|
Q: There is an impression that military dictators
always attempt to introduce reforms in grassroots politics. The
NRB devolution plan is no different. Your comments?
A: Most people's knee-jerk reaction is to equate President
Pervez Musharraf's devolution plan of creating local governments
as a continuation of the modus operandi of Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq.
Although in some instances it is easy to draw parallels, I think
it is unfair. If you look deeper into these reforms, you will discern
that the reality is different.
If we study history, for example the pre-partition period,
there were the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909 which introduced more
local governments for certain functions. These functions were subsequently
enhanced by the Montague-Chelmsford reforms of 1918, and then through
the 1935 India Act in which, for the first time, provincial governments
were given certain powers.
After independence, there was the 1956 constitution and then the
1973 consensus constitution which both included specific reforms,
but none of these were implemented, as has now been done.
Similarly, during past military regimes there were some 21 reform
efforts for the civil service and about 18 reform efforts for the
police. Also, from time to time there were judicial reform commissions.
None of these were implemented either. Since reform was virtually
nonexistent, the dictatorial mechanisms of governance did not change.
It is for the first time that by bringing in some significant reforms,
the NRB has changed the status quo prevailing for over two centuries.
For example, there is the winding up of the powerful administrative
divisional tier. Although it was the implementing arm of the government
and many policy decisions were taken at that level, it had no corresponding
political representation. By winding up that tier, all tiers of
the government have now been brought under the political administration.
Another major step that has been taken is the distribution of the
budget on a regional basis. In the past, fiscal distribution was
skewed. Education funds in certain regions for example, were not
being invested in the establishment of schools or the appointment
of qualified teachers, rather they were being used to fulfil political
agendas.
Now the provincial finance commissions are promoting local government
functions -- primary, secondary education and healthcare, streets
and drains, lighting, farm to market roads, parks and playgrounds,
cattle fairs, etc. On the political side, there is now an elected
representative as the executive head of the districts. It is a significant
reform which is not only specific to Pakistan, it is universal.
So what the reforms have introduced is a "bottom-up" planning
approach, whereby the government reacts to the people; the people
don't react to the government. Now Pakistan is a people's empire,
and a democratic, effective society is being created.
Q: It is commonly felt that the process of implementation
of the reforms is very slow. Why?
A: Yes, implementation takes time. Enacting reforms
of this magnitude is a tricky business. But keep in mind, they have
only been around for about 16 months. Putting them in place requires
a great deal of capacity-building, training, changing the culture
of decision-making, etc.
Many countries have gone through devolution reforms - the Philippines,
Thailand, South Africa ,etc. However, in Pakistan, despite the fact
that the NRB has introduced dramatic reforms with implementation
within a very tight time frame, the results are good. The people
have accepted them; there have been no street riots.
Q: How much has the devolution plan cost tax payers?
A: It has been a very low cost. We did not spend any
extra money. The NRB has changed the situation through the means
available to it. Only one devolution tranche of three billion rupees
has been expended on the entire country. It is peanuts for national
reforms involving finance, politics, local government, administration,
etc.
Q: Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's decision to shelve the
Octroi Zila Tax (OZT) was very popular. Now the NRB has introduced
different tiers of taxation at the local level. Your comments?
A: The OZT is a huge issue. The huge financial
losses you see at the local level are because of the decision to
shelve the OZT. As a result, the rate of growth, hitherto 10 to
30 per cent in different districts, stagnated at the 1998 level.
The tax has been reimposed again. But the problem is not with the
devolution plan, but the five-year cap during which the districts'
financial requirements increased. Had that decision not been taken,
the districts' revenues would have doubled by now.
Q: If Prime Minister Zafrullah Jamali's government accepts
the devolution plan, is there the political will to enforce it?
A: I think it's a very strange situation. During
the local, provincial and national elections, there were accusations
that the devolution plan was devised to accommodate the 'king's
party.' If those accusations were justified, then why would the
king's party now be opposing it?
The truth of the matter
is that everywhere in the world there is friction between different
tiers of the government. Sometimes local governments flex their
muscles, sometimes the provincial and federal governments do so.
This is not a new phenomenon. Maybe the provincial governments are
not comfortable with the devolution, or the federal government is
not comfortable with stronger provinces, but this is something that
already existed. This is not the result of devolution. On the contrary,
the reforms have brought about change by providing a legal framework
to resolve such issues. As regard political commitment, yes, it
is there. Prime Minister Jamali has been discussing the issue with
different ministers. The chief ministers are doing the same. Admittedly
there are some difficulties because of past political practices.
As in the colonial set-up, in the past, the system demanded that
politics be managed through the bureaucratic edifice. That's why
there were fights between MNAs and MPAs over the appointments of
DCs and SHOs. Now the nazim, who has all these powers, is elected
by the people.
Q: Many believe that the allocation of funds to MNAs
and MPAs is in conflict with the devolution plan. Do you agree?
A: The question is, if an MNA is providing electricity
or telephone facilities to certain villages, is this going to significantly
affect the reform programme? I don't think so, because electricity,
telephone lines and gas are federal subjects.
But if an MNA is going
to be taking over local government functions like establishing schools
or hospitals, that is going to create problems. Because even if
an MNA or MPA constructs a school, he is not supposed to provide
them teachers or books because these are the local governments'
functions. So if there was a conflict, the school would just remain
a structure. Some people have tried to move in that direction. But
the federal cabinet has decided that since in the past this approach
has caused a lot of damage, it will discourage such attempts.
Q: Political devolution may have been introduced but there
is the perception that fiscal devolution has yet to be done
A: No, this is also being done. The money for sectors
which were previously under the purview of the provincial governments,
such as healthcare, education, etc., have been allocated to the
districts. Additionally, the districts have their own budgets.
Q: Some provincial governments, particularly the NWFP,
are opposing the devolution plan. How are you going to deal with
this?
A:Some component parties of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
-- such as the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam of Fazlur Rehman -- boycotted
the local government elections, and are still opposing the devolution
plan. But there are major parties of the MMA, like the Jamaat-e-Islami,
which had many of their party members elected to the post of nazim
in the local bodies elections.
|