Why Pakistan still lacks a real local government tier
Article 140A requires elected local governments with real authority. The writer argues power stopped at the provincial capitals instead -- leaving citizens with no one to call about the pothole outside their door.
- Publication
- Pakistan Observer
- Author
- Dr Zafar Khan Safdar
- Publication date
- 28 Jul 2026
Source citation: Dr Zafar Khan Safdar. “Local government: The missing tier.” Pakistan Observer, 28 Jul 2026.
Original article · Source clipping 7
Local government: The missing tier
By Dr Zafar Khan Safdar
Pakistan Observer · 28 Jul 2026
PAKISTAN suffers from a shortage of government where it matters most. Power remains concentrated in Islamabad and the provincial capitals, while the institutions closest to citizens are either weak, underfunded or simply absent. Pakistan continues to rely on a colonial administrative model to solve twenty-first-century problems, while the rest of the world has moved towards empowered mayors, professional city managers and accountable local councils. Pakistan has not. A broken streetlight, overflowing sewer, unsafe road, failing school or uncollected garbage should not require intervention from a provincial minister or distant bureaucracy. These are local problems demanding local solutions. Until power reaches the communities it is meant to serve, governance will remain slow, unresponsive and disconnected from the everyday lives of citizens. The 18th Constitutional Amendment fundamentally reshaped Pakistan’s federal structure. Combined with the 7th National Finance Commission Award, provinces received greater constitutional authority and 57.5 percent of the net proceeds of the divisible tax pool. The logic was compelling. Decisions taken closer to the people would produce better governance, greater accountability and more responsive public services.
Power moved from Islamabad to the provincial capitals, but it rarely moved beyond them. Instead of empowering districts and municipalities, the provinces became smaller versions of the federal government, concentrating authority within provincial secretariats while local governments remained weak, underfunded or altogether absent. The citizen experienced little real decentralization. Authority simply changed addresses. The reasons are primarily political. Provincial governments have little incentive to create strong local governments. Ministers and Members of Provincial Assemblies derive considerable influence from development funds, postings, transfers and local administrative decisions. A genuinely empowered mayor or district council would inevitably diminish that influence. No political elite willingly surrenders power that strengthens its electoral position. As a result, local government elections are repeatedly delayed, councils are dissolved before completing their terms and even elected local bodies are denied meaningful authority over education, health, policing, sanitation, transport, water supply and urban planning. Without genuine political, administrative and financial autonomy, local government remains more symbolic than substantive.
Article 140A requires provinces to establish elected local governments with political, administrative and financial authority. Yet successive provincial governments have largely ignored this constitutional mandate, perpetuating delayed elections, weak local institutions and centralized governance. Critics argue that local governments lack the capacity to govern effectively. Many councils undoubtedly need better-trained staff, stronger financial systems and improved planning. But capacity cannot be built by withholding responsibility. Institutions develop by exercising authority, learning from experience and being held accountable. Pakistan’s provinces themselves acquired administrative capacity only after assuming constitutional responsibility.
The world’s most successful democracies understand this. In the United States, elected mayors oversee key municipal services, including policing, sanitation, local roads, transport and emergency response. In Germany, municipalities enjoy constitutional protection and substantial financial autonomy. Across Scandinavia, local governments manage education, healthcare, elderly care and infrastructure with considerable independence. Despite their differences, these countries share one principle. The government closest to the people is responsible for the services people rely on every day. Pakistan, however, continues to govern neighbourhoods from provincial capitals located hundreds of kilometres away. No official sitting in a provincial capital, however competent, can fully understand the daily priorities of every union council, town, village or neighbourhood.
The consequences are visible across Pakistan. Urban planning is fragmented, encroachments multiply, waste collection is inconsistent, water supply systems fail, local roads deteriorate, schools and primary healthcare facilities struggle and parks fall into neglect. Citizens are forced to navigate multiple offices because responsibility is dispersed while authority remains centralized. Pakistan does not lack policies, legislation or reform plans. It lacks the institutional capacity to implement them. Bureaucracies operate in silos, coordination is weak and accountability is blurred across multiple layers of government.
The problem is compounded by the way development is financed. Much of Pakistan’s annual development spending is channelled through federal and provincial projects shaped by political priorities rather than local needs. Legislators should legislate, not build roads or distribute development schemes. Their responsibility is lawmaking and oversight, not municipal administration. Local infrastructure and public services should be planned and delivered by elected local governments through transparent, formula-based transfers. A capable state is measured not by the number of ministries it creates but by how effectively it delivers services. That is only possible when authority, responsibility and accountability rest with the institutions closest to the people.
Each tier of government should perform the functions it is best equipped to handle. The federation should focus on national security, foreign affairs, macroeconomic management, energy policy and inter-provincial coordination. Provinces should legislate, regulate, set standards and strengthen institutions. Local governments should deliver the services that shape citizens’ daily lives. Pakistan’s governance debate often revolves around personalities, political parties and constitutional amendments, but the real question is far simpler. Who should fix the broken road, provide clean drinking water, maintain schools and parks, collect waste and keep neighbourhoods functional? The answer cannot always be Islamabad or the provincial capitals. It lies where the people live. Until Pakistan trusts its citizens with genuine local self-government, it will continue to centralize authority while decentralizing blame. Strong local governments are not merely another tier of administration. They are the missing foundation of a capable state. Without them, Pakistan will continue to centralize power while decentralizing failure.
—The writer is PhD in Political Science, and visiting faculty at QAU Islamabad. ( [email protected] )
01 / The briefing
The writer argues Pakistan has a shortage of government precisely where it matters most to citizens: potholed streets, failing schools and uncollected garbage are local problems that keep landing on the desks of provincial ministers or distant bureaucracies instead of being resolved by an elected local council. Pakistan, the piece argues, still runs on a colonial-era administrative model even as other democracies have moved toward empowered mayors and accountable local government.
Article 140A of the Constitution requires provinces to establish elected local governments with real political, administrative and financial authority. The writer's central complaint is that successive provincial governments have largely ignored this mandate: local government elections are repeatedly delayed, councils are dissolved before finishing their terms, and even elected local bodies are denied meaningful authority. The 18th Amendment and the 7th NFC Award moved constitutional authority and 57.5 percent of the divisible tax pool to the provinces -- but that power, the writer argues, rarely moved beyond the provincial capitals to the local tier the Constitution actually requires.
The piece contrasts this with the US, Germany and Scandinavian countries, where elected local governments handle policing, sanitation, healthcare or education with real autonomy. It argues provincial reluctance is political -- local government authority would reduce the influence ministers and legislators draw from controlling development funds -- and concludes that a capable state is measured by how effectively it delivers services through the government tier closest to citizens, not by how many ministries it creates.
Why it matters
A clear, structured argument on decentralization, constitutional non-compliance and service delivery -- strong material for Pakistan Affairs, Governance & Public Policy and Public Administration answers on Article 140A, the 18th Amendment and local self-government.
02 / Key arguments
What should enter your answer?
- 1
Article 140A constitutionally requires elected local governments with real authority, but provinces have largely ignored this mandate.
- 2
Power devolved from the federation to the provinces under the 18th Amendment, but rarely moved further down to local government.
- 3
Provincial reluctance to empower local government is political: it would reduce the influence ministers and MPAs draw from controlling development funds.
- 4
International comparisons (US, Germany, Scandinavia) show elected local governments can hold real authority over daily services without weakening the state.
03 / Evidence desk
Facts worth retaining
- Article 140A
- Constitutional provision cited
- 57.5%
- Share of divisible tax pool to provinces (7th NFC Award)
- 18th Constitutional Amendment
- Key reform cited
- United States, Germany, Scandinavia
- Comparators cited
04 / Vocabulary
Use the language precisely
- Devolution
- The transfer of powers from a central or provincial government to lower levels of government.
- Constitutional mandate
- A requirement set out in a country's constitution that a government is legally obliged to fulfil.
- Formula-based transfer
- Funding allocated to local governments according to a fixed, transparent formula rather than political discretion.
- Municipal administration
- The day-to-day management of local services such as roads, sanitation and water supply.
05 / Syllabus map
06 / Think further
Questions for discussion
Why might provincial governments be reluctant to devolve real authority to local governments?
What does the article suggest is the practical cost to citizens of a missing local government tier?
How do the US, German and Scandinavian examples cited compare to Pakistan's local government structure?
Community comments will be enabled after moderation and reporting controls are ready.
More briefings
From recovery to resilience: what development looks like on the ground
Reading development results through institutions, access, livelihoods, and climate adaptation.
What South Asia's Gen Z protests mean for Pakistan
From exam-leak protests in India to government-toppling uprisings in Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, the writer reads a regional pattern of youth-led unrest -- and asks what it implies for Pakistan's own Gen Z population.
Reading Pakistan’s economic direction beyond the headline number
A guided reading of the Economic Survey’s growth story, sector mix, and policy trade-offs.