Daily Times

Post-colonial states are conceptually grounded by (de-)colonising authorities in the concept of territorial sovereignty — the latter is inclusive of non-land dimensions of state organisation. It is quite interesting to note that the majority of Muslim-majority post-colonial states developed serious issues, both ideological and practical, with denominations of the nation-state as well as the (de-)colonisers. Alternatively, the concept of ummah — or a universal Muslim community — was re-invoked by the religious elite that saw, for rational as well as religious reasons, the very being of nation-states as either entirely (or, in some cases partially) un-Islamic. It is in this context that Pakistan’s first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, formulated the idea of the Objectives Resolutions whose primary objective, in my view, was to appease not only religious forces but also local and regional political elements who were posing serious challenges to, for example, state (re)organisation and management. The debates, whether Pakistan should formally — in terms of a new constitution — be a federation or a unitary state, started in the context of the above.

Interestingly, the civil bureaucracy, the military and the political elite chose a federal mechanism for Pakistan in the constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 respectively. Given the country’s large geographical mass and increasing population, among other things, favouring a federation seemed rational, at least in principle. Nevertheless, the realisation of federal goals was dependent on certain variables — for example, majority rule, regular free and fair elections, freedom of speech, association and (un)belief, etc — which were compromised on account of lack of interest in the larger objective of society and the state. The partition of Pakistan, in 1971, points to the contradictory project of federalisation in Pakistan whereby the state elite wished for a united, harmonious and homogeneous country on the one hand, and implemented counterproductive policies, i.e. abrogating constitutions, not holding elections, unequal socio-economic development, etc, on the other. Unfortunately, the Pakistani elite has not learnt these lessons from the tragic fact of the 1971 breakup of the country. The federation is still strong vis-à-vis the units, institutionally, politically and strategically, if not constitutionally. Even in the post-eighteenth amendment period, federal relations with the units are based on ambiguity in practical terms. In some cases, the federal government seems uninterested in shifting responsibility and resources to the units and in some sectors the units are struggling to develop the capacity to host and sustain inherited institutions and development related projects — education is a case in point. Part of the problem, in my view, is ill defining of federalism on the part of state institutions. In this respect, the following provide some conceptual considerations.

One of the core dimensions of decentralisation, which is at the heart of federalist theory, entails social welfare, allocating for efficiency of resources, and the revival of the (local) economy. This in itself carries momentum within the realm of local societal structures. In the classic sense, monetary assistance forms the backbone of any development initiative that has to be implemented locally through federal support. The process of channelling resources authenticates the level of commitment officials put in to either make it a success story or a failed fallacy. Proper research about such a system is vital to understanding the processes of decentralisation in detail. Another aspect of decentralisation is public administration. This dimension deals with the already present methods of public dealing within the auspices of central government grants and provisions structures. Three mechanisms to create public autonomy have been identified in the relevant literature, namely, de-concentration, delegation and devolution. In the past, these mechanisms have largely been observed in terms of examining the impact of decentralisation, but the way autonomy is handed over by the central government to its local or regional sub-units is what is believed to be the real cause behind every success or failure in the decentralisation discourse. Political decentralisation is also an important component of the federalising puzzle. This aspect generally looks at the political effects of the decentralisation processes with respect to governance.

All of the aforementioned dimensions of decentralisation are related to each other in terms of, at least, implications. A majority of developing countries, Pakistan being one of them, find it hard to deal with each or all of the three aspects because of the lack of a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework. In order to develop socio-economically, culturally and politically, the Pakistani state needs to evolve, sustain and adopt a meaningful framework to deal with pertinent issues of local and regional autonomy. At the empirical and operational, if not conceptual level, multiple actors, from both the public and the private sector, may provide the required input. In other words, if Bahawalpur is to be granted a separate provincial status, the participation of federal and provincial governments, local civil society organisations, and local political and cultural forces is essential. Otherwise, the project of provincialisation shall further add to the cultural disconnect, religious intolerance and political instability at the local, regional and federal level.

The writer is a DAAD fellow. He holds a PhD in political science and is an Assistant Professor at Iqra University, Islamabad. He tweets @ ejazbhatty