Local Government System: the missing link in Pakistan's governance structure.

Introduction

A citizen in Karachi or Kohat rarely needs the federal government in daily life. She needs clean water, a working drain, a functioning school, a basic health unit and a safe street. These are local problems, and in successful democracies they are solved by elected local governments close to the people. Pakistan's constitution recognises this: Article 140A requires every province to establish a local government system and devolve "political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority" to elected representatives. Yet for most of its history Pakistan has governed without effective local governments. That is why the local government system is the missing link in Pakistan's governance structure — and why reforms at the top so often fail to change life at the bottom.

Local government and subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity holds that decisions should be taken at the lowest level capable of taking them effectively. Local governments know local needs, can respond quickly, and can be held accountable by citizens who see their work every day. They also train future leaders: many national politicians in democratic countries begin as mayors and councillors.

A troubled history

Ironically, Pakistan's most extensive local government systems were created by military rulers. Ayub Khan's Basic Democracies (1959) used councillors as an electoral college for the presidency; Zia-ul-Haq's Local Government Ordinances (1979) revived elected councils; and Pervez Musharraf's Devolution Plan (2001) created powerful district governments with elected nazims. Each was criticised for legitimising military rule, and each was dismantled or weakened by the civilian governments that followed. Elected representatives in national and provincial assemblies saw local governments as rivals for funds and patronage. Local elections have been delayed for years at a time and were held after 2013 largely because the Supreme Court ordered them.

Why it is the missing link

Service delivery. Provincial departments in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta cannot efficiently manage thousands of schools, water schemes and clinics. The result is absent teachers, broken pumps and unplanned cities. Karachi's water shortages, garbage and urban flooding are, at root, failures of local governance.

Participation and leadership. Without local democracy, citizens have little direct say in decisions that affect them, and political parties lack a nursery of leaders tested by performance.

Accountability. Local representatives can be questioned in their mohallas. When decisions are taken far away, responsibility is diffused and nobody is accountable.

Incomplete devolution. The 18th Amendment (2010) transferred major powers and resources from the federation to the provinces, but in practice devolution stopped at the provincial capitals. Pakistan replaced one form of centralisation with another.

Obstacles

Provincial governments are reluctant to share power and money. Members of national and provincial assemblies often prefer discretionary development funds for their constituencies, which duplicate the role of local councils. Elections are irregular, laws are changed with every new government, local governments have weak revenue powers, and bureaucrats often exercise more authority than elected councillors.

Lessons from abroad

In Porto Alegre, Brazil, participatory budgeting allowed citizens to decide local investment priorities, improving sanitation and reducing corruption. Kerala in India devolved a large share of its development budget to village councils, improving health and education. Indonesia transferred substantial powers and funds to districts after 1999. In each case, real authority and money, not just elected councils, made the difference.

Counter-argument and refutation

Critics argue that local governments in Pakistan are captured by local elites, biradari politics and corruption, and lack technical capacity. These risks are real, but they exist at every level of government. The answer is not to withhold power but to build capacity, transparency and audit — and to let voters punish poor performance. Centralisation has not prevented corruption; it has only moved it further from public view.

The way forward

Pakistan needs: (i) a constitutional guarantee of regular local elections and protection against arbitrary dissolution; (ii) a Provincial Finance Commission formula that transfers a fixed share of provincial revenue to local governments; (iii) own-source revenue powers such as property tax; (iv) clear functions for local governments in education, health, water and municipal services; (v) an end to discretionary development funds for legislators; (vi) capacity building, e-governance and independent audit; and (vii) inclusion of women, workers and minorities through reserved seats.

Conclusion

Democracy in Pakistan has focused on who rules in Islamabad and the provincial capitals, while neglecting where most governance actually happens: in streets, villages and towns. Until elected local governments are empowered, funded and allowed to continue, national reforms will remain disconnected from citizens' lives. Restoring this missing link is the surest way to make democracy deliver.