THE debate on local bodies is often hotly contested. Some believe that true democracy can only really flourish if local bodies are functioning. Others give examples of the malaise in our political and social landscape and see further fracturing. Constitutionally, local governments are considered a crucial part of the governance framework. Their role has been repeatedly reinforced, through both judicial activism and legislative activity, but they have not been allowed to flourish. Remarkably, local bodies have had better luck under martial law – just hark back to the Musharraf era. However, each time these local bodies received support, there were often hidden agendas involved.
What is effective local governance? Some believe that the failure of local governments in many post-colonial settings stems from the fact that these local bodies typically lack a direct tax base. This makes them heavily reliant on higher tiers of government for support. In Pakistan, local governments, whenever they have existed, were dependent not on their jurisdictions but on the beneficence of either the district administration or the provincial executive, or both. Fiscal autonomy and fiscal accountability should then be one of the fundamental revisions when reforming laws around local governance.
Yet this argument seems to address a symptom rather than a root cause. We need to question the failure of allowing local governments autonomy in more depth. If we peel back the layers, we realise this lack of autonomy is pervasive throughout all our systems. Independent or critical thinking in our education systems (across government and elite schools) is stifled; autonomy in our healthcare choices and control over our own bodies is constantly contested; autonomy in economic decision-making and financial independence is equally rare – with many obstacles in place to prevent women from participating equally. But the impacts on men (especially sons whose occupations are aligned to the family business or to the father’s occupation) can often be equally brutal. So, if our cultural, societal and structural norms prevent autonomy, are we asking too much of our political systems?
There have been some positive developments though. The social experiment of building democratic and inclusive institutions under the community development model, does offer a pathway that could be adapted to strengthen local governance and autonomy. Research on community participation shows that in villages where inclusion programmes were underway, there were significant benefits to the entire community. Inclusion mandates were exercised by non-political community organizations to ensure equitable representation of women and of the poorest households (defined as those families who are without any land or other assets such as livestock). Membership was designed to ensure 40% of representation from poorest households, and at least 30% inclusion of women as members. When voting was carried out across villages to determine how people wanted funds to be spent, women and the poorest members voted for critical human development services that would benefit the broader community, such as clean water and sanitation access, education and healthcare initiatives. Men from better off households voted for repairing irrigation channels and other requirements for their land. Women’s roles within village organizations, as presidents and secretaries, also spawned a change in the thinking of boys and girls (but unfortunately not of adult males) with regard to how women could and should participate actively in the ‘public’ sphere.
If we take these learnings and apply them to local government, we can understand how the fundamental values of equity, inclusion and accountability, need to be built in to the fabric of local government systems and processes. If not, we risk continuing to be held ransom to top down thinking. Perhaps this is why nearly all political parties seem to have an aversion to local government. The handing over of power down to the lowest tier of government, which in effect also has the closest interaction with citizens, would be groundbreaking. This opening up of the political system could create an informed and empowered citizenry that is aware of how the system works, and would lead to far more responsive and responsible local electables. It would also serve as a badly needed academy for political talent.
There are caveats to this local government utopia, however. Our social and economic structures and institutions remain overwhelmingly autocratic. For local governments to be effective, we need a better educated citizenry; we need value-based laws and procedures that articulate and commit to autonomy and democratic norms; we need rigorous training for local representatives, so that they understand the basics – how to hold meetings, manage budgets, undertake procurement, respond to demands, ensure transparency in their dealings. If we cannot develop this model, we will have to deal with the failures that will inevitably occur. But even if there are multiple failures, just allowing the local government system to operate, could in itself create demand from citizens and representatives, for better governance, leading to a cycle of growth and reform. There is still hope.
—The writer is an independent development professional and impact advisor.
