc.
These provisions of the Indian constitution signify two things, (i) the will of the people (through their parliament) to assign utmost sanctity to local government institutions and (ii) necessity of a two-third majority in parliament to modify these structures. Today India has 2,34,676 village councils (gram panchayats), 6,097 intermediate panchayats, 537 zilla parishads, 109 municipal corporations and 1,432 municipalities.
As per the 11th schedule of the Indian constitution, rural local councils are responsible for agricultural extensions, minor irrigation, animal husbandry, social forestry, fisheries, rural housing, drinking water, markets and fairs, family welfare etc.
The 12th schedule assigns to the urban local councils functions like urban planning, regulation of land use, planning for social and economic developments, roads and bridges, slum improvement, urban poverty alleviation, etc. It may, thus, appear shocking to our own zilla and city nazims that the heads of rural or urban local councils in India do not boss over the given structures of general administration and governance. Those regulatory structures exist and function separately.
In Bangladesh, local government institutions follow a pattern similar to the one in India. The constitution, framed and approved in 1972, emphasises the need for establishing local governments with a representative character. The country recognises the fact that a local government system is meant for the management of local affairs by locally elected persons.
There exists a three-tier structure of rural local councils union parishad, thana (sub-district) parishad and zilla parishad. The urban local councils are the municipal corporations, city corporations and the metropolitan corporations. These rural and urban local government bodies are entrusted with a large number of functions and responsibilities relating to civic and community welfare as well as local development.
In essence, these functions are similar to those discussed with reference to the Indian constitution. In Bangladesh, the general administrative and coordinative functions do not belong to the local councils. Six administrative divisions are headed by the divisional commissioners. Each of the 60 districts is headed by a district commissioner who is the chief administrator and who supervises all district-level administrative government departments.
Good statecraft implies actions in accordance with the constitution and the laws of the country. According to Article 140-A of Pakistan's constitution, each province shall, by law, establish a local government system.
The word 'province' essentially implies an elected provincial government. We must, thus, trust the four provincial governments' intention to formulate and establish representative local governments and self-rule institutions in accordance with the wishes of the people and their needs in each province.
However, it will be logical to hope and expect that the village is recognised as a sociological-cum-administrative unit in the hierarchy of self-rule tiers. Similarly, a union council, a tehsil and a district should be the recognised tiers of local governments and simultaneously the tiers of governance-cum-administration.
A distinction must be made between the functions and responsibilities of the rural and urban local government bodies and the functions/responsibilities that belong to the district and sub-district administrative structures must be defined. Lastly, the permanence of self-rule and local government structures must be ensured. The phase of experimentation should now be over.
chairman@bop.com.pk