The Punjab cabinet’s recent decision to allocate funds for local government elections appears, at first glance, to be a positive step toward restoring a democratic tier of governance that has been absent for years. Constitutionally, these polls were due by April 2022, yet repeated delays, premature dissolutions, and legal manoeuvring kept grassroots democracy suspended. The allocation of funds now suggests that Punjab may finally be preparing to fulfil this obligation. However, the timing of the announcement raises important questions.
Only days earlier, the interior minister, with the endorsement of the DG ISPR, had argued that creating new provinces or administrative units could improve governance. Against this backdrop, the sudden will to revive local governments seems aimed at demonstrating that devolution to the grassroots can serve as an alternative to redrawing provincial boundaries. While the argument has merit, its credibility depends on whether Punjab intends to establish a genuinely empowered local government system. Unfortunately, the province has chosen otherwise.
The existing Punjab LG law provides for elected councils but concentrates meaningful administrative and financial authority in the hands of the provincial government and bureaucracy. This arrangement leaves elected representatives dependent on officials even for routine decisions, undermining the very purpose of local governments, which is to bring decision‑making closer to citizens. Compared to other provinces, Punjab’s legislation offers perhaps the most centralised model of local governance, limiting the scope of grassroots democracy.
History shows why merely holding elections is not enough. Over the past six decades, successive governments have dissolved local bodies and altered LG laws at will, treating grassroots democracy as optional rather than permanent. A truly functional third tier of government requires constitutionally protected administrative and financial autonomy. Local governments must be able to raise, allocate, and spend resources independently, while local bureaucracy and police should be accountable to elected representatives rather than exclusively to provincial authorities. Without such powers, elected councils remain advisory bodies with little capacity to address citizens’ needs.
Punjab’s governance challenges, like those of other provinces, stem from excessive centralisation. Holding elections under a law that denies genuine autonomy may satisfy constitutional formality, but it will not resolve the governance deficit that has fuelled demands for new provinces. Citizens want responsive institutions that can address their concerns directly, not symbolic councils constrained by provincial control.
If Punjab is serious about strengthening democracy and improving governance, it must go beyond allocating funds for elections. It must commit to meaningful devolution, ensuring that local governments enjoy real authority and autonomy. Only then can grassroots democracy flourish, and only then can the province hope to address the governance crisis that has persisted for decades.
Also Read: Historic defence pact
Today's E-Paper