As far as the impending local government (LG) elections are concerned, it seems the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has its work cut out for it. Despite the many reservations and considerations put forward by the ECP, the Supreme Court (SC) has thought it wise to insist on the LG election dates for three provinces: November 27, 2013 for Sindh and December 7, 2013 for Punjab and Balochistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is poised to pass a law for the purpose in its Assembly. The Islamabad Capital Territory, however, has still to respond with concrete preparations. The SC has told government functionaries that they should be ready to face the consequences if the elections are not held on the dates chosen by them. This really does not come as a surprise because the issue of LG elections, which means having a government at the grassroots level as the lowest tier of the democratic edifice, has been a contentious one. The SC has doggedly been pursuing this matter for almost five years now and it is little wonder that its patience is running thin. The last time LG elections were held in the country was in 2001 when military dictator president Musharraf held them under his watch, and laws, in 2001. These elections were unacceptable to the vast majority of political parties, which comes as no surprise either. Historically, dictators have tended to favour LG elections because bringing governance to the people’s doorsteps is an effective way to ‘bypass’ the political parties. Political parties, on the other hand, in our frequently interrupted democratic journey, have not proved so keen on LG elections because they fear their powers would be diluted through such a devolution process. However, with the historic advance towards democracy that Pakistan is now engaged in, there is no escaping the fact that local governance will have to be a prominent feature of our democratic setup. That the SC is seeing to this is honourable, but pause is needed to completely understand the reservations and complaints the ECP has concerning the issue. The ECP has bluntly stated that it will not be responsible if anything goes wrong on the dates given for the LG elections. It told the SC on Friday that there were many deficiencies in the local government laws that have not been rectified. These include the absence of a provincial account head for the deposit of candidates’ nomination fees and the fact that provisions for the declaration of assets by candidates were also not in place. There are also no provisions for the appointment of returning officers and the printing of the huge amount of ballot papers required was a tremendous challenge in itself. There are, evidently, many gritty details that need to be perfected but the SC is persistent in breathing down the ECP’s neck. The ECP has held an emergency meeting, preparing a tentative schedule to accommodate the hurried LG elections. However, when one sees the rather large checklist of deficiencies in the LG electoral process, it is baffling as to why patience is not taking precedence in the SC. The SC has been pursuing this case for so many years; should it not, in its wisdom, give it a little more time? The government functionaries and the ECP now understand that the SC is serious about this issue and will not back down. The secretary defence has been held in contempt for not holding the elections in the cantonment boards after promising twice to do so before the SC. With so much time already gone by, should the SC not take a breather and allow the process to take place properly and not become a fiasco because of ill-planning? One can foresee the countless flaws destroying all hopes of an effective and credible election, making one anticipate charges of rigging and electoral fraud. This may lead to lengthy litigation as has been seen in the aftermath of the general elections this year. One also wonders what the provincial governments were thinking when they gave these dates. Should they not have consulted the ECP before making public a timeline it was not prepared for? The LG elections are extremely important for our democratic process. They should not turn out to be flawed because of belated haste after so much delay. *