Democratizing the

State through LG
Reform
 Lessons from
successful

experiences?
Improved service delivery by encouraging innovations in governance
 BUT (although less emphasized) it……….
 Consolidated democracy by strengthening ties between political parties and
citizens that resonated through entire democratic system (West Bengal, Kerala,
Turkey and Brazil)
 Produced political leaders of quality and experience for parties and governments
at all tiers (Turkey, Brazil, China)
 Enabled under-represented groups to enter politics and become vital stakeholders
in the system of governments (India, Brazil)
 Countries where LGs have democratized state also seen major innovations in
governance and service delivery (India, Brazil, Turkey)
 How do LGs democratize the
State?
 Increasing ability of voters to hold local decision makers accountable (“Political
Accountability”)
 If local political institutions enable broad set of voters to hold government
accountable
 Law provides clear and sufficient mandates to local elected representatives
 Strengthening quality of national democratic leadership (“Political Selection”)
 If local political institutions encourage entry of higher quality politicians by
incentivizing parties to make effort to sponsor good quality local leaders
 Provide opportunity for local politicians of quality and experience to advance to
higher political office, in parties and higher tiers, after building reputation at local
level (“Ladder for Advancement”)
 How can LGs democratize the
State?
 Broadening base from which political leadership drawn (“Political
Mobility”)
 If local political institutions able to overcome inequality in representation and
provide equal opportunity to excluded groups

 Strengthening ties between citizens and political parties (“Democratic

Deepening”)
 If local political institutions embed parties at the grassroots level
 How can LGs democratize
the State?
 Design of local political institutions (in particular electoral institutions) central to
attaining these benefits

 This is a critical feature of

LG laws that is seldom
debated

 Emphasis of my talk today

Historically?
LGs weakened democracy (Cheema, Khwaja and Khan 2006,

Myerson,
Cheema and Khan 2014) because local political institutions designed to
 Create a disjuncture between higher tier and local level democracy and weaken ties
between citizens and parties by instituting non-partisan elections
 Diminish citizen accountability by making local governments accountable to narrow
set of voters by instituting indirect non-party elections
 Weaken accountability by reducing local politicians’ ability to build reputation
because of underfunded and restricted mandates and excessive bureaucratic
control
 Narrow base of local political leadership by restricting political mobility of
excluded groups
 Pakistan
Historically?
 Unsurprising Pakistan’s democratic system remains excessively dynastic!
(Cheema, Javid and Naseer 2013 and Cheema, Malik and Naseer forthcoming)
 System has reinforced rather than erode its dynastic nature!
 Underperforms on delivery of public and pro-poor services
 And is prone to significant elite capture (Cheema and Mohmand 2008)
 Pakistan
Historically?
Country Legislature and Period Percentage of Dynastic
Legislators in the
House
Pakistan Members of National 53.4%
Assembly from in the
2008 Parliament
India Members of the Lok 28.6%
Sabha in 2010

US Civil War Period Legislators in Congress 10%

in 1860-65
US Legislators in Congress 6.2%
in 1966-96

Dynastic Politics Across Countries

Source: Cheema, Javid and Naseer
(2013)
 Pakistan Historically?

Dynasticism in the National Assembly (Punjab seats only)

Source: Cheema, Javid and Naseer (2013)
 Punjab LG Act 2013
•Potential of PLGA (2013) to strengthen
foundations of democratic state in
• Pakistan?
• Are its political institutions designed to
•  Increase ability of broad set of voters to hold decision makers accountable
•  Improve quality of political leadership through democratic system by ease of entry
• and reputation building
•  Deepen democracy by strengthening ties between citizens and parties
•  Broaden base from which local political leadership is drawn
The Challenge

If at the level of center-state relations the constitution

gave us democracy, at the level of state-panchayat (LG)
relations the constitution gave us bureaucracy.
E.M.S. Namboodiripad
Former Chief Minister of Kerala
Contet
 PLGA (2013) does 2 things
 Devolves power to elected LG in line with Article 140A of the Constitution
 “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.” [Article 140-A]
 Delegates provincial government authority by creating District Education and
Health Authorities [Chapter XI] that will not be headed by local elected
representatives
 The provincial government retains the power to appoint its Chairmen [17(5),]CEOs
[89(2)] and technocratic members [17 (4)]
 Punjab LG Act 2013
•Potential of PLGA (2013) to strengthen
foundations of democratic state in
• Pakistan?
•  Increase ability of broad set of voters to hold decision makers accountable
•  Improve quality of political leadership through democratic system by ease of
entry and reputation building
•  Deepen democracy by strengthening ties between citizens and parties
•  Broaden base from which local political leadership is drawn
 Weak citizen

accountability
District (DC) and Urban Council chairpersons indirectly elected and made
accountable to narrow electoral base
 Chairman and VC elected by a majority of members of relevant council present and
voting [14(2), 15(4)]
 Where DC members consist of chairman of UCs and 25 indirectly elected members
[14(1)]
 Electoral College is narrower than 2001 because
 Earlier electoral college for Zila and Tehsil Nazims consisted of all members of UC,
including nazim/naib nazim in relevant area [148: 2001]
 Accountability to a narrow
set of voters
District Council chairman/VC

Electoral College 2013 (122 voters)

Councilors on Councilors on
UC councilors UC Chairman reserved reserved
(>1000) (97) Seats (25) Seats (17)

Electoral College 2001 (>1100 voters)

 Weak citizen
accountability
 Electoral College is narrower than 2001

 Size of Lahore district’s electoral college in 2001 greater than 1300 voters and in 2013 it
will be 245 voters!

 Size of an average rural district’s electoral college in 2001 greater than 1000 voters and in
2013 around 122 voters!
 Weak citizen

accountability
District (DC) and Urban Council chairpersons indirectly elected and made
accountable to narrow electoral base
 Chairman and VC elected by a majority of members of relevant council present
and voting [14(2), 15(4)]
 Where DC members consist of chairman of UCs and small number of indirectly elected
members [14(1)]
 Note the current clause for election of Chairman/VC does not require
commanding
a majority of total membership of council/corporation
 Weaker than the Constitutional requirement for the Election of the Prime and Chief
Ministers [Article 91(4), 130 (4)]
 Requires PM/CM to be elected by votes of the majority of the total membership
of
the National/Provincial Assembly
Punjab LG Act 2013
 Potential of PLGA (2013) to strengthen foundations of democratic state in
Pakistan?
 Increase ability of broad set of voters to hold decision makers accountable
 Improve quality of political leadership through democratic system by ease
of entry and reputation building
 Deepen democracy by strengthening ties between citizens and parties
 Broaden base from which local political leadership is drawn
 Unlikely to impactquality of political
leadership
 Restricted mandates and fuzzy accountability
 Education and health not under purview of local elected representatives
 Local elected representatives will be represented in District Authorities but unlikely to
have authority to run them
 Creates fuzziness for voters who may still choose to hold their closest politicians accountable
 May make it difficult for local politicians to build reputation to advance to higher
political office
 Unlikely to impactquality of political
leadership
 Non-partisan elections

 Will reduce parties’ efforts to find and invest in better quality local leadership because
they cannot enhance their reputation by doing this
 Closes pathway for local leaders to advance to higher political office by separating
parties from local government
 Punjab LG Act 2013
•Potential of PLGA (2013) to strengthen
foundations of democratic state in
• Pakistan?
•  Increase ability of broad set of voters to hold decision makers accountable
•  Improve quality of political leadership through democratic system by ease of
entry and reputation building
•  Deepen democracy by strengthening ties between citizens and parties
•  Broaden base from which local political leadership is drawn
 Weak ties between citizens
and parties
 Non-partisan elections

 Non-party election is a non-sequitur because parties unofficially back candidates as

parties have significant incentives to intervene
 Not transparent
 Retains negative qualities of partisan politics without gaining benefits
 Reinforces personalized dharas at the expense of cadre-based parties
 Incentivizes horse-trading and support buying which further weaken party presence at local
level
 Punjab LG Act 2013
•Potential of PLGA (2013) to strengthen
foundations of democratic state in
• Pakistan?
•  Increase ability of broad set of voters to hold decision makers accountable
•  Improve quality of political leadership through democratic system by ease of
entry and reputation building
•  Deepen democracy by strengthening ties between citizens and parties
•  Broaden base from which local political leadership is drawn
 Narrow leadership
base
 Lower income and excluded groups will find it difficult to enter politics in presence of
non-partisan elections
 Evidence suggests without party support candidates may need to spend own resources and
this favors the wealthy
 This will reinforce dynastic political machines
 Disempowered union councilors the tier with greatest entry of lower income and
excluded groups
 Non-partisan election
 Taking away their mandate of serving as an electoral college for union chairman – rejection
of parliamentary system [13 (1 and 2)]
 Reducing size of constituency they represent relative to union chairman
 Reduction in reserved seats from women, minorities and lower income groups relative
to 2001
 Reservation restricted to council seats and not executive positions
 Finding from India that reservation of chairpersonships for women (compared to men)
result in more investment in water infrastructure, sanitation, roads and school repair
 What is
needed?
 Ensuring accountability to a broad set of voters
 Including a proportion of politicians elected at-large from voters of urban council or
district

 Partisan elections
 But using an open-list PR system to help parties measure popular support of local
candidates
 Force parties to choose better candidates and get in touch with voters
 What is
needed?
 Ensuring broader representation at local level will mean considering
 Parliamentary system at all tiers (including union councils) with chairpersons elected by
a majority of the total membership of house
 Increasing proportion of reserved seats for women, minority and lower income groups
 Proportional representation
 Clarify for voters who has political responsibility for running District Authorities