Decentralising Democracy: Federalism, Devolution and the Quest for Good Governance in Pakistan

http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 40 Decentralising Democracy: Federalism, Devolution and the Quest for Good Governance in Pakistan Publishing Date: 3rd November, 2025 Haider Abbas Civil Servant in the Government of Pakistan Email: haiderabba[email protected] This study examines the development and conceptualization of decentralization— tracing its evolution and classifying the key determinants behind its global prominence in Pakistan. The analysis emphasizes the theoretical relationship between federalism and decentralization—distinguishing their conceptual boundaries highlighting devolution as the significant link between the two. In the case of Pakistan’s this study critically assesses the country’s experience with decentralization and explored the link between decentralization and good governance, emphasizing, how effective decentralization—strengthen institutional performance, transparency, and citizen engagement. Despite this Pakistan operates as a federation and history reflects a pattern of weak and political constrained decentralization. Prior decentralization reforms were largely introduced under military regimes, frequently lacking democratic endurance and legitimacy. The 18th Constitutional Amendment of 2010 embodied a major democratic step toward meaningful decentralization— however, the robust establishment of decentralized governance culture remains an ongoing and gradual process. Keywords: Decentralization; Federalism; Good Governance; Political Regime; Governance Introduction This study examines a comprehensive evaluation of decentralization in Pakistan. Although the discrepancy between federalism and decentralization is often nuanced and largely conceptual—offering limited practical divergence, it remains important to describe the two for analytical clarity. The concept of decentralization represents the practical realization of governance principles through the transfer of responsibilities and authority from higher levels of government to local or subordinate (Treisman, 2002; Schneider2003; Rabbani, 2011; Faguet, 2014). Where the term federalism refers to a procedure of governance based on foundational principles that harmonize and organize the distribution of power and responsibilities between the central governments and its constituent authorities, such as state or provincial governments A B S T R A C T http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 41 (Musgrave, 1971; Walsh, 1992; Super, 2004; Oates, 2008; Shahab, 2018). After the Second World War, decolonization process resulted in creation of newly independent states (Strang, 1990; Christopher, 2002). These states undertook varying degree of decentralisation reforms. Some state adopted federal form of decentralized governance in which power was constitutionally divided between centre and federating unites (Sarnoff, 1997; Bagchi, 2003). Other states adopted the system of governance of colonial powers, i.e., decentralization and devolution of powers within unitary state systems. The UN and donor agencies strongly supported decentralization reforms during this period. These reforms aimed at responding to ethnic, religious, or nationalist demands for autonomous regional self-government; supporting the development of democratic institutions; and for efficient and effective public service delivery (Romeo, 2003; Daughters, & Harper, 2007; Olowu, & Olowu, 2001). Decentralization reforms gained momentum after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Since then, there have been strong worldwide movements for democratic self-rule; decentralization of political, administrative and fiscal powers; and devolution for enhanced local-level participation (Ahmed, 2012; Obaoye, 2016; Blank, 2017). This trend of a ‘bottom-up approach’ to development owes its inspiration to the failure of the highly centralized governance system of the Communist states that were unable to provide equitable and sustainable development (Rose, 2009; Kaiser, 2020; Onwudiegwu, 2024). Due to the failure of the USSR, centralized political systems were no longer seen as a model of good governance. The governance system of liberal democracies which is based on the principle of decentralisation of powers was seen as triumphant. Decentralised political systems were increasingly regarded as a natural condition for democracy, freedom and thus sustainable growth and development. Scholarly works like The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama heralded the strength and efficiency of the triumphant liberal democratic governance. Western donor agencies and non-governmental organizations started supporting decentralisation reforms for development in third-world countries and newly independent Eastern European states. (Wolff, 2009; Weller, & Wolff, 2005) acknowledged the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 also led to the emergence of complex problems of ethno-religious conflicts in Eastern European countries. Since decentralisation of power leads to the provision of greater autonomy and self-governance of ethnic and religious identities, decentralisation was viewed as an effective means of conflict resolution in such countries. The intervention of decentralization was seen as important since it lessened the struggle for power by empowering every group within its own sphere and helping the diverse communities unite in a nation-state (Loh, 2017; Ahmed, 2012). In the 1990s, development experts also increasingly defined the concept of human development in terms of decentralisation. Decentralized governance was seen as a harbinger of human development (Klugman, 1994; Work, 2002; Bardhan, 2006). Thus, decentralisation became an important pillar of governance due to its ability to resolve conflicts between diverse ethnic/religious groups, address nationalist demands for autonomous regional self-government, ensure effective public services delivery, and guarantee human development (Crook, 2003; Yusoff et al. 2016; Keil, & Anderson, 2018). In the twenty-first century, decentralization has appeared as a significant pillar of http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 42 good governance, reflecting a robust and interdependent relationship between the two. Although decentralisation has become a prerequisite for good governance (Rosenau, 2009; Grindle, 2009). Governance in developing countries grapple with the concept of decentralising and deconcentrating powers at sub-state levels (Nadeem, 2016; Kgosinyane, 2024; Bosire, 2013). In the global North, the tradition of decentralisation and self-rule is rooted quite strongly. It is ironic to note that the unitary government of the UK has decentralised so much authority to its constituent units that the regional government of Scotland has even held a referendum to decide upon the question of secession from the union but in developing countries, even federal states still remain highly centralized, and voices for a high degree of decentralisation tantamount to treason. The developing countries have undertaken varying degrees of decentralisation reforms, often reluctantly and at the behest of the donor agencies. Overcoming the fear of fully empowering people and ensuring their participation in governance through decentralization is a major challenge for the developing world. Decentralisation, federalism and devolution lead to the transfer or sharing of authority and responsibility among institutions of governance at various levels. The relationship between these three interrelated concepts and their importance for good governance and conflict resolution between diverse ethno-religious identities will be critically evaluated in this research. This study systematically examines the interaction among decentralization, federalism, and devolution—within the framework of Pakistan democratic governance—analysing how these interlinked concepts impact the distribution of authorities and responsibility, institutional accountability, and interethnic cohesion. Review of Literature In recent years, there has been an extensive global emphasis on decentralization. Majority of developed countries are restructuring their intergovernmental fiscal structures to better align with the growing dynamics and challenges of the postwelfare state era (Bennett, 1990; Wildasin, 1997). Bird et al. (1995) and Oates, (1999) revealed that emerging economies in Eastern and Central Europe are actively remodeling new frameworks for local governance—intergovernmental fiscal relations, and the robust distribution of resources and administrative powers. A growing number of less developed nations are developing extensive models of fiscal decentralization as potential strategy of escaping from the traps of persistent challenges such as inefficient governance—macroeconomic instability and slow economic growth that hindered their progress in recent years (Bird & Vaillancourt, 1998; Smoke, 2001; Shah, 2004). The progress of decentralization is frequently perceived in extreme terms in developing countries—either as a universal remedy for systemic challenges or addition to their already burdened systems (Litvack et al. 1998; Bardhan, & Mookherjee, 2006). Beside this decentralization supported for various reasons—improved economic efficiency, strengthened accountability and enhancing resource mobilization. Mainstream economists generally drawn the fitting role of local governments in industrialized countries through the lens of decentralization—commonly referred to as fiscal federalism (Gadenne, & Singhal, 2014; Martinez-Vazquez, & Vaillancourt, 2011). Musgrave, & Musgrave, (1959) foundational model for decentralization, which http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 43 assigns the public sector three core functions—stabilization, distribution, and allocation—fiscal decentralization theory offers a framework for determining how these responsibilities should be divided across various tiers of government. Traditionally, the stabilization function has been entrusted to central governments— largely to prevent the difficulties that could arise if subnational governments were allowed to autonomously manage their own revenue systems (Gramlich, 1987; Tanzi, 1995). Fiscal federalism theory assigns the central government the primary role in managing distributional responsibilities and authorities. First, only the central governments possess— the capacity to transfer resources effectively from wealthy regions to those with fewer means. Second, allowing distinct local governments to implement separate redistribution policies could lead to economic distortions, especially when factors of production are mobile across region (Musgrave, 1961; Shah, 2007). Finally, the decentralized government play an important role in the allocation function—as the demand for public goods and services often varies across regions. A robust decentralization system boosts inclusive well-being by allowing society to select the combination of public goods and taxation that best reflects their local preferences. In the absence of market mechanisms or competitive pricing for public services, collective decision-making—primarily through voting—serves as the means of expressing community-wide demand. Within this framework, decentralization is valuable not only because it accommodates diverse local preferences but also because it aligns expenditure choices more closely with the actual resource costs in smaller jurisdictions. The scholarly work of Boeckenfoerde and Dann, Max Planck Manual on Different Forms of Decentralisation” provides an analysis of decentralisation and various systems of governance, like confederation, federalism and unitary system. The book of Cohen and Peterson Administrative Decentralization: Strategies for Developing Countries, provides a critical appraisal of decentralisation, its types, and hierarchal and functional distribution of powers between centre and constituent units. The three types of the administrative decentralisation, i.e., de-concentration, devolution, and delegation have also been discussed. Mao’s Federalism is the highest Form of Decentralisation was studied to understand the similarities between decentralisation and federalism and their importance for governance. Kauzya’s work, Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development, evaluates the relation between decentralization, democracy and development. To understand the constitutional framework of Pakistan and the division of powers, Khan’s Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan was studied. Some primary sources of data like legal documents consulted were, The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, The Government of India Act, 1935; the Local Government Ordinance, 2002 (Punjab), the Balochistan Local Government Bill of 2010; the Sindh Local Government Act of 2013; the Punjab Local Government Act of 2013, 2019 and 2022; and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act of 2013. http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 44 Theoretical Framework To examine the development and conceptualization of decentralization—tracing its evolution and classifying the key determinants behind its global prominence in Pakistan—specifically to differentiate between decentralization and federalism. This study constructed two theoretical frameworks namely— Riker’s theory of federalism and Ostrom’s polycentric framework. Riker’s Theory of Federalism Sixty years since its publication William Riker’s Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance (1964) remains one of the most influential volumes on the politics of federalism. According to Riker the term—Federalism denotes to an organization of political system in which governmental authority and responsibility shared and distributed between a central (national) government and regional or subnational governments. Each level of government holds independent controls within its own jurisdiction and retains the final decision-making authority over certain matters, ensuring a balance between unity at the center and diversity across regions (Riker, 1964; Volden, 2004; Riker, 2012). Based on this definition—Riker further seeks to elaborate how federal systems emerge. He identifies two crucial but not enough prerequisites for what he calls the “federal bargain”—the expansion condition and the military condition—each outlining the strategic settings that persuade the foundation of federal unions. 1. The political leaders recommending the federal bargain—driven by a desire to extend their territorial influence, often in response to an external military or diplomatic threat, or as preparation for future strategic expansion. However, their ambitions cannot be realized through direct conquest, either due to limited military capability or a prevailing ideological opposition to coercive expansion. 2. The political actors who agree to the federal bargain and surrender part of their autonomy in favor of forming a union do so primarily in response to external military or diplomatic pressures or opportunities. Their motivation often stems from a desire for collective security and protection against potential external threats (Deutsch, 1951). Ostrom’s polycentric framework of governance The Ostrom’s polycentric governance system refers to a procedure covering several self-governing centers of authority and decision making—each functioning autonomously yet harmonized through a shared network of formal institutions and informal norms that guide their interactions and collective outcomes (Ostrom et al. 1961; Ostrom et al. 1988; Ostrom & Ostrom, 2019). According to Ostrom overarching system of rules is essential because the actions of one decision-making centre frequently produce negative or positive spillover effects on others—despite these interdependencies, that various authorities remain distinct and autonomous— rather than merging into a single centralized authority—owing to institutional and strategic considerations that Favor decentralization (Aligica & Tarko, 2012; McGinnis et al. 2012). http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 45 Data and Methodology The research methodology adopted in this study is fundamentally descriptive and qualitative in nature, designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject through a critical synthesis of existing literature and documentary evidence. The study relies predominantly on secondary data sources, complemented by selected primary materials, to ensure both analytical depth and contextual accuracy. To achieve this, an extensive literature review was undertaken, drawing upon books, peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly reports, academic magazines, e-books, and credible web-based publications. Each source was critically examined to identify prevailing theoretical perspectives, methodological trends, and empirical findings relevant to the research objectives. This process allowed for the systematic comparison of arguments and interpretations, highlighting both consensus and divergence within the scholarly discourse. In addition to secondary data, primary sources—including official documents, legislative statutes, and institutional reports— were analyzed to establish an authentic legal and policy foundation for the study. These materials provided first-hand insights into the formal structures, regulatory mechanisms, and administrative practices underpinning the research context. Findings and Discussion Defining Decentralization There are several definitions of decentralisation. The degree and extent to which decentralisation has been adopted by various countries across the world varies greatly. There is no universally accepted definition or agreed-upon index of decentralisation. Sharma emphasizes on the importance of a comparative approach to decentralisation rather than a single definition or index. According to him, there is no consensus in the empirical literature over the degree of decentralization because it is measured differently, and hence, this concept can be understood only through a comprehensive approach (Sharma, 2004). Rondinelli and Cheema define decentralisation as transfer of authority from central government to the field units of its ministries, subordinate levels of government and semi-autonomous public authorities for planning, management, and resourceraising/allocation (Matovu, 2005). Ndegwa refers to decentralisation broadly as “…a process of transferring of public authority, resources, and personnel from the national level to sub-national jurisdictions and results into the formation of local governments” (Matovu, 2005). Rodden (2004) says that “Decentralisation is often viewed as a shift of authority towards local governments and away from central governments...”. Kauzya (2005) defines decentralisation as “a process through which powers, functions, responsibilities and resources are transferred from central to local governments and/or to other decentralized entities howsoever defined”. According to Paracha (2003) decentralized governance “increases the overall quality and effectiveness of the system of governance, while increasing the authority and capacities of sub-national levels. The UNDP (2007) approaches decentralisation as “restructuring of authority so that there is a system of co-responsibility between institutions of governance at the central, regional and local levels according to the principle of subsidiarity”. http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 46 An analysis of these definitions of decentralisation can be made through the following points: Decentralised governance is based on the principle of shared responsibility among institutions of governance at various levels; Decentralization is the transfer of power/authority from national/central/federal government to sub-national government/state government or local government; The entity to which such authority is transferred is often closer to the public and represents the local/regional aspirations better and thus can serve them well; Authority is transferred from higher authority to the lower so that the latter can perform some public service, which was previously being performed by the former. This is often done on the principle of subsidiarity, i.e., centre/higher authority should only have authority over public services that cannot be dealt with effectively on a lower level; while authority over execution of those public services, which can efficiently be managed by state or local authorities, should be devolved from the centre. Authority is usually transferred to a lower-level unit or an agency that is functionally more specialised and is well-suited to the service as compared to the higher-level unit; Decentralisation may also involve the transfer of authority to a private organization or agency; Decentralisation is not limited to transfer of political authority, but it also involves transfer of economic or fiscal authority; Decentralisation results in increasing efficiency of the governance system and the quality of services provided. Decentralisation is referred to as “transfer”, “shift”, “the restructuring or reorganization” of authority and “a process of transferring” authority; it can be inferred that decentralization is regarded as a ‘movement for change’ and a ‘comprehensive reforms programme’. Paracha (2003) provides a sampling of international experiences in decentralization. According to him, the pre-requisites for success of decentralisation are provisions of adequate administrative powers, financial resources, administrative capacity and reliable accountability mechanism to the decentralised bodies. Other conditions for success of decentralisation include: democratic system at central level of government before making decentralisation reforms, transfer of meaningful administrative and fiscal authority to local governments for improved service delivery, devolution based on the principle of subsidiarity, empowerment of citizens and their inclusion in the local-level decision making, and reforms in the structure of civil service. Perspectives on Decentralisation Advantages of decentralisation: The potential of decentralisation to shift the locus of power from centre to statelevel/local level results in inclusive and participatory decision-making. Decentralisation brings authority of decision-making and resources closer to public through local-level institutions and enables them to make informed choices for their betterment. When authority is devolved to the local level, responsiveness and accountability of governance improve. The spirit of self-governance, which is the http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 47 bedrock of democracy and freedom, is deeply imbibed in the process of decentralisation. When people are empowered to lead their lives according to their own choices, only then can they be free. Decentralisation is the institutionalisation of freedom and democracy, since it discourages personalised governance, deconcentrates power among multiple layers, ensures enhanced accountability and empowers people to formulate and implement policies at various levels. Decentralisation reforms are pro-poor since they result in redistribution of resources equitably; reduce the costs of service delivery and make services provide not only accessible but also responsive and efficient. Decentralisation establishes a link between the votes of people and the quality of service they are provided. Trust in governance is established only if people perceive a link between the taxes they pay and the benefits they derive. Decentralisation makes public services speedier, more efficient and responsive to the needs of citizens; improves economy by de-layering of the bureaucracy; and makes politicians more responsive and accountable to their electorate (Alam, 2004). Disadvantages of Decentralisation: Critics of decentralisation point towards the possible pitfalls of decentralisation. They argue that every scheme of decentralisation is not aimed at empowering people. Sometimes the decentralisation reforms are aimed at discrediting certain political actors while empowering another set of actors. Such alteration in the balance of power may not always be in the favour of citizens but might have ulterior motives, as is the case with many third-world countries where decentralisation reforms have been imposed by the centre for its own advantage and without demand or liking for it from the local levels. In some cases, decentralization reforms are introduced by the centre instead of demand from the lower tiers. The possible motives for such top-down approach that compel the centre to carry out decentralisation reform may include mustering local support to further political power at grassroots level, discrediting political parties by conducting non-party based elections at local levels, creating a political/electoral base for support in case such a base is missing previously, expecting aid from donor organisations or foreign governments for such reforms, appeasing foreign actors who favour decentralisation and/or attempting to obtain legitimacy at international and domestic fronts by adopting a rigorous programme of ambitious decentralisation reforms. Another serious issue is the factor of corruption involved in decentralisation programmes. A report of European Commission (2007, p. 8) notes, “Decentralisation is too costly a process (including a risk of fiscal indiscipline), so most countries (especially small ones) cannot afford it”. Since a lot of money is involved in the decentralisation schemes, therefore one of the motives behind carrying out decentralisation reforms might be financial embezzlement and corruption. Developing countries are poor and cannot afford such costly and ambitious programmes, but the monetary considerations involved in the scheme may serve as a lucrative incentive for the ruling elite which launches the programme. Moreover, funds might be misappropriated at the grassroots level by local elites, who are closer to the power brokers at the centre and who capture authority as a result of http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 48 decentralisation reforms at local levels. In some developing countries, it becomes a programme of decentralising corruption at the grassroots level. Noting the negative consequences of decentralisation on governance, Alam point towards the decisions that only benefit a minority of the population and wastage of resources on projects which are technically not feasible He also adds that decentralisation may ignore the fact that the capacity of the local government to plan and manage resources is inferior to the centre where specialised bodies for implementation of policies exist. Critical appraisal: For decentralisation to be successful, sincerity of the purpose is the prime condition. Without sincerity, any decentralisation reform is bound to produce negative results. The adverse effects, mentioned above, will occur only if the decentralisation process is triggered by ulterior motives and factors that have dishonesty at their root. Wellplanned and genuine decentralisation, which is carried out with honesty and after keeping in view the intricacies of the system within which it has to operate, will result in positive effects i.e., good governance and human development. Decentralisation, Federalism and Devolution Forms of Decentralization The concept of decentralisation describes political structures that distribute power territorially within a country. Decentralized states distribute governance in at least two levels (Boeckenfoerde et al., 2005). In confederations, federations and decentralised unitary states, for example, authority is divided in more than one tier of governance. Classification of decentralisation is very difficult, since the literature available about forms and types of decentralisations divide decentralisation into diverse categories. However, the frequently used classification is administrative, political, spatial, fiscal and market decentralization. There are four forms of decentralization: political, spatial, market, and administrative (Cohen et al., 1999). Political decentralization, according to them is transfer of authority to citizens, while administrative decentralization refers to functional division of authority between central and regional government tiers and cane be further divided into three types: Decentralization: transfer of authority to lower levels, which implement policy (e.g. ministerial field officers) under the jurisdictional authority of the centre that retains control over key tasks (e.g. ministries). Delegation: transfer of authority for carrying out clearly defined responsibilities from central government to semi-autonomous or autonomous organisations, e.g., stateowned industry. Devolution: refers to transfer of authority from central, federal or provincial governments to local-level governments. Decentralisation and Federalism The most important and highest form of decentralisation is considered to be federalism (Mao, 2010). Political Scientists often deal with the subjects of federalism and decentralisation separately. Federalism is not always classified as a type of decentralisation; instead, it is regarded as a philosophy in its own right. Whether federalism is believed to be a form of decentralisation or not, often a link is http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 55 always come to forth during military regimes. The military rulers have introduced these reforms to win the support of the masses and substitute the power of nationallevel politicians with local-level leadership. Unfortunately, as a result, the political parties have inherited a deep mistrust of the local government system which they see as a remnant of the military regimes and a rival political set-up to weaken their governance. Thus, the local governments exist in a legal and political vacuum despite national and provincial legislation. Due to this mistrust and the deeply embedded culture of centralisation of powers, the provincial governments have traditionally armtwisted elected representatives through civil servants. Decentralisation reforms in Pakistan have not been undertaken as a result of public demand but is triggered by international donors. The decentralization reforms in military regimes are criticized because they have led to further centralization. Devolution without provincial autonomy is not an effective decentralization strategy. During military regimes, powers of the provinces were devolved, while the federal government did not transfer any additional powers to the provinces, thus further hampering the authority of the provinces. For instance, in the decentralisation reforms introduced by President Musharraf in 2001, the provinces could not control the local government legislation because Local Governments Ordinances, 2001 were given constitutional protection. The five Ds under the decentralisation reforms of 2001 were: devolution of powers, decentralization of administrative authority, deconcentration of management functions, diffusion of power authority nexus and distribution of resources at different levels. In the decentralisation reforms of 2001, devolution took place just from the provincial governments to the local government, not from the federal government to provincial governments, which curtailed provincial autonomy. Such decentralisation reforms at the cost of the provincial autonomy and the federal-local government nexus in the form of constitutional protection led to centralization of the political system. After the 18th Amendment to the Constitution in 2010, provinces were empowered to establish local governments. Subsequently, 17 ministries were abolished at the federal level and devolved to provincial governments. The provinces carried out the following local government legislations: The Balochistan Local Government Bill of 2010; the Sindh Local Government Act of 2013; the Punjab Local Government Act of 2013, 2019 and 2022; and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act of 2013. Currently, all provinces have local governments with two or three tiers. The Election Commission of Pakistan conducts local bodies elections in Pakistan. Although the 18th amendment bill empowered provinces to establish local governments in 2010, elections did not take place for 4 years. Elections were finally held after the intervention of the Supreme Court. Table 4 Local Governments Under Civilian and Military Governments (19472022) Period Political Situation Remarks/Distinguishing feature  The Local Governments Ordinances 2001 were placed in Schedule Six and no item in Schedule Six can be amended without the prior approval of the President of Pakistan for Six years. http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 56 1947 – 1958 Interim Constitution, First Constituent Assembly Elected Before Partition, second one indirectly elected, no national elections, no attention to local governments Urban Councils and District Boards in rural areas continued according to the pre-independence colonial era British law. 1958 – 1969 Basic Democracy BD system substituted universal suffrage as it served as local bodies served as an electoral college for the election of the President. 1971 – 1976 First elected national / provincial government Despite promulgation of LG law, no elections held for LGs throughout this period and local bodies were managed through official administrators. 1977 – 1988 - LGs revived under provincial laws. 34 successful terms completed under this system. 1988 – 1999 Several elected political governments remained in power All elected LGs dismissed. New LG elections never held though announced and scheduled several times elections held in certain provinces in 1998, but representatives never assumed office. 1999 – 2009 Devolution of Power in 2001 Based on the principle of subsidiarity. Radical departure from all previous systems. Launched in pursuance of Structural Adjustment Programme of donors and to resuscitate collapsing service delivery system. Devolution accompanied by taxation, civil services and police reforms. 2010– Present Decentralisation under the 18th Amendment in 2010. Provincial autonomy and devolution of powers at local levels. 17 ministries were abolished at the federal level and devolved to provincial governments. The provinces carried out the following local government legislations: The Balochistan Local Government Bill of 2010; the Sindh Local Government Act of 2013; the Punjab Local Government Act of 2013, 2019 and 2022; and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act of 2013. Balochistan held elections from 2013-15 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh held elections in 2015. The latest elections under ECP in all the provinces, except Punjab, were held in 2021-2022. In Sindh, only the first phase of elections has been held. Decentralisation of political system is essential for Pakistan because it is home to numerous ethnicities. Only an effectively decentralised system of governance can ensure inclusion, empowerment and representation of this ethnic diversity. The best governance practices around the world shows that decentralise system of governance is best suited for countries with large population and area. Out of the ten largest http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 57 countries in the world (area-wise), eight are federations. It is important to note that the freedom movement for Pakistan was spearheaded by the provinces and regions that make up Pakistan today. It won’t be an exaggeration to state that Pakistan was created by provinces and states that voted to make a separate country. The federal government of Pakistan was created in 1947, but the provinces of Pakistan were established long before that. Hence, the provinces deserve adequate autonomy according to the best practices worldwide. The provinces have a distinct history, culture and identity which must be respected and preserved. Relegating them to mere weak administrative units, with nominal finances and autonomy is highly problematic and can create fissures that may turn into conflict in the long run. A strong and healthy state must have political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation and authority may be divided into multiple layers of government, each answerable to the electorate. Only in such a political system, diverse ethnic and religious groups can coexist peacefully. Failing to ensure decentralisation results in conflict and even the disintegration of a country. Conclusion The nature of polity around the world has seen transformational changes throughout the ages, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. Democracy is now widely recognized as the best political system, which empowers people, evenly distribute powers within a country, resolves conflict between various identities and is a vehicle of growth and prosperity. Decentralization is the cornerstone of a democratic order. A highly centralised country with no vertical or horizontal division of powers cannot qualify as a democracy. Decentralization is in essence a strategy to move a country from autocratic tendencies towards democratic dispensation. It distributes power systematically among different levels of governance in a manner in which all these levels are empowered to cater to the demands of their people. Federalism is akin to the highest possible manifestation of decentralization, while devolution is decentralisation at the lowest possible level of governance. Federalism decentralises powers between the national or federal government and its constituent units. Devolution transfers powers to the lowest possible tier of government in a country. Whether a country has a federal constitution or not, it needs decentralisation and devolution of authority to ensure good governance by empowering people. Apart from improving governance, decentralisation also results in human development and minimizes conflicts among diverse identities within a country. Policy Recommendations On the basis on the research findings, the following recommendations are put forth: Through a constitutional amendment, provinces may be allowed to have a role in amending the Constitution, so that in future the Constitution cannot be amended by the federal government to the disadvantage of provinces and the 18th amendment cannot be reversed. In order to ensure decentralisation in true spirit, the federal government and provinces need to hold timely elections for local governments in the federal capital and provinces respectively. Inter-governmental dispute resolution mechanisms in the federation should be strengthened by implementing their decisions in letter and spirit. http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 58 The resource allocation to decentralised local governments may be increased along with fiscal decentralization so that the local government institutions can become selfsufficient in the long run and not be dependent on grants from higher levels of government. It is important that there is a clear allocation of revenue streams for local level institutions that is commensurate with their responsibilities for service delivery. References Ahmed, T. (2012). Decentralization and the local state. Osman Gani of Agamee Prakashani, Dhaka, p-244. Alam, M. (2004). New Local Government Reforms in Pakistan – A Way Forward Towards Inducing Social Change.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280713165_New_Local_Go vernment_Reforms_in_Pakistan__A_Way_Forward_Towards_Inducing_Social_Change Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance, 25(2), 237-262. Alam, M. (2004). New Local Government Reforms in Pakistan – A Way Forward Towards Inducing Social Change.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280713165_New_Local_Go vernment_Reforms_in_Pakistan__A_Way_Forward_Towards_Inducing_Social_Change Bagchi, A. (2003). Rethinking federalism: changing power relations between the center and the states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 33(4), 21-42. Bardhan, P. (2006). Decentralization and development. Handbook of fiscal federalism. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 201-223. Bardhan, P., & Mookherjee, D. (Eds.). (2006). Decentralization and local governance in developing countries: A comparative perspective. MIT press. Bennett, Robert J., ed. (1990), Decentralisation, Local Governments and Markets, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bird, R. M., & Vaillancourt, F. (1998). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: an overview. Fiscal decentralization in developing countries, 1, 148. Bird, R. M., Ebel, R. D., & Wallich, C. (Eds.). (1995). Decentralization of the socialist state: Intergovernmental finance in transition economies. World Bank Publications. Blank, Y. (2017). The city and the world. In International legal personality (pp. 105170). Routledge. Boeckenfoerde, M., Philipp Dann, L., & Team, S. (2005). Max Planck Manual on Different Forms of Decentralization. http://www.mpil.de Bosire, C. M. (2013). Devolution for development, conflict resolution, and limiting central power: An analysis of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Christopher, A. J. (2002). Decolonisation without independence. GeoJournal, 56(3), 213-224. Cohen, J. M., Peterson, S. B., & Secretariat, UN. (1999). Administrative decentralization : https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/367115 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 59 Crook, R. C. (2003). Decentralization and good governance. Federalism in a changing world: Learning from each other, 299-333. Daughters, R., & Harper, L. (2007). Fiscal and political decentralization reforms. The state of state reform in Latin America, 213-261. Deutsch, K. W. (1951). Political community and the North Atlantic area. na. European Commission. (2007). Supporting Decentralisation and Local Governance in Third Countries. https://www.mendeley.com/referencemanager/reader/9ffe997d-e86f-37f3-a6ca-69dab0a481cc/450d13d9-fac6-c44927d3-086b8e33a4c2 Faguet, J. P. (2014). Decentralization and governance. World Development, 53, 2-13. Gadenne, L., & Singhal, M. (2014). Decentralization in developing economies. Annu. Rev. Econ., 6(1), 581-604. Gramlich, E. M. (1987). Federalism and federal deficit reduction. National tax journal, 40(3), 299-313. Grindle, M. S. (2009). Going local: decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Kaiser, M. S. (2020). Are bottom-up approaches in development more effective than top-down approaches? Journal of Asian Social Science Research, 2(1), 91109. Kauzya, J.-M. (2005). Decentralization: Prospects for Peace, Democracy and Development. www.unctad.org Keil, S., & Anderson, P. (2018). Decentralization as a tool for conflict resolution. In Handbook of territorial politics (pp. 89-104). Edward Elgar Publishing. Kgosinyane, P. G. (2024). Decoding the District Development Model to Understand Decentralised Governance in South Africa (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (South Africa)). Khan, A. (2005). Politics of Identity – Ethnic Nationalism and the State in Pakistan. New Delhi: Saga Publications. Klugman, J. (1994). Decentralisation: A survey of literature from a human development perspective. UNDP Human Development Report Office. Litvack, J. I., Ahmad, J., & Bird, R. M. (1998). Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. World Bank Publications. Loh, F. K. W. (2017). Ethnic diversity and the nation state: from centralization in the age of nationalism to decentralization amidst globalization. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 18(3), 414-432. Mao, N. (2010). What type of federalism does Uganda want? https://www.independent.co.ug/type-federalism-uganda-want/ Martinez-Vazquez, J., & Vaillancourt, F. (2011). Decentralization in developing countries. Global Perspectives on the Obstacles to Fiscal Devolution. Matovu, G. (2005). Decentralization in Africa: a Review of Patterns, Trends and Challenges. www.unctad.org McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2012). Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, public administration, and polycentricity. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 1525. Musgrave, R. A. (1961). Approaches to a fiscal theory of political federalism. In Public finances: Needs, sources, and utilization (pp. 97-134). Princeton http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 60 University Press. Musgrave, R. A. (1971). Economics of fiscal federalism. Nebraska Journal of Economics and Business, 3-13. Musgrave, R. A., & Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy (Vol. 658). New York: McGraw-Hill. Musoni, P. (2005). Decentralized Governance for Effective Grassroot Service Delivery: Rwanda’s Experience. www.unctad.org Nadeem, M. (2016). Analyzing good governance and decentralization in developing countries. Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs, 4(3), 209-220. Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of economic literature, 37(3), 1120-1149. Oates, W. E. (2008). On the evolution of fiscal federalism: Theory and institutions. National tax journal, 61(2), 313-334. Obaoye, O. S. (2016). Impact of Decentralization Reforms on Public Service Delivery at the Local Self-Government (Doctoral dissertation, Šiaulių universitetas.). Olowu, D., & Olowu, D. (2001). Decentralization policies and practices under structural adjustment and democratization in Africa. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Onwudiegwu, O. A. (2024). ACCELERATING NATION WIDE DEVELOPMENT VIA BOTTOM-UP APPROACH. Available at SSRN 4913140. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (2019). Public goods and public choices. In Alternatives for delivering public services (pp. 7-49). Routledge. Ostrom, V., Bish, R. L., & Ostrom, E. (1988). Local government in the United States. (No Title). Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. American political science review, 55(4), 831-842. Paracha, Abdullah S. (2003). Devolution Plan in Pakistan: Context, Implementation and Issues OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE Rabbani, M. R. (2011). A biography of Pakistani federalism: unity in diversity. (No Title). Riker, W. H. (1964). Federalism: Origin, operation, significance. (No Title). Riker, W. H. (2012). The development of American federalism. Springer Science & Business Media. Rizvi, H. A. (2006). Dynamics of Federalism in Pakistan: Current Challenges and Future Directions. PILDAT, Islamabad. Rodden, J. (2004). Comparative federalism and decentralization on meaning and measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172 Romeo, L. G. (2003). The role of external assistance in supporting decentralisation reform. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice, 23(1), 89-96. Rose, R. (2009). Understanding post-communist transformation: a bottom up approach. Routledge. Rosenau, J. N. (2009). Governance in the Twenty-first Century. In Palgrave advances in global governance (pp. 7-40). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Sarnoff, J. D. (1997). Cooperative Federalism, the Delegation of Federal Power, and http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Volume 3, Issue 11 (2025) Online ISSN Print ISSN . . 3007-3197 3007-3189 http://amresearchreview.com/index.php/Journal/about Page 61 the Constitution. ARIz. L. REv., 39, 205. Schneider, A. (2003). Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement. Studies in comparative international development, 38(3), 32-56. Shah, A. (2004). Fiscal decentralization in developing and transition economies: progress, problems, and the promise (Vol. 3282). World Bank Publications. Shah, A. (2006). Local Governance in Developing Countries. Local Governance in Developing Countries. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6565-6 Shah, A. (2007). Introduction: Principles of fiscal federalism. The practice of fiscal federalism: Comparative perspectives, 3-42. Shahab, N. B. (2018). Fiscal decentralization in Pakistan: past, present and future. Pakistan Administrative Review, 2(4), 357-372. Sharma, C. K. (2004). Decentralization Dilemma: Measuring the Degree and Evaluating the Outcomes. Indian Journal of Political Science , 1, 49–64. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/204/ Smoke, P. J. (2001). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries: A review of current concepts and practice. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Strang, D. (1990). From dependency to sovereignty: An event history analysis of decolonization 1870-1987. American Sociological Review, 846-860. Super, D. A. (2004). Rethinking fiscal federalism. Harv. L. Rev., 118, 2544. Tanzi, V. (1995). Review of some efficiency and macroeconomic aspects. In Annual World Bank conference on development economics. Treisman, D. (2002). Defining and measuring decentralization: a global perspective. Unpublished manuscript, 1-38. UN. (2018). SDG indicator metadata. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-05-05-01b.pdf Volden, C. (2004). Origin, operation, and significance: The federalism of William H. Riker. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 34(4), 89-108. Walsh, C. (1992). Fiscal federalism: an overview of issues and a discussion of their relevance to the European Community. Weller, M., & Wolff, S. (2005). Autonomy, Self Governance and Conflict Resolution: Innovative approaches to institutional design in divided societies. Routledge. Wildasin, D. E. (Ed.). (1997). Fiscal aspects of evolving federations. Cambridge University Press. Wolff, S. (2009). Complex power-sharing and the centrality of territorial selfgovernance in contemporary conflict settlements. Ethnopolitics, 8(1), 27-45. Work, R. (2002). Overview of decentralization worldwide: A stepping stone to improved governance and human development. Yusoff, M. A., Sarjoon, A., & Hassan, M. A. (2016). Decentralisation as a tool for ethnic diversity accommodation: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(1), 55-64.