shuakataftab
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 0
Against the abolition of devolution
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Aqil Sajjad
In a somewhat expected development, the government has decided to abolish the system of local governments and restore the previous system of executive magistracy. It is important to ask what it implies for our democratic development and how it can impact the working of the government and the independence of the lower judiciary.
Something that we all regularly crib about is the fact that our political system is dominated by a small ruling elite, with the masses having very limited say in their affairs. This complaint is not just about the repeated rounds of military dictatorship, but applies equally to the periods of elected civilian rule.
Participation in politics is a very expensive enterprise, and only a small minority of Pakistanis are able to contest elections with a reasonable chance of winning. As a result, the system is mostly dominated by feudals in rural areas, and by industrialists in the relatively urbanised parts of the country. Due to this unrepresentative nature of the system, people have very limited control over the system, and elections are essentially an exercise in choosing one faction of the ruling class over another.
In the midst of all this comes a military dictator from time to time. He stops the political process at the national level, where he himself wants to rule. However, since he does not derive his political power from the established political constituencies in the country, he does not mind creating a system of elected local bodies at the grassroots. This also helps him create his own constituencies in order to perpetuate his rule, but in this process a large number of new people are also able to participate in the political system at the lowest level.
However, the mainstream political leadership sees this as a threat to its own hold on power. So every time we return to civilian rule, the major political parties are eager to throw out the system. Why not enjoy all the power yourself, without your having to share it with the masses at the grassroots level?
Of course, some justification has to be cooked up for carrying out such a blatantly anti-people step. Since the military dictators use elected local bodies as a means of perpetuating their own rule, the most convenient way to shoot down the idea of grassroots political institutions is to use guilt by association. That is, if an idea is too powerful that you cannot win an honest debate on it, confuse the issue by associating it with a discredited group of people to avoid discussing it on its own merit. So Ayub Khan's entire system of basic democracies was totally condemned by citing the way he used it to stay in power, rather than just removing its flaws such as its use as an electoral college. Zia's system was also allowed to die a slow death over time.
And now, the latest casualty is the devolution plan introduced by Musharraf. Unlike the previous systems introduced by Ayub and Zia, this time the institution of the executive magistracy was also abolished. Under this colonial system, the deputy commissioners used to be fully in charge of local administration, law and order, revenue collection, and also performed the role of magistrates. This excessive concentration of powers allowed them to lord over the people in their districts. And since they were the executive as well as magistrates, the principle of the judiciary's independence was also violated.
With the office of the deputy commissioner removed and the districts put under elected Nazims, devolution made the bureaucrat unhappy because of the loss of his powers. The MNA and MPA was upset because where he could previously have dominated the whole constituency, he now had to share political turf with the Nazim and the numerous union councillors. Imagine what a dilution of his monopoly it was, when previously there used to be only a few hundred MNAs and MPAs, there were now 84,000 union councillors in the country. The local feudal was worried because many of these councillors were "below his stature," threatening his hold on power.
So, in addition to the top political leaders, there was a larger coalition of MNAs, MPAs, feudals and bureaucrats, cooking up all kinds of silly excuses for returning to the old system where they could monopolise power. The nationalists, many of which are also feudals or tribal sardars, added another red herring by mixing the issue of provincial autonomy with devolution. Of course, a "provincial autonomy" that only transfers Islamabad's powers to the provincial capitals where the nationalists can rule over the masses with unlimited powers would be great for them, but devolving it to ordinary citizens at the grass roots level is outright blasphemy to them.
Then there were a large number of otherwise well-meaning journalists, commentators and civil society actors who could never get themselves to speak or write in favour of devolution just because it was associated with Musharraf. Nor did TV anchors consider this issue to be of sufficient importance for them to ask some tough questions of those who were raising frivolous objections to it. So, not surprisingly, the public opinion on this issue has largely remained that of indifference.
And the vested interests have struck by taking advantage of this indifference. No more devolution. Back to the monopoly of the MNAs and MPAs. No pesky Nazims or union councillors to take away the powers enjoyed by the feudals, bureaucrats, MNAs and MPAs, and the provincial ministers and chief ministers. (Of course, they will put in place a cosmetic system of toothless local bodies to make it appear that they had not completely done away with a grassroots system.)
However, there is still a glimmer of hope. The local governments are part of the Constitution under the 17th Amendment, and cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment. Moreover, executive magistracy violates the independence of the judiciary by concentrating executive and judicial powers in the same hands. On these grounds, the government's action can be challenged in the courts. This can also give the media time to have an open and honest debate on the pros and cons of devolution, which could generate the required public opinion to save it, and possibly even improve it further.
The ball is therefore once again in the hands of the higher judiciary, the media and the civil society in protection of the people's interests. Here is also an excellent opportunity for the restored judiciary to show that it is truly independent and not going to unduly favour the PML-N, which is clearly opposing devolution. Just like we have been condemning the military's repeated act of throwing out democracy at the national and provincial level, the time has come for us to stand up against this similar conspiracy of the political leadership to do away with grassroots democracy.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Aqil Sajjad
In a somewhat expected development, the government has decided to abolish the system of local governments and restore the previous system of executive magistracy. It is important to ask what it implies for our democratic development and how it can impact the working of the government and the independence of the lower judiciary.
Something that we all regularly crib about is the fact that our political system is dominated by a small ruling elite, with the masses having very limited say in their affairs. This complaint is not just about the repeated rounds of military dictatorship, but applies equally to the periods of elected civilian rule.
Participation in politics is a very expensive enterprise, and only a small minority of Pakistanis are able to contest elections with a reasonable chance of winning. As a result, the system is mostly dominated by feudals in rural areas, and by industrialists in the relatively urbanised parts of the country. Due to this unrepresentative nature of the system, people have very limited control over the system, and elections are essentially an exercise in choosing one faction of the ruling class over another.
In the midst of all this comes a military dictator from time to time. He stops the political process at the national level, where he himself wants to rule. However, since he does not derive his political power from the established political constituencies in the country, he does not mind creating a system of elected local bodies at the grassroots. This also helps him create his own constituencies in order to perpetuate his rule, but in this process a large number of new people are also able to participate in the political system at the lowest level.
However, the mainstream political leadership sees this as a threat to its own hold on power. So every time we return to civilian rule, the major political parties are eager to throw out the system. Why not enjoy all the power yourself, without your having to share it with the masses at the grassroots level?
Of course, some justification has to be cooked up for carrying out such a blatantly anti-people step. Since the military dictators use elected local bodies as a means of perpetuating their own rule, the most convenient way to shoot down the idea of grassroots political institutions is to use guilt by association. That is, if an idea is too powerful that you cannot win an honest debate on it, confuse the issue by associating it with a discredited group of people to avoid discussing it on its own merit. So Ayub Khan's entire system of basic democracies was totally condemned by citing the way he used it to stay in power, rather than just removing its flaws such as its use as an electoral college. Zia's system was also allowed to die a slow death over time.
And now, the latest casualty is the devolution plan introduced by Musharraf. Unlike the previous systems introduced by Ayub and Zia, this time the institution of the executive magistracy was also abolished. Under this colonial system, the deputy commissioners used to be fully in charge of local administration, law and order, revenue collection, and also performed the role of magistrates. This excessive concentration of powers allowed them to lord over the people in their districts. And since they were the executive as well as magistrates, the principle of the judiciary's independence was also violated.
With the office of the deputy commissioner removed and the districts put under elected Nazims, devolution made the bureaucrat unhappy because of the loss of his powers. The MNA and MPA was upset because where he could previously have dominated the whole constituency, he now had to share political turf with the Nazim and the numerous union councillors. Imagine what a dilution of his monopoly it was, when previously there used to be only a few hundred MNAs and MPAs, there were now 84,000 union councillors in the country. The local feudal was worried because many of these councillors were "below his stature," threatening his hold on power.
So, in addition to the top political leaders, there was a larger coalition of MNAs, MPAs, feudals and bureaucrats, cooking up all kinds of silly excuses for returning to the old system where they could monopolise power. The nationalists, many of which are also feudals or tribal sardars, added another red herring by mixing the issue of provincial autonomy with devolution. Of course, a "provincial autonomy" that only transfers Islamabad's powers to the provincial capitals where the nationalists can rule over the masses with unlimited powers would be great for them, but devolving it to ordinary citizens at the grass roots level is outright blasphemy to them.
Then there were a large number of otherwise well-meaning journalists, commentators and civil society actors who could never get themselves to speak or write in favour of devolution just because it was associated with Musharraf. Nor did TV anchors consider this issue to be of sufficient importance for them to ask some tough questions of those who were raising frivolous objections to it. So, not surprisingly, the public opinion on this issue has largely remained that of indifference.
And the vested interests have struck by taking advantage of this indifference. No more devolution. Back to the monopoly of the MNAs and MPAs. No pesky Nazims or union councillors to take away the powers enjoyed by the feudals, bureaucrats, MNAs and MPAs, and the provincial ministers and chief ministers. (Of course, they will put in place a cosmetic system of toothless local bodies to make it appear that they had not completely done away with a grassroots system.)
However, there is still a glimmer of hope. The local governments are part of the Constitution under the 17th Amendment, and cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment. Moreover, executive magistracy violates the independence of the judiciary by concentrating executive and judicial powers in the same hands. On these grounds, the government's action can be challenged in the courts. This can also give the media time to have an open and honest debate on the pros and cons of devolution, which could generate the required public opinion to save it, and possibly even improve it further.
The ball is therefore once again in the hands of the higher judiciary, the media and the civil society in protection of the people's interests. Here is also an excellent opportunity for the restored judiciary to show that it is truly independent and not going to unduly favour the PML-N, which is clearly opposing devolution. Just like we have been condemning the military's repeated act of throwing out democracy at the national and provincial level, the time has come for us to stand up against this similar conspiracy of the political leadership to do away with grassroots democracy.
