Decentralization in

Pakistan With respect to decision making decentralization and Gandhi’s perspective Submitted To: Dr. Ghazal Khawaja Assitant Professor Department of Public Administration University of Karachi

FARYAL RAIS (11) (MPA final) 11/24/2014

Abstract:

The authority to take decision on local level by local government is the decision making

decentralization. It is another concept in the perspective of local government. The decision

making at local level and at the district level is as old as Portuguese system and panchayat raji

system in local government. Ripon's Resolution of 1881 and 1882 can be taken to be the origin

of modern local government in India. It was seen as Gram Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi, he is in

favor of punchayat system as the decision making at very grass root level is easy in this system.

After that the article covers the basic democracies order of Pakistan presented by Ayub Khan and

his work on rural works program which is on the local government basis. There is another focus

on local government of Pakistan is the devolution power plan in which Musharaff gave seven

point agenda. This article also covers the local government of Pakistan with respect to Faisalabad

district.

Key words:

Decentralization, Decision-Making Decentralization, Local Government, Panchayat Raji,

Devolution Power

Decentralization:

Decentralization or decentralizing governance should not be seen as an end in itself, it can be a

means for creating more open, responsive, and effective local government and for enhancing

representational systems of community-level decision making. By allowing local communities

and regional entities to manage their own affairs, and through facilitating closer contact between

central and local authorities, effective systems of local governance enable responses to people's

needs and priorities to be heard, thereby ensuring that government interventions meet a variety of

social needs.” 1

Decision-making Decentralization focuses on how the authority to make political decisions is

distributed among different tiers. As Richard Bird puts it: “The central question with respect to

political decentralization is…‘who decides’ (Bird 2000, p.135). If authority to decide all

questions belongs to the central government, the system is maximally centralized in this sense; if

the lowest-tier governments have all decision-making rights, it is maximally decentralized.

Local government

The term “Local Government” or “Local-self government’ means the government by freely

elected local bodies which are endowed with power, discretion and responsibility to be exercised

and discharged by them, without control over their decisions by any other higher authority. Their

actions are, however, subjected to the supremacy of the national government. Defining local self-

government, it has been observed that: Local inhabitants representing local body possessing

autonomy within its limited spheres, raising revenue through local taxation and spending its

income on local services constitute the local-self-government.3

____________________________________________________________________________________

1UNDP, Decentralized Governance Monograph: A Global Sampling of Experiences, Management Development and

Governance Division, Bureau for Policy Development, April 1998, p. 6 2

For example, Bird (2000). The use of “deconcentration” for such administrative decentralization follows a longstanding French usage (see Fesler 1968). http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/defin.pdf 3K. Venkata rangia “Local Government in India”, Bombay (1969), p. 1.

History of Portugal System:

The core of Timor’s traditional social structure is the extended family. In the past a number of

these families formed a kingdom with a king as ruler. The families were divided into ‘royal’ and

‘commoner’, ordered into a hierarchy and attributed different tasks. The political and ritual

authority, which forms the basic matrix in the Timorese world-view, is attributed to certain

‘royal’ Houses in the kingdom depending on their time of arrival on the land.

The Portuguese colonial government used the local political rulers, the liurais, as their links to

the people and did not change the internal system of existing local kingdoms. The liurais became

an informal power in 1934 when the Portuguese started to work directly with village chiefs;

people from the ‘royal’ families were turned into village chiefs. The hierarchical order of the

extended families and the specific tasks that were attributed to them within one kingdom or

village were still maintained. Whenever the Portuguese tried to interfere in the appointment of

leaders they faced protest from the people. The Portuguese were aware that leaders from a

‘commoner’ family had no power. They therefore used the local ‘royal ‘powers to achieve their

interests. The ritual authorities, who form an opposition to the local political authorities in the

communities, were hardly challenged by the Portuguese or even the Church.

When the Portuguese arrived and demanded a leader to deal with them, the local dualistic

structure provided an easy matrix to create these political positions since the ritual leader in the

inside was not to deal with outsiders like the Portuguese. The kings (or liurais, Doms, regulos)

on the other hand became an important representative of political power. In accordance to the

traditional paradigm their position developed into the link to Portuguese governmental powers.

They dealt with the Portuguese government and were the leaders of a kingdom. At the end of the

Portuguese rule when the first political parties were established some of them challenged the

power of the liurai system. Their basic thought was that if Timor was to develop as a nation

people had to have the capacity to rule even if they were ‘commoners.’

The above system of authority of liurais at local level shows that they had capacity of taking

decision at grass root level which could not be solved or got a better solution by the central

(kingdom) authority for the commoners. By merging royal and commoners in a political system,

their political system became more decentralized in power, authority and decision making basis.

So the colonial government of that time was actually the good example of local self government.

Brief History on Panchayat System:

The British economic policies resulted in the outbreak of a number of peasant riots. The Deccan

peasant uprising of 1875 was the most serious among them. The Government appointed the

Decan Ryot Commission to investigate the whole agrarian situation. But the Indian masses were

not well satisfied with these measures. The circumstances made the people to turn against the

imperialist power and with a burning heart people began to criticize various policies of the

government. Intense nationalism engulfed the thoughts of the people. People began to think

about methods of expulsion of the British from the Indian soil. The situation was getting more

favorable towards a trial to struggle for freedom.

All the measures and policies adopted by Lord Ripon towards Indian masses were satisfactory

compared to the work of Lord Lyton. He became very much popular among the Indians but at

the same time he became unpopular among the Anglo-Indians. Ripon was a kind man with broad

outlook. He repealed the Vernacular Pres Act hat provided a popular approval to his

administration. He introduced a policy of Local self- government which laid the foundations of

representative institutions in India. Another major reform introduced by Lord Ripon was the

controversial Ibert bill. That provided equal treatment to the Indians and Englishmen in the

sphere of criminal jurisdiction. But the entire European community strongly protested against his

bill and the bill had aroused the anger of Anglo-Indian officials. Most of the policies introduced

by Lord Ripon came in favor of Indians. He left a permanent impression in the minds of Indians.

Indian masses became fed up with the arogant Britsh rule. Lord Lyton’s measures were leading

to a revolution, even though Lord Ripon tried to console the masses by introducing some

progressive measures. It was at this time A.O. Hume and his advisers were inspired to interfere.

Hume started thinking of some positive action to counteract he growing unrest. It is in this way

that an idea of a national organization came to his mind. He strongly believed that such an

organization could be an effective device to avoid any danger of violence. Then the Viceroy of

India Lord Duferin accepted the proposal made by A.O Hume, which culminated in the founding

of the Indian National Congress.

Panchayat system: with Gandhi’s Perspective

Panchayats as institutional vehicles for development have been part of the Indian system for

ages. In ancient times, Panchayati Raj system prevailed during the Chola period. In fact,

Rippon's Resolution of 1881 and 1882 can be taken to be the origin of modern local government

in India. It was seen as Gram Swaraj by Mahatma Gandhi. Interestingly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was

not in favor of the Panchayati Raj institutions; yet, he agreed to give it a place in the Constitution

of India in Part IV through Directive Principles of State Policy. In the year following the

independence (1947), Prime Minister Nehru inaugurated the Community Development

Programme (CDP) on the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi (October 2) in 1952.

Panchayati Raj Institutions, the grass root units of local self government have been considered as

instruments of socio economic transformation in rural India. Involvement of people at the grass

root level is the most important means of bringing about socio-economic development.

Panchayati Raj is identified as institutional expression of democratic decentralization in India.

Decentralization of power to the panchayats is seen as a means of empowering people and

involving them in decision making process. Local governments being closer to the people can be

more responsive to local needs and can make better use of resources. The democratic system in a

country can be ensured only if there is mass participation in the governance. Therefore, the

system of democratic decentralization popularly known as Panchayati Raj is considered as an

instrument to ensure democracy and socio-economic transformation.

Gandhi advocated that India lives in her villages. Indian independence must begin at the bottom,

thus making every village a republic or panchayat, enjoying full powers. He remarked that true

democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below

by the people of every village. These dreams lead to the inclusion of Article 40 in the Directive

Principles of the State Policy of Constitution of India. Almost after five decades of

independence, in the year 1993, the Government of India took a revolutionary step by making

Panchayati Raj Institutions a part of the Constitution

Basic Democracies Order (BDO):

General Ayub like the British colonialists revived local governments as the only representative

tier of government. The new local governments, established under the Basic Democracies

Ordinance, 1959 and the Municipal Administration Ordinance 1960, comprised a hierarchical

system of four linked tiers. The lowest tier, which was the union councils, comprised of members

elected on the basis of adult franchise who, in turn, elected a chairman from amongst themselves.

The higher tiers of local government had some members elected indirectly by these directly

elected members and some official members nominated by the Government and had these

officials as Chairmen (Rizvi 1974, Siddiqui 1992).

The lowest but most important tier was composed of union councils, one each for groups of

villages having an approximate total population of 10,000. Each union council comprised ten

directly elected members and five appointed members, all called Basic Democrats. Union

councils were responsible for local agricultural and community development and for rural law

and order maintenance; they were empowered to impose local taxes for local projects. These

powers, however, were more than balanced at the local level by the fact that the controlling

authority for the union councils was the deputy commissioner, whose high status and

traditionally paternalistic attitudes often elicited obedient cooperation rather than demands.

The next tier consisted of the tehsil (subdistrict) councils, which performed coordination

functions. Above them, the district (zilla) councils, chaired by the deputy commissioners, were

composed of nominated official and nonofficial members, including the chairmen of union

councils. The district councils were assigned both compulsory and optional functions pertaining

to education, sanitation, local culture, and social welfare. Above them, the divisional advisory

councils coordinated the activities with representatives of government departments. The highest

tier consisted of one development advisory council for each province, chaired by the governor

and appointed by the president. The urban areas had a similar arrangement, under which the

smaller union councils were grouped together into municipal committees to perform similar

duties. In 1960 the elected members of the union councils voted to confirm Ayub Khan's

presidency, and under the 1962 constitution they formed an electoral college to elect the

president, the National Assembly, and the provincial assemblies.

The system of Basic Democracies did not have time to take root or to fulfill Ayub Khan's

intentions before he and the system fell in 1969. Whether or not a new class of political leaders

equipped with some administrative experience could have emerged to replace those trained in

British constitutional law was never discovered. And the system did not provide for the

mobilization of the rural population around institutions of national integration. Its emphasis was

on economic development and social welfare alone. The authority of the civil service was

augmented in the Basic Democracies, and the power of the landlords and the big industrialists in

the West Wing went unchallenged.

Ayub’s local government system was controlled by the bureaucracy through “controlling

authority” vested in the DC, Commissioner and the Government for different tiers. The

controlling authority had the power to quash the proceedings; suspend resolutions passed or

orders made by any local body; prohibit the doing of anything proposed to be done; and to

require the local body to take some action.

So the BDO resolution reflects the centralization in decision making. Decision making

decentralization was absent even partially, at colonial and local level. The main purpose of this is

to keep the political party involved in system but the power was unitary in the hand of Ayub

Khan. We can say that his system of running government is controlled democracy in which

power is in the hand of superior authorities rather than councils and districts. Decentralization

was present with respect to the process of redistributing or dispersing functions

Rural Works Program (RWP)

Ayub government launched an ambitious programme of rural works which was focused on

building infrastructure in the countryside by using surplus labor. In January 1959, accepting the

recommendations of a special commission on the subject, General Mohammad Ayub Khan's

government issued new land reform regulations that aimed to boost agricultural output, promote

social justice, and ensure security of tenure . A ceiling of about 200 hectares of irrigated land and

400 hectares of non irrigated land was placed on individual ownership; compensation was paid to

owners for land surrendered. Numerous exemptions, including title transfers to family members,

limited the impact of the ceilings. Slightly fewer than 1 million hectares of land were

surrendered, of which a little more than 250,000 hectares were sold to about 50,000 tenants. The

land reform regulations made no serious attempt to break up large estates or to lessen the power

or privileges of the landed elite. However, the measures attempted to provide some security of

tenure to tenants, consolidate existing holdings, and prevent fragmentation of farm plots. An

average holding of about five hectares was considered necessary for a family's subsistence, and a

holding of about twenty to twenty-five hectares was pronounced as a desirable "economic"

holding.

There were continuities between Ayub’s management of urban and rural political and economic

competition and that of the British. At the level of local governments a legislative divide was

maintained between urban areas, which were governed through the Municipal Administration

Ordinance (1960), and the 389 rural areas governed by the Basic Democracies Ordinance (1959).

However, Ayub, like the British, increased the share of targeted provincial and federal

development resources in favor of the rural areas because his main source of support lay in these

areas and these allocations reversed the significant urban bias in federal and provincial

development spending that had emerged during the fifties (Amjad and Ahmed 1984). Rural local

representatives, who formed a majority in the local government system (Rizvi 1974), were

associated with development plans and projects at the local level both on account of program

design7 and because of their electoral importance in the wider state system (Rizvi 1974, Amjad

and Ahmed 1984).

Devolution of Power: It’s Significance

On the constitutional level the country will have to decide what kind of governmental branches

shall be decentralized: Constitution making, legislation, judicial and executive power.

Devolution refers to, “One form of administrative decentralization which transfers specific

decision making powers from one level of government to another (which could be from lower

level to higher level of government, in the case of federations, or government transfers decision-

making powers to entities of the civil society. Regional or provincial governments, for example,

become semi autonomous and administer forest resources according to their own priorities and

within clear geographical boundaries under their control. Most political decentralization is

associated with devolution” (Gregersen et al.).1

With regard to constitution making most federations have decentralized at least partially the

power to constitute the federal unites by proper constitutions. India may be one of the most

important exceptions to this issue. The challenge with regard to constitution making contains the

power of the decentralized units to determine a proper governmental system (presidential or

parliamentary with one or two chambers), to provide for political and democratic rights of the

citizens and to organize their unit with further devolution to local authorities. Devolution often

creates new motivation on the local level for the citizens to commit and invest its engagement for

local public interest. Thus it helps to integrate citizens and to enhance nation building. For many

of these reasons devolution provides often more effective and efficient management of state

affairs, because power and responsibility of authorities on local level, who bear quickly the

consequences of bad decisions, coincide. In addition it enables local authorities to experiment

and to innovate new concepts and measures for the management of public interests. On local

level authorities can be more flexible and adapt quicker to new challenges than on the central

level. Finally it helps to reduce at least big corruption on the central level if local authorities are

effectively accountable to the local democracy.

______________________________________________________________________________

1Gregersen, H., Contreras-Hermosilla, A., White, A. and Phillips, L. Forest Governance in Federal Systems: An Overview of

Experiences and Lessons. link:http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/Compilation.pdf

Pervez Musharraf’s Devolution Plan 2000

With regard to the content of the distribution of powers one can observe differences due to the

historical development of the federation which has been created either bottom up (US and

Switzerland) or top down (Canada and India). Further differences depend on the question for

what reason the federation has been established. The US and German federation have mainly

been established for strengthening limited government and democracy. While keeping above

discussion in mind there is Musharraf’s devolution plan 2000. On his address to nation on late

night October 12, 1999 he outlined a seven point agenda which was as follows:

1) Rebuild National confidence and morale

2) Strengthen Federation, remove Inter-Provincial disharmony and restore National

cohesion

3) Devolution of power to the grass root level

4) Revive Economy and restore Investor confidence

5) Ensure law and order and dispense speedy justice

6) Depoliticize State institutions

7) Ensure swift and across the board accountability

The purpose of presenting these points were that to make the system decentralize and bring

commoners to be participated in the affairs of government at least at provincial and local level.

Musharraf favors the devolution of power at very grass root level so that the decision making and

authority and powers would be in the hand of vast majority that is commoners rather than elite

class and some dominant political parties existing in the country.

Federalism is the constitutional balance between shared rule and self rule. If one takes this

principle serious one would assert that the more self rule is implemented the less shared rule is

required and vice versa. Strengthening federation is another step towards the decision making

decentralization. How much practically it is implementing in Pakistan for that purpose we should

go thoroughly to the structure of local government of Pakistan.

The dominating ideology in a society played an important role to understand the structure of the

political system at national as well as local level. Local Body system had linked with Local

boundaries. This relation played an important role during general elections and influenced the

result at Local level.District Government, Town Councils, Union Councils, Village Councils and

Citizen Community Boards were planned by the National Reconstruction Bureau.

___________________________________________________________________________

http://www.thomasfleiner.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/Devolution.pdf

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/Chapter8.pdf

Andrew Wilder’s opinion on Local Bodies and its role:

“The 1985 National and Provincial Assemblies elections demonstrated that Local Body politics

had become the entry point into Provincial and National politics. According to one press account

124 of the 240 members elected to the Punjab Provincial Assembly were sitting members of

Local Body. It meant that Provincial and National politics began to resemble Local Body

politics. Patronage politics became the order of the day, and representing personal and

constituent interests became much more important for legislators than representing national

interests and this put the PPP, which had not actively participated in Local Body politics, at a

severe disadvantage”

The system of Local Self -Government had its strengths and weaknesses. This system offered

many opportunities and it faced a number of pressures. Through this system, for the first time

many significant elements had been made separately from linking checks and balance. Various

levels of Local institutions had elected thousands of men and women for organization the smooth

function of Local Self -Government. The Local Government Ordinance gave them powers to

make important decisions which dealt not only with Local Government functions but also the

Annual Development Programs. This plan set the agenda for Decentralization and the

Devolution of power while the real test was with its implementation. The purpose of any

democratization process was to bring people closer to Government. Due to that they got

knowledge about their fundamental rights. After that they could be able to manage their own

cultural, economic and political affairs in a society. Faisalabad District had the exceptional

position of having almost all its Union Councils with their particular Citizen Community Boards.

These would be important to ensuring community participation and development. It would be up

to District, Tehsil and Union Administrations to make ensure that an enabling working

environment was created for the development of Local Development. It was necessary to give

the space and time to this system to become mature. This thing required great patience,

understanding and a change in behavior at all level. It was not possible to de-construct the

building blocks of a system that was 150 years old and start a-new. At once the Improvements in

Local service delivery, decision making and governance were not impossible. A start had been

made and it must be fulfilled its potential in Faisalabad District and Pakistan.

Paracha, Saad Abdullah, (2003). Devolution in Pakistan: Context,implementation and issues. Available at: www.policy.

Hu/paracha.

The necessary processes that had been put in place would ensure that Local Government was

transparent and accountable to people. There was confusion about exactly how many of the

processes and systems would operate. But at least it was a start. Small steps had been made in the

process in the improvement of this system. Due to continued support and vision Local good

governance may be achieved. Although it were very early days, it was important to realize that

unless closely monitored and controlled, the difference of likelihood between the District Nazim

and Tehsil Nazims could be on surface, which could destroy the system. These differences had

their roots in party political loyalties.

At the community level there would be a need for continuous training and strengthening of

Citizen Community Boards. The system would fall or succeed by performance of community.

Conclusion:

There was anxiety and disappointment at the community level. For this purpose federal and

provincial governments released funds for District governments. Faisalabad District had Union

Councils in their respective Citizen Community Boards. These would be crucial to make possible

the community participation and development. It would be up to District, Tehsil and Union

Administrations to ensure that an enabling working environment was created for the smooth

running of Local development. Institutional reform is a time strong and difficult process. All

stakeholders should accept this fact. Because stability is the key to success, it must be giving

them a appropriate process which would make possible continues monitoring and

troubleshooting of the process. Political reform process should continue. Political Uncertainty

position should be ended.

Decision making decentralization practical implementation can be seen in history. It is as old in

Asia when there was the kingdom system. The Portugal system is the beginning of the decision

making decentralization at local level then moving a head there was a panchayat raji which still

exists in rural areas of India and Pakistan. Gandhi is in the favor of panchayat raji because it

keeps the people satisfactory if they have involvement in the decision making in their on matters,

the societal and economic problem could be easily solve at local level through panchayat raji

system. Apart there was some draw back and dark side of this system too. The purpose of that

system was that to involve common men in decision making process. Decision making

decentralization in local bodies may also help in problem solving situation.

The system could not be say decentralize until and unless there would be full or partial authority

of decision making on the provincial, federal and local communities basis. As we can see in the

past the era of Ayub Khan , he try to present the basic democracies orders but the authority and

power in the hands of the beaurocrates and centralized authorities. The system shows biasness

and favors to the rural community as they get a significant support from them. So it fails due to

the lack of decision making decentralization and lacking other aspects of decentralization.

Pakistan has implemented local government reforms and each political government that has

followed has undermined these reforms or at best simply ignored the local governments. These

reforms have all involved decentralizing from the Province to local levels but often a

recentralization at the Federal levels.

After that Musharraf presented the devolution plan which is the reflection of decentralization

system at local and federal level in Pakistan. The decision making decentralization and

experiences in its design and implementation clearly point towards some basic elements for

success of decentralization. These elements include clear framework for decentralization under a

recognized law, suitable responsibilities along with corresponding financial resources,

participation of people, partial or full decision making authority, transparency and accountability.

It is also clear that decision making decentralization is a long and demanding process requiring

constant monitoring, updating and cannot be achieved overnight as we can see above mention

case study of Faisalabad local governance. It requires proper planning, continue training and

have strong decisions that either the districts councils have partial decision making authority or

complete authority to handle their affairs to run local governance.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Web links:

http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/interlaken/Compilation.pdf

(http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/139608/finalreport.pdf)

((http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2392/11/11_chapter%203.pdf)

(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pk0029))

http://mtakhtar.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/pervez-musharrafs-devolution-plan-2000-and-

present-scenario-of-local-government/

(http://www.berkeleyjournalofsocialsciences.com/6720121.pdf)

(http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cities-101/city-structures/local-us-

governments)

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/Chapter8.pdf

http://www.thomasfleiner.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/Devolution.pdf

http://berkeleyjournalofsocialsciences.com/120131.pdf

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PAKISTANEXTN/Resources/pdf-Files-in-

Events/IRISD/Devolution.pdf