Streamlining
Democracy
through
Devolution
of Power

Columnist Dr. SM RAHMAN analyses proposals for streamlining democracy at the grassroots level.

Ours is essentially an elitist political culture, contrary to the sacrosanct value of Islam, which holds Alnas - the masses - as the purveyor of power. People have been slided, most ironically at every level of decision-making transforming the so-called Islamic Republic of Islam, into a Brahmanic order, where the feudals, the bureaucrats and the money-barons keep tossing the power-ball amongst themselves. The silent spectators - the people at large - are aliens in the political milieu. The vision the Father of the Nation - Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah held for Pakistan is persistently being betrayed. He was unequivocally committed to the concept of people’s government, which was “not to gratify the political aspirations of a few individuals but to improve the social, educational and economic conditions of the proletariat”. It would be pertinent to recall how vehemently he abhorred the ‘exploitative system’, which had degraded the socio-political and economic fabric of the society. Pakistan to him, was a means to attain the empowerment of the deprived and the downtrodden segments of our people and not to be instrumental in accentuating the greed and rapacity of the blood-suckers. He said:

“Here I should like to give a warning to the landlords and capitalists who have flourished at our expense by a system which is so vicious, which is so wicked and makes them so selfish, that it is difficult to reason with them. The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lesson of Islam. Greed and selfishness have made these people subordinate the interests of others in order to fatten themselves. It is true we are not in power today. You go anywhere to the countryside. I visited some villages. There are millions and millions of our people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? Do you visualize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it”.

How to end the legacy of betrayal is the question. There can hardly be two opinions that “over-centralized” sensibility is the mother of all maladies that afflict our political system. The style of governance was qualitatively no different, whether it was a military dictator or a civilian ruler at the helm of affairs. In fact, it would be no exaggeration to say that the previous record of amassing personal power and reducing institutions, which lend credibility and grace to a democratic polity, has created a very dismal picture. Restructuring and reforms, are indeed the basic imperatives and ‘therapy’ must be administered without losing time. But how to achieve it, warrants a deeper thought as to where from shall we begin.

Local Government, comes in very handy to military rulers, for reasons too obvious to enumerate. The Basic Democracy concept of Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan turned out to be a ruse to perpetuate power. General Ziaul Haq’s local bodies and ‘Majlis-e-Shura’ were wedded to the same objective. It is on this account that despite sincerity of purpose by the present regime in bringing into effect ‘real democracy’, there is a general climate of skepticism all around. Politicians have considerably added to the crisis of confidence in making cliche of the grass-roots governance, by merely talking about it, but without any operational manifestation on ground. The disenchantment is indeed pervasive. To restore the confidence, would require action-oriented strategies rather than taking recourse to sheer intellectualizing the power devolution debate. Someone had rightly said: “If you want to understand democracy, spend less time in the library with Plato and more time in buses with people”.

To keep politicians, out of the process of consultation and cogitation, is rather ironical as no matter how ‘irresponsible’ some of them may have been in the past, while conducting the affairs of the state, it is they who would ultimately matter in bringing an attitudinal change congruent to the people-centred political culture. To impose any system without their involvement and concurrence would negatively induce them to defeat it, through machinations and devices of which they are past masters. The idea to convey is that people should not be conceived as passive recipients to whom ‘power’ would be doled out. It is their own seeking and commitment which has to be aroused through a well-orchestrated motivational campaigns. It is in essence, the awareness of the quintessential value of life. ‘Democracy’ as rightly observed by Truman, “is based on the conviction that man has the moral and intellectual capacity as well as the inalienable right to govern himself with reason and justice”. Our people are endowed with that native wisdom, irrespective of high rate of illiteracy which they have amply demonstrated through democratic struggle for the creation of Pakistan, as well as shunning obscurantist political ideologies, whenever they have been asked to give their verdict through votes. They have gone for those political parties, who uphold the middle of the road approach rather than for the so called ‘fundamentalists’ or extremists, in orientation.

In order to restore people’s power, one cannot approach it from an inverted political pyramid. “Structural adjustments no doubt are required at the third-tier of governance for fostering administrative and development oriented political participation at the local bodies level, but to do so, would warrant a holistic approach, where the Federal, the Provincial and the Local Government structures must harmonize with each other. No tier can function in isolation. Local self-governments, after all cannot be conceived apart from the Constitution, which is woven around the concept of federation. The federating units - the provinces - must have a viable feeling of autonomy as enshrined in the Constitution. Devolution of power if not judicially determined at the provincial level, it cannot diffuse power at the grassroots level. The centre-province relations has been ruptured by the successive governments - military or otherwise. Without ensuring provincial autonomy in letter and spirit, there cannot be a workable model of devolution of power. Without focusing attention on this vital imperative, the idea of having city and district administrative units, is likely to be misconstrued as a ploy to circumvent and dilute the power of provinces. Thus, even with the best of intentions the governance at grassroots level, will not see the light of the day in any meaningful sense of the term.

The constitutional changes, required to ensure Provincial Autonomy may entail the following:

Article I

(Constitution of Pakistan)

 More provinces, in order to ensure smooth functioning on the basis of administrative,  logistic and cultural imperatives be created. In fact, it may be worthwhile to convert the present twenty six divisions as provinces.

Article 27

A fair representation of all the provinces, in not only appointments at Federal level, including Supreme Court, but also for selection posts of the federal government will ensure participation of all provinces.

Transfer from federal to provincial services and vice versa, are to be completely banned.

Till such time the number of provinces remain only four, the province of Punjab should not have more seats in the National Assembly than the aggregate number  of seats allotted to the smaller provinces.

 All constitutional amendments be made through Senate alone.

Article 41

To achieve balance of power between President and Prime Minister, the 13th constitutional amendment be repealed.

The power to dissolve the Assembly be given to the head of the State, as is the practice in all constitutions of the developed world.

President to be elected in rotation from all the provinces.

Article 59

Senate must be given 60 working days and not just sixty days to decide upon a bill

Article 129

The Governor is responsible to the Prime Minister under the 13th amendment. This must be done away with.

Article 118

More financial independence be given to Provinces.

Article 141

Articles of Constitution relating to the provinces should be amended only after provincial assemblies also approve such amendments.

Article 142

It is suggested that the Federal Legislative List should be amended as under:

a. Items 25, 26 to be deleted.

b. Words ‘Inter-provincial trade and commerce’ to be deleted from item 27.

c. Items 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52 and 53 to be deleted.

 The ‘Concurrent Legislative List’ to be deleted altogether.

Article 153

A permanent Council of Common Interests with more powers and functions can ensure provincial  autonomy.

Council of Common Interests (CCI) must meet regularly to resolve issues and only those matters be referred to the Parliament which cannot be resolved by CCI.

An equal number of members from the Senate to be nominated by the Chairman of the Senate with equal representation from each province.

The Council should elect its Chairman within 7 days of its constitution. This way the power of the Senate will be enhanced but also  make the Council a permanent body.

Article 160

The President must nominate at least 4 members to the Senate, one from each province.

Article 232

While exercising power to promulgate emergency, prior approval of Parliament (Majlis-e-Shoora) should be taken.

 It is only after Provincial Autonomy is made relatively more effective through the proposed constitutional amendments that a truly vibrant and efficient local self-governmental institutions can be created and the existing ones be strengthened. Indeed there are many positive measures proposed by the military government, which after proper evaluation may be implemented. The reduction of the voting age from 21 years to 18, equal representation of women in local governance as well as adherence to joint electorate are laudable steps, reflecting commitment to liberal democratic values. But what is anachronistic is the proposal of holding local bodies elections on non-party basis, on the plea that this has been the practice in the past. Actually the legacy of the past, is precisely what needs to be corrected. We have seen how party-less elections during the General Ziaul Haq contributed to the menace of sectarianism, beradri and linguistic affiliations. In fact, the cohesive and integrative forces received gravest blow, which is the most pernicious influence still lingering in the society. A return to the same may aggravate the malady.

The military regime must reflect tolerance for political parities, without which a society can hardly build resilience and stability. Corruption and mismanagement of individuals, should not stand in way of promoting stable political order. Local members and District and Tehsil level - without party affiliation will have very little to contribute except their personal ends and preferences. Political institutions are great levellers, which induce people to transcend prejudices and deep-seated barriers. It would, therefore, be wise to give up the idea of holding party-less elections at grassroots  level.

 There is no constitutional support for local bodies elections, and institutional arrangements without which empowerment of the people would only be an Utopian wish. The local councils are in fact recognized as nurseries for democracy all over the world. The vested groups - the landlords and the bureaucrats have always undermined the value of people’s participation as that would tantamount to curtailment of their own powers. Sharing power with people is repugnant to their sensibility. It is this attitude which must be dispensed with and people have to be made agents of social change for improving the quality of their lives.

There are some anomalies in the government proposal, which need to be rectified:

The divisional set up should be retained, as it is conducive to using effective coordination between the provinces and the district level administration. Doing away, of divisions, would entail administrative difficulties, as these are relatively more viable than many districts, who lack resources and adequate finances. In fact the divisions need to be strengthened so that they participate in enacting legislations without creating frictions with provinces.

There is likelihood of emergence of two categories of districts, one impoverished and the other relatively affluent. Those in and around big cities like Karachi, Lahore. Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan, Hyderabad, Quetta and Peshawar etc., will have privileged positions vis-a-vis others. This way, the divide between have and have-not districts is likely to accentuate. The divisions, therefore, if retained would be able to bridge this gap.

The districts if they are involved in collecting taxes like Octroi and other Zilla taxes may produce strain on the resources of the divisions and provinces. It is, therefore, important that the whole system be rationalized in a manner that districts, divisions and provinces have an integrated system of tax collection.

The Chief District Mayor, will appoint the District Coordinating Officer (DCO), the District Police Officer (SP) and that if they are required to be removed, it can be done by two-third majority of the district council. This is likely to promote preferences based on political affiliations, which will undermine the administration. It would be fair, if the Chief Mayor appoints a committee which should submit recommendations to the Mayor who would finally give judgment taking the recommendations into account.

There ought to be some respectable level of education, for candidates seeking elections. This will help reinforce the need for literacy and generate a social force in this respect. It is particularly necessary when the officers cadre will work under the elected representatives.

The system as proposed can certainly be improved upon through dialogue and discussions. It is undoubtedly a major step forward towards restoring dignity to the common people. Through inculcating a sense of commitment and importance,  the scourge of poverty can be eliminated.

But it is also  important that, there ought to be no suspense and ‘wooliness’ about a firm resolve to bring the political order into operation at an earlier possible time. It is generally held: “No one with absolute power can be trusted to give it up even in part.” Let this military regime prove an exception to this adage.