In Pakistan, the issue of local governments is generally met with silence, though at times it is elevated into a major and fundamental political concern. This is despite the fact that the Constitution recognizes local governments as an essential third tier of the state and acknowledges them as part of the basic principles of governance. Yet, local governments have consistently remained controversial. Rarely have all political parties been seen in agreement on this issue.
The same inconsistency is evident in the electoral process. Continuity of elected local councils and leadership is seldom observed, and even when elections are held, they often remain disputed. The only notable exception has been periods of military rule, during which local governments were given special importance and enjoyed visible patronage from the ruling authorities for certain reasons. In these periods, elections were held regularly and some degree of continuity was maintained. For instance, elections were held twice during General Ayub Khan’s Basic Democracies era, twice during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, and similarly twice during General Pervez Musharraf’s tenure. While electoral disputes did exist, they largely revolved around issues of qualification and disqualification of candidates, and alleged misrepresentations rather than challenges to the electoral process itself.
In contrast, during democratic periods, years often pass without elected representatives at the local level. Local government functions continue under bureaucratic supervision, with provincial governments preferring to appoint executive officials as administrators to manage local governance through directives.
Political parties remain divided on this major governance concern. While all are equal stakeholders in principle, only a few appear consistently active and organized in their engagement with local government issues.
Today is January 15th and Jamaat-e-Islami has announced a public referendum on the Punjab Local Government Act enforced in 2025. While this exercise may not be structurally formal, it does provide a mechanism to gauge public opinion, as party workers will ask citizens whether they support or oppose the law. Given that the public is not yet fully informed about the law’s strengths and weaknesses, the responses are likely to reflect the framing of the questions rather than informed judgment. Nevertheless, the initiative has one clear positive aspect: it can help strengthen public awareness and momentum around the demand for elected and empowered local governments.
Other political parties have also raised objections on the PLGA, though their responses have varied. Some have pursued judicial remedies, while others have confined themselves to public statements or outright boycotts of the electoral process. So far, no comprehensive written position or unified policy stance has emerged.
Interestingly, lawmakers in the provincial assembly who actively participated in the process of framing and approving this law have been heard later advocating for greater devolution of powers to strengthen local governments. Same actors who voted for a weak local governance structures also claim to support their empowerment. It is pertinent to mention here that Provincial Assembly of Punjab passed the PLGA unanimously after suspending due legislative process. Earlier, the legislators had conducted ten months of consultations. They are now openly critical of its weaknesses. Meanwhile, opposition parties in the Assembly opted to boycott proceedings rather than register their dissent through formal votes.
Reports in the media indicate that the Election Commission of Pakistan has repeatedly flagged the Punjab government’s failure to meet deadlines related to electoral preparations. These include post-legislation matters such as the demarcation of local councils, determination and distribution of union councils, and notification of election and delimitation rules. While these matters fall within the government’s jurisdiction, the Election Commission can only proceed once official notifications are issued. Although draft rules were prepared, delays in final notifications – following feedback from the Commission – have stalled progress. As a result, meaningful progress towards elections is now unlikely before the month of Ramzan, and even then, elections would likely take place during the summer months.
At the same time, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly recently passed a unanimous resolution on local government issues, presented by the opposition and supported by the treasury benches. Following such consensus, it would have been reasonable to expect amendment bills from government benches in both Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to address acknowledged flaws. No such initiative has materialized. No one in the legislatures is taking responsibility to materialize the commitments reflected in the resolutions and discussions on local government issues. Those who agree in principle often remain silent during legislation, leaving systemic reform unaddressed.
The broader picture is troubling. Pakistan’s most populous province Punjab has had no elected local government for the past five years. The largest city in Balochistan remained without LG elections for over three years. The unanimous resolution on empowering LGs in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa indicates frustration over the state of LGs. In Islamabad, wide-ranging changes to the local government structure have been introduced through an ordinance barely a month before scheduled local government elections. In Sindh, opposition parties have long voiced concerns regarding powers and resources of LGs, while similar concerns persist in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. In Gilgit-Baltistan, local governments may be formed this year after a prolonged gap, but doubts remain over potential delays.
In this context, the “Devolution Summit” was recently held in Islamabad with the aim to promote the devolution of powers to local governments and was attended by influential figures. Beyond general agreement on the need for constitutional interpretations and possible amendments, this seems to have not yielded much. The central question is not what needs to be done but who will do it? Without answering this, such conferences remain symbolic reaffirmations with limited practical impact.
—Â Written by Zahid Islam, Member FAFEN National Council and Executive Director Sangat Development Foundation
