In modern democratic states, strong and empowered local governments are considered essential, as the management and delivery of services to citizens for their day-to-day affairs fall primarily within the jurisdiction of local governments. Recently, mayoral elections in New York once again drew global attention to the importance of local governments. Earlier, local government elections in London had similarly highlighted their significance.
In Pakistan, local governments are also viewed as nurseries for political enrollment and leadership training, a perception that is largely accurate. Moreover, local governments are recognized within the country’s basic policy principles. Article 7 of the Constitution acknowledges local government as a foundational tier of governance. Article 140-A obligates provinces to establish local governments under their respective laws and to empower them politically, administratively, and financially. Across the provinces and federal capital, different local government systems have been established with just a few similarities among them. A key similarity is the mismatch between the tenures of provincial and local governments.
Provincial governments are constitutionally elected for five-year terms, whereas local governments usually have four-year terms. This lack of uniformity results in a misalignment between the start and end dates of provincial and local governments. When a new provincial government assumes office, local governments are either already in place or nearing the end of their tenure. As a result, ongoing local governments often lose political patronage, as provincial governments seek to maintain political dominance. This pattern has prevailed except during periods of military rule.
Since 2013, successive national and provincial governments came into power at a time when elected local governments did not exist, following the end of the previous local government system in 2010. It took new governments nearly three years to legislate for establishing local governments in their respective jurisdictions, and five years to conduct first local government elections under the new system, which were finally completed in 2015. It was only in 2017 when fully functional local governments were in place across the country. Only a year after, in 2018, new federal and provincial governments came into power, leading to discriminatory treatment of local governments formed under the 2013 laws. Political differences between provincial and local governments further weakened support. When the tenure of local governments ended in 2021 and new provincial governments took office in 2024, provincial patronage for local governments once again came to an end.
The core issue is that local governments must operate within the provincial framework. Therefore, the tenure of local governments should be aligned with that of provincial governments. Both should begin and end simultaneously to avoid tenure mismatches and political incompatibility. If provincial and local governments are formed at the same time, it is likely that the same political party will govern both tiers, reducing recurring conflicts. This alignment would also slow the cycle of wholesale legal changes. Amendments would still occur, but entirely new laws would be less frequent.
For example, in Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Balochistan, where the same political parties have governed repeatedly, the 2013 local government laws continue to exist with amendments. In contrast, the situation in Punjab has been particularly problematic. Since 2018, five different local government laws have been enacted, each repealing the previous one. Except for the two laws introduced in 2019, the 2021 law repealed the 2019 framework, the 2022 law repealed the 2021 law, and the 2025 law repealed the 2022 law. During this period, local government elections have not been held for nearly ten years, despite four changes in provincial governments.
To shield local governments from the adverse effects of political transitions and to slow constant legal and systemic upheaval, it is essential to synchronize the tenure of local and provincial governments. This requires holding provincial and local government elections simultaneously. Voters could cast three votes during general elections—each with a distinct color and placed in separate ballot boxes. This would not be an unprecedented or unusual practice. Voters already elect representatives for national and provincial constituencies; selecting a local government representative at the same time would be administratively feasible. Conducting these elections on a party basis would further simplify the process, with a single electoral symbol enhancing voter convenience.
Another critical issue concerns uniformity in local government systems across provinces. There is no compelling reason why local government structures should not be broadly similar nationwide, much like federal and provincial systems. Greater uniformity would improve public understanding and reduce confusion. For example, the functions, jurisdiction, authority, and composition of neighborhood and village councils in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are not fundamentally different from union councils in Punjab and Sindh. If their roles are essentially the same, the variation in names serves little purpose.
Similarly, municipal committees, municipal corporations, metropolitan corporations, towns, districts, and tehsil councils share largely similar functions, jurisdictions, and powers. Standardizing these names and structures across provinces would make the system more comprehensible and accessible to the public.
It is encouraging that elections for the provincial assembly and local governments in Gilgit-Baltistan are scheduled to be held on the same day this year. It is recommended that forthcoming constitutional amendments also address this issue, as such synchronization would significantly simplify governance and electoral processes.
—Â Written by Zahid Islam, Member FAFEN National Council and Executive Director Sangat Development Foundation
