GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • Projects
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»Document Library»Devolution in Pakistan: Reform or Regression?

Devolution in Pakistan: Reform or Regression?

Library
International Crisis Group
2004

Summary

Has the devolution plan in Pakistan been successful in improving democracy? Has it “empowered the impoverished” and strengthened local control and accountability? Or has it rather reinforced the military regime?

This report from the International Crisis Group analyses the intentions and the results of the Devolution of Power Plan implemented by General Musharraf in 2000. Similarly to devolution plans of previous military rulers, the reform created lower tiers of government at the local level, but unlike them and for the first time, it replaced appointed bureaucrats with elected officials. The Plan was drafted with the technical assistance of the UNDP and backed by the international community, although domestic acceptance and legitimacy is still lacking.

Although the Plan was presented as an instrument to establish local democracy and accountability, it has so far strengthened the military regime, undermining the party system. In particular:

  • While focusing on the district and local level, the Plan has bypassed the four provinces, enhancing tensions and undermining the concept of federalism.
  • Provincial resentment against a Punjabi-dominated military is fuelling ethnic tensions and regional divisions, with potential risk of violent internal conflicts.
  • The non-partisan and indirect nature of the local elections has served the purpose of creating a party-less elite that could be easily mobilised to support the military.
  • Due to the lack of checks and balances at the local level and across the different tiers of government, corruption opportunities have increased.
  • Although the gap between state and citizen has been reduced, there is evidence of deterioration in delivery of basic social services such as health and education.
  • The need to appease internal adversaries, the international community, international donors and non-government organisations (NGOs), rather than a genuine desire for democracy, played a big role in the design of the Plan.

By supporting the devolution plan, international donors have reinforced the power of the Pakistani military. It is therefore necessary that UNDP, international financial institutions and key donor governments:

  • Influence the Pakistan government to devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility to the four provinces.
  • Emphasise help for wider institutional reforms that address structural problems such as poverty, widespread corruption and public sector inefficiency.
  • Exert pressure on the Pakistan government to hold local elections on a party basis and to devolve more administrative and fiscal power to local units, so that they can implement development projects.
  • Encourage the Pakistan government to undertake a police reform and provide support to build capacity for investigation and prosecution functions.
  • Overtly criticise measures that clearly endanger democracy such as the destruction of the independence of the courts and the separation of powers.

Source

International Crisis Group (ICG), 2004, ‘Devolution in Pakistan : Reform or Regression ?’, ICG, Asia Report no. 77, Islamabad/Brussels.

Related Content

Varieties of state capture
Working Papers
2023
Lessons from Local Governance Programmes in South Sudan
Helpdesk Report
2018
Local Governance in South Sudan: Overview
Helpdesk Report
2018
Who are the Elite Groups in Iraq and How do they Exercise Power
Helpdesk Report
2018

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2026; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2026; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2026

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".