Of, For and By

Publisher and Managing Editor IKRAM SEHGAL wrote this article for THE NATION on Saturday April 29, 2000.

“The people” has been deliberately left out of the headline, in third world countries the people in any case have nothing to do with the type of democracy envisaged by US President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.  Producing a detailed concept in only 100 days plus to get government (as we know and experience it) off the backs of the people and into their hands at the grassroots level is a tall order.  The Chief Executive’s (CE) announcement on March 23 outlining a framework for a Local Government of the people, for the people and by the people notwithstanding,  any radical changes in the system need to be tested for chinks in the armour before being implemented.  Conducting a debate with a wide cross-section of the intelligentsia  in roadshows throughout the country, Lt. Gen. (Retd) Tanvir Naqvi, Chairman of the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), has been soliciting concrete suggestions.  An environment of candour permitted the meetings to cover good ground, a number of changes were recommended. Refreshingly the NRB Chief was quite receptive to creative and pragmatic ideas, and not  defensive about the NRB’s proposed Local Government structure and working.   Some criticism not only  bordered on the ridiculous but was without substance,  that most of the protest came from retired civil servants was to be expected.  Their being less than civil in some cases was uncalled for, smacking of the desperation the bureaucracy  must feel at being deprived of the monarchical authority and status they have enjoyed as a virtually untouchable and privileged ruling class for over 50 years.

With  too much of a gap between the Province and the District, a stage of government  at  the intermediate level is necessary.  Averse to increasing the tiers,  we can either create more Provinces or raise the level of the District Government to that of Divisional Governments and reduce their number.  Without one or the other there will be organised chaos instead of the management curve critical for effective and responsible devolution of power in self-governance.  Gen. Naqvi said that creating more Provinces was not in the mandate given to him,  within these narrow parameters  he has to recommend structural changes or raise the level of devolution.  Structural change to the electoral system cannot be discussed in isolation of any of the factors. This  anomaly must be corrected prior to implementing the process or will likely to get bogged down even before it is put into operation.  The need  is a manageable system, not a management nightmare.  Then there is the gender factor, the fact of treating women on an equitable basis is very necessary.  Their plight, specially in rural areas, is obnoxious.  Women desperately need  emancipation, to become full partners in the democratic process at the grassroots level not only for political but socio-economic reasons.  Even then it is far too radical  at the present to propose that 50% of the seats in the rural areas be reserved for them.   The culture and practice availing presently in the rural areas will ensure that this  recommendation plays into the hands of the local feudals who will earmark handpicked  nominees among the women to populate the Councils.  One understands Gen. Naqvi’s  premise of attempting a natural evolution of the process,  unfortunately sorry experience and the callous landed gentry dictates cast-iron rules. We should designate the constituencies for this proposal,  reserving 50% seats in urban areas, 25% seats in urban-rural areas and 10% in rural areas, increasing the percentage on a systematic and graduated basis in urban-rural and rural constituencies in succeeding elections.

In Pakistan, as in Third World countries, nomenclatures matter. By naming the ranking bureaucrat in the District Government as District Coordination Officer (DCO) and having at least 3 bureaucrats including the finance person directly reporting to him instead of reporting to the Mayor directly as do the other elected District representatives, the concept of District Government has been seriously undermined.  It would mean creation of a powerful parallel in-house government with absolute control of the purse-strings,  emasculating and/or paralysing the elected representatives.  Perception happens to be nine-tenths of the law and the presence of the DCOs with all the powers proposed for him  would allow him easily dominate the Chief Mayor (or Mayor as one would like the person to be called), thereby torpedoing the whole concept.   For the sake of not only public perception but also for protecting the authority of the Mayor,  one should call the senior-most bureaucrat in the District as the “Advisor”  (or some such rank) to the Mayor, having all the  bureaucrats report directly to the elected representatives incharge of each department,  in effect becoming internal auditors. Without having the powers to collect taxes and spending thereof firmly in the hands of the elected leaders the devolution of power will be a “sham”, to quote the CE in eloquently describing democracy as it exists in Pakistan and almost all the Third World countries today.

There should be no indirect election at any stage.  The worst examples of electoral manipulation are associated with this, the Senate being a sorry example of how seats can be bought and/or distributed at will.  The suggestion that the Tehsil Chairman will be elected by an electoral college of Union Council Chairmen is a non-starter and should be dropped.  All elections to any seat or post should take place on the basis of adult franchise, Senatorial districts can be created by clubbing of NA constituencies.  While cost may be a problem, the advantages far outweigh the expense.  To limit the number of candidates,  only those already elected as Union Chairmen or Deputy Chairmen or having at least 20% of the vote in the Union Council elections, should be eligible for being candidates for Tehsil.  To ensure that every candidate has definite roots in the constituency he or she is contesting,  the same criteria should be on the statute books for Provincial Assemblies, National Assembly and the Senate.  By making participation of the potential leaders at the grassroots level obligatory,  more committed persons will fill in leadership slots at every levels instead of the dilettante-kind that used to never visit their constituencies once elected on the present “first past the post system”.   In today’s Constitution the Senate is a higher body yet it has virtually no direct link with any part of the electorate it represents, a ridiculous situation not having any relationship whatsoever to the participatory democracy that is being envisaged.

The only real means for revenues for Local Governments would be property taxes, with the Union Council retaining 40% and the balance shared equally between the Tehsil and the District.  Only the locals best know the wealth of each individual, the apportioning and collection thereof will be fair and equitable. The District may impose other taxes as it deems fit. One feels we should add Income Tax to the list of Union Council subjects, with the proviso that 20% be retained by the Union, 30% be shared equally between the Tehsil, District and Province, with balance 50% going to the Federation.  We must have a direct nexus between taxation and expenditure thereof. If the people see their hard-earned money at work close to home, the reluctance-to-pay-taxes culture will dissipate.

The “Run Off” elections proposal is brilliant, i.e. if someone does not get a majority,  the first two getting the maximum votes will face each other in a subsequent test of the electorate; anybody getting more than 50% of the votes cast being declared the winner.  This forces the candidates to reach out of the narrow base of support and solicit votes from others not belonging to his community, sect, etc.  This will go a long way in the natural fostering of unity between  different races, sects, castes etc, God alone knows Pakistan needs this badly.   Given the fact that elections will take place for Union Councils on a “slate pattern” i.e. the first  20 or so candidates getting the most votes to be part of the Council, there is no reason for having a separate electorate, every faction will have a voice on the platform.  Separate electorate is simply another  mechanism for manipulation.  A  joint electorate, with some checks and balances to ensure minorities have a place in the Councils, at least where they are present in the population, is a far better proposition.

By tightening up  the proposed scheme on the lines of the pragmatic suggestions made at various forums a workable mechanism is possible.  One thing is certain, the scheme has no hidden agenda or motivation.  Whenever the intent is sincere, there is always the hope there will be a solution for our problems.