‘Decentralisation is premised
on the idea that by bringing governance, decision-making
and provision of basic services closer to the people,
government can be made more efficient and responsive.’
However, the relationship between decentralisation and
participation, responsiveness and accountability is
made quite complex by the capture of local governments
by local elites and the impact of patronage networks
on the relationship between citizens and the state,
among other factors.
The paper examines the provisions and
working of the Local Government Plan 2000 which created
a third tier of government at the district levels and
the Local Government Ordinance 2001 (LGO 2001), which
operationalised the LGP 200 in each province. The LGP
2000’s most positive reform has been the opportunity
accorded to marginalized groups to vote into office
representatives from within their own communities. However
empirical evidence suggests that these councilors are
relegated to backbenches or as proxies for powerful
groups within the villages and therefore have little
say in decision-making.
The role and functioning of Citizen
Community Boards (CCBs) that are responsible for the
delivery of certain services in the villages and of
Village or Neighbourhood Councils (VNCs) that are voluntary
self-help bodies through which citizens can become a
part of the service delivery process have also been
examined. The paper however notes that these institutions
are highly susceptible to elite capture.
The author argues that the introduction
of decentralization has not led to the deepening of
substantive democracy in Pakistan because of three specific
reasons. First, the citizen’s role in decision-making
is extremely limited. Since candidates at the district
level, where power is concentrated, are elected indirectly
by union councilors, it has not resulted in the empowerment
of citizens. Secondly, decentralisation has been implemented
not to empower people or to make democracy more substantive,
but actually to legitimise an authoritarian regime and
to mask the growing centralisation of power. Finally,
for decentralisation to lead to substantive democracy,
it must be preceded by social reforms that aim at reducing
existing social inequalities. This has not happened
in Pakistan.
Issues raised:
| • |
International
and domestic pressures to adopt democratic forms
of government have led to ‘psuedodemocracies’
or ‘electoral authoritarianism’ in
which the existence of formal democratic institutions
masks the authoritarian domination on which they
are based.
|
| • |
The recent waves of democratic
reforms in Pakistan are more about legitimizing
an authoritarian regime rather than making a democratic
process deliberative. |
| • |
The relationship between
decentralization and participation, responsiveness
and accountability is affected by the elite capture
of local governments, by social forces that limit
participation in the democratic process and access
to basic services, and by patronage networks that
alter the relationship between the state and its
citizens. |
| • |
The Local Government Plan
2000 has resulted merely in the expansion of representative
democracy and not in the deepening of substantive
democracy as there are few spaces for citizen
participation and as directly elected offices
at the union level enjoy little substantial power
and the indirectly elected offices of the district
nazim, where the real decision-making occurs wield
absolute power over the lower tiers of local government. |
| • |
Decentralisation in Pakistan
has always been imposed from the top and has not
been in response to a demand from the grassroots.
The third tier of government has never been given
constitutional recognition and has been dependent
for its survival on the whims of the regime at
the Centre. |
| • |
Socio-economic equity cannot
be an outcome of decentralization reforms unless
they are preceded or at least accompanied by social
and structural reforms which are necessary to
counter the elite capture of institutions of local
government and the marginalisation of the poor
and women from service delivery, that have been
exacerbated by the introduction of decentralization. |
|
|
|
