Local Governments: Improved, Not Sabotaged.

Local Governments: Improved, not sabotaged. Column by: Ashfaq Rehmani Email: [email protected] Local governments are administrative offices that are smaller than a state. The term is used to contrast with offices at nation-state level, which are referred to as the central government, national government, or (where appropriate) federal government. In modern nations, local governments usually have fewer powers than national governments do. They usually have some power to raise taxes, though these may be limited by central legislation. In some countries local government is partly or wholly funded by subventions from central government taxation. The question of Municipal Autonomy which powers the local government has, or should have, and why is a key question of public administration and governance. The institutions of local government vary greatly between countries, and even where similar arrangements exist, the terminology often varies. Common names for local government entities include state, province, region, department, county, prefecture, district, city, township, town, borough, parish, municipality, shire and village. However all these names are often used informally in countries where they do not describe a legal local government entity. The government’s decision to appoint administrators in place of nazims, after this heavy blasting news, there are some information about LG. People in almost every union council (UC) of the provincial capital might face problems in obtaining to birth, death, marriage and divorce certificates after the appointment of administrators in the UCs or if the government abandons the eight-year-old local government (LG) system. The government’s decision to appoint administrators in place of nazims, particularly in the UCs would create problems for citizens in obtaining and registering birth, death, and marriage and divorce certificates. UC contains records of all the certificates and the public was aware of the procedure of obtaining these documents from the UC. The UC nazims were available to the people even after their office timings at their residences and offices, and also the public could also conveniently approach the nazims rather than the police to get their issues resolved. If there were loopholes in the LG system, the system should have been revised instead of replacing it with a new system that would take another 10 years to establish its roots and to what extent would it be effective is still unknown. When I call to Mr. Idrees Hanif (Lahore District Naib Nazim) he said the problems faced by the public after the appointment of the administrators were obvious to everyone. He said he could not understand how toppling an elected government was labeled dictatorship, but when the same is done to a district government it is approved as being legal. Dear reader’s the success of the local bodies system possibly was in the fact that councilors were more easily accessible and ready to take on challenges than MPAs and MNAs and DCs and other bureaucrats. The original system of General Naqvi was somewhat modified by the bureaucracy which finally had its say in reducing the financial powers of the Nazims. What amazes many is how the system worked in the first place,

given opposition from the bureaucracy and certain political forces. Nowhere in the world do you have a city mayor who does not have control of the police. But in Pakistan this was the arrangement. And yet the system worked. A very famous Journalist & Annalist says to me Mr. Rehmani, reality is that the biggest losers in the local bodies system were the babus, the super bureaucrats who saw their powers being curtailed as elected representatives took over. The bureaucrats initially played along and dismissed the Nazims and the other elected representatives as temporary phenomena. The office of the DC had lost its glory. People would no longer line up for favors and blessings. The power structure had started to shift, and that is why the empire had to strike back. Owing to the popularity of the system and the fact that the Nazims, despite having had their powers curtailed, were able to connect with the people and deliver basic services, meant that the system flourished. Now, two terms and almost a decade later, the PPP has decided to sabotage a genuine democratic system. Those who are critical of the government say that the PPP has taken the step because it does not enjoy support in any of the country’s major cities, where the local government system was most visible. To its credit, despite earlier attempts to shut the localgovernment system down, the PPP government did, in fact, allow the local bodies to complete their tenures. If anything, the government should have focused its attention on the large tracts of land in cities that are under the control of the cantonment boards. In most of these areas, which were originally set aside for our military personnel, with time and development, they are no more cantonments in the true sense of the word. Cantonments were supposed to be out of the city. But now, most of them are located in city centers. In most cantonment areas across towns and cities across Pakistan, the large chunk of residents are civilians. While they have no rights, the civilians dutifully pay the taxes and levies imposed on them because most cantonments are considered to betterlocated and -managed localities, which sometimes is not the case. A Karachi based Journalist call to me last day and says, it is an irony in Pakistan that democratic governments are the biggest enemies of the local bodies system, despite the fact that local governments are the foundation of any democratic setup. In the past, localbodies elections were held when unelected dictators were in power. It was unusual for a democratic government to hold these polls .We need to strengthen the local bodies system by giving elected representatives more powers and also bring more areas populated by civilians under the system. We cannot have independent islands within cities as large as Karachi and Lahore. The system needs to be improved, not sabotaged.