The document compares local governance reforms under elected and unelected regimes in Pakistan from 1947 to present. It finds that unelected military regimes, such as those led by Ayub Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf, were more effective at decentralizing power and increasing GDP growth through reforms that strengthened local governments. In contrast, elected civilian governments generally pursued more centralized policies and experienced slower economic growth along with issues like high inflation and unrest. Therefore, the document concludes that unelected institutions have been more powerful agents of change for local governance in Pakistan's history.

1. Comsats Instituteof Information and
Technology Attock.
(Department of Management Sciences)
Local Governance
Submitted By: Mr. Abbas Ali
Submitted To: Dr. Shakil
Registration # Ciit/FA14-MPA-011/ATK
Topic:
Justify, Un-elected institutions are more powerful
then Representative Parliament.

2. Introduction:
In the context of local governance, justifying the statement that un-elected institutions are more
powerful rather than elected parliament. Because unelected govt. who ruled over Pakistan have
made some important reforms as per the need of that ruling period. From 1947 to till date
Pakistan have been faced 3 eras in which the reforms of local governance experimented. That
three major models of reforms was in 1962, 1979 and 2001.the regimes was of Field Marshal
Ayub Khan (1958-59), General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88) and General Pervaiz Musharaf (1999-
2007).
After Independence to Ayub’s Era:
Before Ayub, there was low GDP rate and there was low Local Service delivery and it was
increased Centralization. Local Body System was experimented after Ayub’s martial Law of
1958. Two ordinances were given by Ayub for local body. One of them is Basic Democracies
Ordinance 1959, for ruling rural areas and another one is The Municipalities Ordinance 1960,
for ruling urban areas. This system given the 4 tier system lower was Union level and higher was
having some elected and some nominated authorities as chairman. It was similar like British
system, and was controlled by Controlling Authorities like bureaucracy. (DC, Commissioners
and govt. of different tiers). There were continuities between Ayub’s management of urban and
local level. Like British, Ayub given huge funds to local governance through local level
members because he was having big support from such areas. Program design and
implementations was duty of local members.
The Era of Zia-ul-Haq:
Martial law imposed by General Zia–ul-Haq during his early time period, which was 1977 to
1985 and political centralization was achieved. Army created new class of politicians at local
level for dividing and ruling on them. That new class was known as competing class.
Zia started Local Bodies by giving Local Governance Ordinance 1979. District council was
given authorities to govern only rural areas. On that time period Zia started urbanization. Those
elections were non-party bases election. After making govt. due to this reason of non party
election, great tension arose in between provincial and local government. Which cause the
suspension of local bodies from 1993 to 1998.
Regime of Pervaiz Musharaf :
After imposing martial law, Musharaf got control of Govt. of Pakistan. He has given different
good plan, one of them was a Devolution Plan 2000 and it was devolution of powers. National
Reconstruction bureau was responsible for designing the plan. On august 14th, 2001, Local
governance ordinance delivered to all four provinces.
The new local governance was three tier system such as district council (dist. Govt., city dist.
Govt., zila council), tehsil council (tehsil municipal administration, town municipal

3. administration, town council administration), and at village level union or union council.
The head of tehsil was Tehsil nazim and Assistant Commissioner reports him.Similiar like tehsil,
in district level District nazim act as head of district and DCO assist him in all official matters.
This system allowed public to participate in decision making.

4. Economic Assessments in un-elected Regimes:
Ayub Khan’s Regime Zia-ul-Haq’s Regime Musharaf’s Regime
In Ayub’s era the increase in
GDP growth was measured
6.50% on average,
1st aid episode,
Resources utilization,
Investments in water and
power sector,
Green revolutions,
Better quality of services.
In Zia Era the increase in GDP
growth rate was measured
6.27% per annum.
2nd aid episode.
Public sector enhanced its
operations.
Good growth.
Improved agriculture.
Decline in quality of
governance.
Islamization.
Rapid growth measured.
3rd episode of aid
Better governance.
Devolution plans.
Privatizations.
Many other infrastructural and
developmental achievements.
Economic Assessments in Elected Parliamentarian’s Regimes:
Democratic Beginnings Yahya & Zulfiqar’s Regime Benazir & Nawaz Regime
There was low economic
growth due to new born
country.
It was a time of high cost of
defense.
There was low utilization of
resources.
Delivering public services and
quality of governance was
moderate.
In Yahya’s & Bhutto’s regime
GDP was 4.5% which was
actually 2% decrease in GDP
per annum,
Aid stoppage,
Nationalization of different
institutions,
Low quality of governance.
BeNazir:
The GDP growth rate was
measured 5.4% per annum
(decreased).
The afghan war ended.
The aid stoppage.
Privatization.
Decline in governance.
Failed to make relations with
IMF and WB.
Nawaz Sharif:
The growth rate in GDP was
assessed 5.97% per annum.
No aid received.
Low level quality of
governance.
Taxes imposed.
Privatization of institutions.
Economic Assesment of pre-devolution plan Govt:
Nawaz:
The crises of foreign reserve started. Growth
rate came under 4%. Kargil war, heavy interest
imposed, economic crises due to bomb
exposure.
Benazir:
The GDP growth rate was assessed 4% per
annum. 14% inflation was recorded instead of
expected target of 5%. Unrest and voilance in
Karachi.

5. Conclusion:
After discussing three regimes and after checking economic assessments we came in to this
result that military regimes (un-elected) are best so far rather than elected because in every
unelected regime powers are shifted to grass root level and reforms for local level governance
have been made. If we see GDP so its continuously increasing in unelected regimes. The recent
system given by Gen. Pervaiz Musharaf was accurate because it eliminates centralization.
Ref:
Cheema.A, Khwaja, A.I., & Qadir.A (2005). Decentralization in Pakistan: Context, Content and
Causes. The Social Science Research Network, RWP05-034
Tunio. H,. (2011, July 10). Turning back the clock: Sindh reverts to bureaucracy-run system, The
Express Tribune, pages (2)
Hassan. A,. (2011, August 16). Local Governance Reforms in Pakistan, Some Issues, The
Express Tribune, pages (3)