After the failure of three local
government initiatives (1959, 1979 and 2001), Pakistan is on its way to
experiment with another attempt at decentralization. The 18th Amendment and the
Charter of Democracy have strengthened the demand for decentralization in
Pakistan.With local government elections on the horizon, it is time to revisit
the structure of local governance to improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
There are several reasons why
Pakistan’s previous local governance models have failed – the concentration of
power at the center, a lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities
between various levels of government, lack of accountability, corruption, low
community participation, and poor security conditions. That is why the basic
goals of local governance, such as enhancing social service delivery and
community involvement in governance, failed to actualize.
There are about 25 decentralized
federal states in the world – about 40 percent of the world’s population – and
there are many lessons Pakistan can learn from them. Being the closest to
Pakistan, the Asia Pacific region can offer a number of lessons.
As a federation, Malaysia has been
fairly successful in uniting various ethnic groups and public service delivery with
its impressive economic growth. Local authorities act as service providers,
revenue collectors, regulators, facilitators, negotiators and strategic
integrators. However, these are appointed public officials as there are no
local elections in Malaysia. Quality control is regulated by the central
Ministry of Local Government. Such a regulatory authority may help keep checks
and maintain uniformity of service delivery. Malaysia has independent, strong
state governments which mirror the national system of governance except for the
fact that the state parliaments are unicameral while the national parliament is
bicameral.
In Myanmar, citizens’ representation
on boards of health and education has made the delivery of these services more
transparent. Thailand has addressed accountablity issues by setting up
performance management and monitoring systems at local and central levels.
Though in a nascent stage, these authorities provide quality and performance
reports on service delivery. These reports are made public through various
e-government portals to ensure community involvement and accountability.
In Malaysia, local authorities act as service providers,
revenue collectors, regulators, facilitators, negotiators and strategic
integrators
A fair representation of minorities
and various ethnic groups helps strengthen the system and make it conflict
aversive. Sri Lanka, as a multicultural, multiethnic and multilingual
federation, is now trying through its provincial councils of the North and East
to empower various ethnic groups in the provincial and local governments. Sri
Lanka has also experimented with a number of approaches to address the
development bias across the country with particular focus on rural areas.
Decentralized but integrated planning and coordination can be found at
different governance tiers. Policy formulation takes place at the provincial
level and then implemented to the grassroots level through local government
structures. Various coordinating bodies have been formed at the district,
division and village level to support policy implementation. Creating such
regulatory and coordinating bodies at every tier has implications on the modest
finances of the country, but has helped place Sri Lanka in the High Development
category in the 2013 UN Human Development Report.
Similarly, self-help organizations
have played an important role in delivering services in coordination with the
provincial and local governments. Such organizations have been involved in
providing vocational training, basic health services, social overhead capital
(sanitation facilities etc) and nursery education in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and
Thailand. Initiatives like that must be taken in Pakistan by inviting various
civil society organizations to supplement the government in service delivery.
|
