Democracy Denied at the Grassroots

By Muhammad Imran, Staff Member, SAHSOL-LUMS Maria Batool, SAHSOL Alumni, 2025 Muhammad Ameer Hamza, Final Year Law Student, SLC

Political parties demand electoral legitimacy to govern provinces, yet local democracy remains expendable when it threatens the concentration of power.

The Election Commission of Pakistan’s (ECP) rejection of the Punjab government’s proposal to postpone local government elections until April 2027 is a timely reminder that constitutional obligations cannot be subordinated indefinitely to administrative convenience. After years without elected local councils, Punjab’s citizens are once again being asked to wait. The government cites smog, fog, winter conditions, and Ramazan as reasons for postponement. Yet these circumstances were foreseeable when the provincial administration agreed to a December 15–January 15 electoral window in August. The more troubling question is why a government that derives its authority from elections appears reluctant to extend the same democratic principle to the grassroots.

Punjab’s local government elections were last held in 2015, with elected councils assuming office in 2017. Their terms expired on December 31, 2021, and elections were due by April 2022. Since then, legislative changes, administrative delays, and repeated revisions to the electoral framework have prolonged the absence of elected local institutions. The ECP’s decision to proceed with the electoral schedule is therefore more than a procedural development; it is a test of whether constitutional democracy can operate beyond the provincial assembly.

The problem, however, extends beyond Punjab or any single political party. Pakistan’s political parties have repeatedly demonstrated an apparent asymmetry in their commitment to electoral democracy. They insist on the sanctity of the ballot when contesting national and provincial elections, yet the establishment of local governments has too often become negotiable once they assume office. This recurring pattern raises an uncomfortable question: do political parties regard democracy as a constitutional principle to be practised at every level, or primarily as a mechanism for acquiring power at the top?

The institutional consequences are significant. An elected mayor or local council, armed with a popular mandate, a predictable budget and meaningful administrative authority, can become an independent centre of political accountability. It can question provincial priorities, expose deficiencies in public services and demand resources for neglected communities. Unelected administrators, by contrast, remain within the provincial executive hierarchy. Their professional expertise may be valuable, but they cannot provide the direct electoral accountability that representative institutions are designed to ensure.

It would be simplistic to attribute every delay to a deliberate attempt to suppress political competition. Administrative difficulties, electoral delimitation, and changes in legislation can create genuine obstacles. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of prolonged postponement is unmistakable: power remains concentrated in the provincial executive, while citizens lose an accessible and elected forum through which to influence decisions affecting their daily lives. Whatever the explanations offered, the democratic deficit persists.

The Constitution provides a clear answer to this institutional problem. Article 140A requires each province to establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected representatives. Article 140A (2) entrusts the ECP with conducting local government elections. Article 32 further directs the state to encourage local government institutions composed of elected representatives. These provisions cannot reasonably be interpreted as permitting provincial governments to hold elections only when politically or administratively convenient.

The Supreme Court has reinforced this constitutional position. In Asad Ali Khan v Province of Punjab (PLD 2021 SC 770), the Court declared the premature dissolution of Punjab’s elected local governments unconstitutional. The judgment affirmed that elected councils cannot simply be dismantled before the expiry of their legally prescribed tenure at the discretion of a provincial government. In M.Q.M. (Pakistan) v Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 439), the Court underscored the importance of meaningful devolution under Article 140A, particularly in the context of urban governance and the allocation of powers between municipal institutions and provincial authorities. Together, these decisions reinforce a fundamental principle: local government must be a substantive constitutional institution, not a temporary arrangement dependent on the preferences of the party in power.

The ECP’s role is equally important. In Election Commission of Pakistan v Province of Punjab (PLD 2014 SC 463), the Supreme Court addressed the Commission’s constitutional responsibilities in the electoral process. The constitutional framework does not envisage an election commission indefinitely waiting for provincial administrations to resolve their political or administrative reservations. Provincial cooperation is necessary, but it cannot become a means of indefinitely frustrating the constitutional requirement of elected local government.

The implications extend directly to development. Sanitation, drainage, water supply, street lighting, local roads and municipal planning are not marginal administrative concerns; they shape the quality of everyday life. Effective local institutions can identify community needs more accurately, allocate resources more responsively and enable residents to hold identifiable representatives accountable for public expenditure. Where responsibilities have been devolved, local governments can also contribute to the delivery of essential social services.

But elections alone will not suffice. A council without control over its funds, personnel or legally assigned functions is democratic in form but powerless in practice. Provincial governments must therefore do more than announce electoral schedules. They must establish predictable fiscal transfers, provide administrative capacity and protect elected councils from arbitrary dissolution or the repeated restructuring of their institutional arrangements. Devolution must involve the transfer of real authority, accompanied by transparent budgeting, independent audit and public accountability.

The debate over creating additional provinces should be considered in the same context. Smaller administrative units may offer certain governance advantages, but redrawing provincial boundaries will not automatically dismantle centralisation. New provinces could reproduce the same concentration of authority if power continues to be withheld from elected local institutions. The more immediate constitutional task is to make existing local governments work.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s democratic deficit is not simply a failure to hold elections; it is a failure to distribute power. Political parties cannot credibly invoke representative government while allowing the grassroots tier to remain unrepresented. The ECP must proceed within its constitutional mandate, provincial governments must fulfil their obligations, and local councils must receive the resources and authority necessary to govern effectively.

Lord Rippon in 1882 said that local government is the school of democracy, but unfortunately political parties did not allow this school of democracy. Further, in the entire history of Pakistan, the local body elections were held under military governments and civilian governments conducted on the direction of the Supreme Court. A democracy is tested not only by how its rulers acquire power, but also by whether they are willing to share it. Punjab’s prolonged local government vacuum exposes the distance between constitutional promise and political practice. Until elected local institutions are restored and empowered, democracy will remain incomplete, development will remain excessively centralized, and citizens will continue to bear the cost of a political system that too often speaks of devolution while retaining power at the top.