By Sudhir Ahmad Afridi
In Pakistan, the phrase “local bodies” is often used casually in political discourse, yet it is a misnomer, a term that carries no constitutional weight and betrays a deeper truth about the state of democracy in the country. The Constitution does not recognize “local bodies”; it speaks instead of “local government,” a tier of administration designed to translate political slogans into tangible services and to allow democracy to breathe closest to the people. Yet, despite its centrality, this foundational pillar of governance remains weak, unstable, and deliberately hollowed out.
Article 32 of the Constitution obliges the state to promote local government institutions, but it is Article 140-A that is particularly explicit: every province is constitutionally bound to establish a system of local government and devolve political, administrative, and financial authority to it. This is not a recommendation or a policy preference—it is a mandate enshrined in the supreme law of the land. Every delay, every half-hearted measure, every attempt to sideline local governance is therefore not merely an administrative lapse; it is a violation of the Constitution itself.
And yet, Pakistan’s political culture has developed a paradoxical consensus. Across party lines, whether the Pakistan Muslim League (N), the Pakistan Peoples Party, or the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, there is a ritualistic celebration of democracy in speeches and manifestos, accompanied by a quiet agreement to deny its most grassroots expression. Local governments are granted a veneer of existence, but real authority is systematically withheld. They are underfunded, subordinated to provincial hierarchies, and starved of autonomy. The result is a system where the institutions closest to the people exist primarily as instruments of political patronage rather than vehicles of citizen empowerment.
This reluctance is deeply rooted in the structure of power. A strong, fully functional local government would fundamentally redefine the role of legislators at the national and provincial levels. It would confine Members of the National Assembly and provincial assemblies to their primary duties: legislation and oversight. Decisions about local development—the repair of a street, the construction of a school, the provision of water and sanitation—would reside with the elected mayor and council, not with distant politicians whose connections and ambitions lie elsewhere. This shift of authority from entrenched elites to local representatives represents a redistribution of political capital, a transfer of control over resources and influence that those in power have historically resisted.
Ironically, periods of military rule, often criticized for their democratic deficits, sometimes saw local governments with greater functional authority and access to funds. By contrast, elected governments, which profess commitment to democracy, have repeatedly constrained local governance. Their preference is clear: keep local administrations dependent on top-down patronage rather than empowered to act independently. In doing so, they perpetuate a system where accountability is diffuse, service delivery inconsistent, and citizens left with limited avenues to influence decisions that affect their everyday lives.
The consequences of this neglect are immediate and tangible. Streets go unrepaired, sanitation systems fail, schools remain underfunded, and citizens are forced to navigate an opaque, top-heavy bureaucracy for even the simplest of services. Without meaningful devolution, promises of development remain aspirational slogans, repeated at each election cycle but seldom realized. Local government, in this context, becomes a ghost institution: present on paper, yet largely powerless in practice. There are exceptions, and they are notable precisely because of their rarity. Jamaat-e-Islami, for instance, has consistently advocated for timely local elections and full devolution of authority.
A handful of determined local chairmen fight daily to assert their constitutional rights and deliver services effectively. Yet without the support of major political machinery and systemic reform, their efforts are often symbolic, constrained by legal ambiguities, financial dependency, and interference from higher tiers of government. Their struggle highlights the wider dysfunction in Pakistan’s political architecture: a democracy that is celebrated in rhetoric but systematically undermined where it matters most. The solution, however, is neither mysterious nor contingent on ideological compromise. Pakistan’s path forward is clear and singular: the Constitution must be implemented, fully and without prevarication.
Political, administrative, and financial power must be devolved to local government institutions in a manner that is meaningful and sustainable. This requires that municipalities and councils have guaranteed own-source revenue, protected jurisdictional domains, and freedom from interference by provincial or federal legislators. It demands that mayors and councils are empowered not only to administer but also to plan, prioritize, and account for development programs in a manner that reflects local needs rather than distant political calculations.
(The writer is a senior journalist at tribal region, covers various beats, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
