Had the provincial governments of Pakistan heeded their apex court, the country’s four provinces – Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – would have had local governments in place by now. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had in July this year directed that local government elections be held by Sep. 15.

As things stand now, such elections will be held in 42 of the country’s 43 cantonments, and that too on Nov. 3.

Reluctant both to devolve power or part with development funds, the federal and provincial governments have been holding back. Pushed by the Supreme Court, however, Punjab and Sindh passed legislation last month, but in a much diluted form.

The absence of local administration results in a curious situation for people at the ground level. Take the case of Barkat Ali, a brick kiln worker in Lahore, capital of Pakistan’s Punjab province. The 32-year-old has been trying to switch jobs and his employer for some time now.

He cannot because that requires a Computerised National Identity Card (CNIC). Ali cannot get one because the registration authority has refused to accept the endorsement by a leader in his village Jiya Baggah on the outskirts of Lahore. “Earlier,” Ali tells IPS, “they would honour the attestations of councillors.”“Instead of preparing themselves for any transfer of power in a true sense, the provincial governments concentrated on devising ways to wield influence on local governments once they are in place."

A local councillor or similar official is exactly what people like Ali need to fulfill administrative needs at the grassroots.

Democratically elected governments in Pakistan have always ignored this highly important tier of governance, regarded as the best means of service delivery at the local level. The previous Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) government suspended in 2009 the local government system instituted by former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf in 2001, and transferred charge to provincial assemblies.

A federal subject so far, the 18^th amendment to the Pakistan Constitution in 2010 vested the responsibility of holding local government elections with the provincial governments. According to the Article 140A it introduced, “Each province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments.”

However, no such elections were held in the remaining years of the PPP regime. The Nawaz Sharif government too did not show much enthusiasm after coming to power in May this year. It was left to the Supreme Court, therefore, to push the issue and set Sep. 15 as a deadline for local body polls to be held.

However, “instead of preparing themselves for any transfer of power in a true sense, the provincial governments concentrated on devising ways to wield influence on local governments once they are in place,”  Salman Abid, the Punjab head of the civil society group Strengthening Participatory Organisation (SPO) tells IPS.

Lahore-based lawyer Intazar Mahdi offers a possible explanation. Members of provincial assemblies want to be seen as doing something for their electorate and claim credit for it rather than just make laws, he tells IPS. “Voters here want jobs, development work and patronage from their elected representatives,” he says. “They are not interested in what laws you can make for them.”

Therefore, even as the provincial governments of Sindh and Punjab worked towards finalising a legal framework for local government elections, they drafted it in a manner where they retained ultimate control. The bills they passed on Aug. 19 and Aug. 21 respectively have understandably come in for much criticism.

Under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013, for instance, the chief minister has the powers to suspend the head of a local government, the provincial government will have a municipal local government working under its direction, and maintenance of law and order will be the responsibility of the administrative officers who, instead of reporting to the head of the local government, will be answerable to the provincial government.

Clauses such as these render the whole exercise meaningless, says Anwar Hussain, executive director of the Local Councils Association of the Punjab. “The real test of the Pakistan Supreme Court starts now,” he tells IPS. It must ensure that local governments get all the powers granted by the Constitution, he adds.

Lahore-based journalist Tanvir Shahzad, who is also a member of a civil society working group on local bodies, cautions against a common practice in party-based local elections which the Sindh local government act has opted for. “Members of the central and provincial governments fear losing their seats in party-based elections and so try to buy the loyalties of candidates who return successful in these polls,” he tells IPS. This has to be strictly discouraged.”

Shahzad is also opposed to the idea of provincial bureaucracies keeping with themselves the powers to post and transfer local government officers. “Even their salaries will be paid from provincial government funds,” he says.

This will compromise the independence of local governments, he feels. “There should be a separate service cadre for local government officials. They must also get more power to collect revenues,” he says.

SPO’s Abid calls for a constitutional cover for local governments so that no government can suspend them for indefinite periods. He also calls for an amendment to the Constitution which provides for a time-frame within which local government elections should be held once the outgoing government has completed its tenure.

Local governments have a crucial role to play at the grassroots level, especially in times of natural disasters. The absence of local governments has harmed disaster response, says Tasdaq Shah, an advisor on disaster risk management for aid organisation PLAN International. “No one else is better equipped or prepared than them to carry out successful rescue operations in emergencies,” he tells IPS.

Shah says he hopes to see local governments in action soon and work with them on local preparedness plans for their respective areas.

The establishment of a local government system is also necessary to fight terror and discourage human rights violation, says Mujtaba Chishti, a former union council member in Lahore. “People have trust in local government representatives as they are residents of the same areas and therefore answerable to them.”

Kenyans celebrating the Mar. 5 announcment of Uhuru Kenyatta’s presidential victory. And with a new president comes a new form of government. Credit:Miriam Gathigah/IPS

By Miriam Gathigah
NAIROBI, Apr 11 2013 (IPS)

Like many Kenyans, Eunice Kemboi arrived at the Moi International Sports Centre in Nairobi on Tuesday Apr. 9 to witness the transition of power as Uhuru Kenyatta, an International Criminal Court suspect, was sworn in as the country’s new president.

“Kenyatta promised that the 70 million dollars set aside for a runoff election (which was not used) would be used to set up a women’s and youth fund,” the smallscale farmer from Eldoret, Rift Valley Province told IPS.

In a record 86 percent voter turnout on Mar. 5, Kenyans elected Kenyatta as the fourth president of this East African nation. He won 50.07 percent of all votes cast, according to the country’s Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

His opponent, former Prime Minister Raila Odinga, garnered 43.3 percent. However, Odinga filed a presidential petition with the Supreme Court challenging the results and citing massive irregularities. On Mar. 30, the court ruled that Kenyatta and his deputy, William Ruto, also an ICC suspect, were validly elected.

Kenyatta replaces outgoing President Mwai Kibaki, who served two five-year terms of office that were riddled with allegations of corruption. But with a new president comes a new form of government.

From midnight on Mar. 5, Kenya implemented a new devolved system of government and with the new system decisions affecting Kenya’s 47 counties will now be taken at local, as opposed to national, level.

“When the national budget is being read in parliament, millions of poor Kenyans huddle around their radio sets for news about the price reductions of major items – our concern being our day to day survival,” Benjamin Owuor, a mason in Nairobi, told IPS.

“Decisions regarding the needs of ordinary Kenyans are made in a parliament that sits in Nairobi; we now want these decisions made in county assemblies that sit where ordinary Kenyans are,” he said.

Economist and market researcher in East Africa, Danson Mwangangi, told IPS that the centralisation of power and resources compromised the establishment of strong linkages between policy, planning and the execution of the national budget.

“National budget resources have not trickled down to the ordinary Kenyan in a manner that has improved service delivery or even addressed their plight effectively,” he said.

Policy analyst Ted Ndebu told IPS that devolution reduced “horizontal inequalities across regions by not only bringing resources to within the grasp of communities, but by also providing the people with an avenue to realise their priorities.”

Government statistics show that every year, slightly over one million people from other parts of the country move to Nairobi to eke out a living.

As a result, according to Ndebu, the country is experiencing massive inequalities in various regions as the best brains move to Nairobi to where the resources are.

He added that the centralised system of governance did not take into account poverty levels across regions when distributing resources.

“Take Central (Province), for instance. While poverty levels are generally above 60 percent nationally, here (in Central Province), poverty levels have largely been below 30 percent,” Ndebu explained.

To improve development and service delivery, the Constituencies Development Fund (CDF), where the central government allocates money directly to the grassroots for development, was launched in 2003. But analysts say it is ineffective.

The CDF allocates 75 percent of its resources equally across Kenya’s 210 constituencies, and the remaining 25 percent is allocated based on the poverty rate in particular constituencies.

“The problem with the CDF is that it is weak on equity. But under devolution, there is an equalisation fund designed to bring deprived areas to the level of the rest of the nation,” Ndebu said.

According to Ndebu, the centralised government’s insensitivity to “regional inequalities provoked people in the Coast Province to threaten secession. There is an overflow of feelings of exclusion and neglect by post-independence governments.”

Over the last year, the Mombasa Republican Council, a secessionist group in Mombasa, Coastal Province put pressure on the government to address their grievances and called for separation from the rest of the country.

Government statistics show that Mombasa is among the leading contributors of national revenue because it lies along the Indian Ocean, yet locals claim to enjoy few benefits from the high revenue generation of the town.

“Devolution will improve efficiency in the allocation and execution of resources, equity, citizen participation and even the empowerment of citizens,” Ndebu said.

Too much power vested in the executive under a central government has done little to mitigate nepotism and corruption. Consequently, millions of shillings have either gone unaccounted for or have been stolen by the government.

The government Kazi Kwa Vijana or Jobs for Youths initiative is one such example of where funds intended for job creation were stolen. The country’s Free Primary Education Fund was also rocked by allegations of the misappropriation of funds. In October 2011, the government was forced to refund the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) one million pounds (1.53 million dollars) in unaccounted-for aid.

In an August 2012 interview with Kenya’s Standard newspaper, U.K. DFID Minister Stephen O’Brien was quoted as saying: “We were deeply shocked at the extent of fraud in the Kenyan government’s education programme and have not provided aid through the government of Kenya since March 2010.”

Ndebu said that a centralised system of governance “was too removed from the ordinary people to efficiently scrutinise the spending of public resources.” It is hoped that with the devolved system of government there will be closer oversight.