All the four provincial governments dissolved, one after the other, local governments elected during General Musharraf's regime without any plan to replace them. Barring Sindh, which had some rural-urban divide issues to contend with, there was no apparent justification for the other provinces to scrap this vital third tier of government.
If the excuse was that the Musharraf regime - that had introduced the local governments via an ordinance - had tailored the system to suit his own purposes, no such excuse existed after the subject was duly addressed in the consensus 18th Amendment. Yet they remained disinclined to go ahead with fresh local bodies elections. Finally, it was a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry himself, which took suo motu notice of the provincial governments' reluctance to hold the elections. In its second hearing of the case on Thursday, the court observed that the delay violated Articles 32 and 140-A of the Constitution, and that "there should be no excuse as the Constitution admits no explanation."
Yet Attorney General Maulvi Anwarul Haq offered an excuse, saying that all the provinces believed that local bodies polls should be held, but that they were indecisive about the schedule because the Election Commission had not finalised the voters' lists. This is as flimsy an excuse as can be. It may be recalled that after the by-polls held on the basis of flawed electoral lists were challenged by PTI chief Imran Khan in the apex court, the Parliament granted special approval to a proposal that sought validation of by-elections to various provincial and National Assembly seats, which had fallen vacant either due to disqualification or death of incumbents. In any case, as the court noted, voters' lists have now been revised, and the ECP recently held by-election using new electoral lists. To foreclose any further dilly-dallying, the court ordered all provinces to hold local bodies elections on the same day in June, and inform the bench about the schedule at the next hearing on April 30.
It is sad, indeed, that the provinces have procrastinated for so long on this vital issue. And like so much else, the apex court had to intervene to seek compliance with a constitutional provision. Local governments are about people's empowerment at the grassroots level and the best known way of service delivery at the third tier. Hence democracies favour the system. Yet not one, but all the four elected provincial governments have continued to hold the system in abeyance on one pretext or another. Ironical as it is, while all major parties and their leaders across the political spectrum supported and won greater provincial autonomy through the 18th Amendment, they are unwilling to devolve power to the smaller administrative units within the provinces. At the back of the resistance is the urge to control. Besides, ceding authority to local governments would entail allotting them a share in provincial resources for use on development schemes. There is fear among the big players that those in contact with the people at that level and helping them directly would influence the outcomes of provincial and national assemblies' elections, thereby weakening their own ability to manipulate public opinion. This though is a misplaced fear. Local governments can actually work to the mutual benefit of the ordinary people they serve and the provincial authorities who ensure that they have sufficient resources to function efficiently.