My cyber friend, Mayraj and I share the passion about integrated local governance. She has studied the European versions in some detail and I would like to share her findings herewith:
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:45:13 -0700
From: fmayraj@yahoo.com
Subject: Integrated government is good for where the chateau is located but not for Pakistanis
I find it ironic that President Zardari has a chateau in France, the country whose ambiance he enjoys is the fount and continued major venue of integrated governance-while he denies the same to the country he governs.
A little research would reveal the 3-tiered system the Indian colony got under Lord Ripon was first implemented in France in 1789! The British adopted it in the late 19th century, when the system they had wasn't working. But before they did they put in place a modified system in rural India. I have an article ( that I will finish drafting) which discusses how the British era has not helped the Indians evolve their local government. The Indians do want a local system. After all they believe they are a democracy and local government is its most basic form. But the actions and omissions of the British and then the actions and omissions of the Indians in the post-Independence era has meant that India suffers- while China develops from east to west using integrated local governance. India had plenty of time to do this and it had the advantage of having a prototype;but, they never understood what it was or what it should be or what they could do with it. It seems this characteristic is shared by the present leaders of Pakistan!
The French have all the forms present in other countries. The reason is that the weighting of the system they have meant they needed more integration. Unlike the Anglo version of the system, the weighting is not hierarchical. It was originally hour glass in shape and at the bottom level there were 40,000 + local units. So in 1890, they established interlocal cooperation bodies-these are now common in Europe. There still are over 35,000 local units at the commune (bottom level) [President Zardari as a property owner will have been in touch with his local commune.] Also, with suburbanization and the realization that Paris was becoming too dominant in the economy, they put in place regional bodies. With growth of urban regions other countries have started to follow the trend France established. [Most countries have urban systems. Only a few have rural systems and France is one of them.]
The fact that Pakistan's version never got a regional body meant that it remained more Anglo-centric. This is how the system should have evolved, if the political parties understood what they were beneficiaries of. When you don't have regions like the British still do there is lop sided development. In England's case there is a prosperous London linked southern part and a depressed northern rust belt section. The commissionerate system will only reinforce the imbalanced development in these provinces. [The state of the Sindh's cities and those of other provinces outside the one major city are appalling. They all needed a system like Karachi and because of resistance in the 2d Musharraf Govt from the politicians, this never came to pass.]
In UK, the British system is not productive. In 2004 (at the height of the City's prosperity), a govt funded report found that the richest cities in Europe were on the continent! London came 21st on the list, much to their shock! What was the Government's prescription: an elected mayor. [ That is not the right prescription for integrated systems;but, as most cities were not decentralized it didn't matter. ]Germany had the most representation, including the top 2! Germany is now developing regional bodies after seeing the great success of the Stuttgart Region (which had some admiring US government visitors which included the Obama administration). Three of its major cities have decentralized structures, including the largest:Berlin. Three of France's largest cities also have decentralized systems. Of these the smallest has only a population of less than half a million and a 9 borough system. Compare this to how many districts Karachi is being reduced to. It reveals a total lack of understanding of local governance needs. I should mention here that just after Pakistan's new system was being put in place, the 2d largest British city (with a population of 1 million) announced it was too big to be governed centrally and would be decentralized. It said it would permit decentralization to the neighborhood council level. I suppose those politicians who have home in UK and must have read this in the news, kept it to themselves!
Aside from China, continental Europe is the leading region for integrated governance. Major European cities have been decentralized since the 1980s. Canada has three provinces (those where most Canadian reside) that are leaders in North America and those with the oldest systems (that got their start in the 1950s and 1960s) have a record to demonstrate how they have benefited. A US magazine ( read by govt. officials) even had an article which revealed how one system in one of the provinces had benefited its region, while lack of integration had meant US side remains in a persistent state of depression.
I am sorry for Pakistanis that for them that civilian rule for them means none at the most intimate level, the one that is closest to the people. And even more that they get a system that even Lord Rippon in the 1800s said was inadequate.
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 07:45:13 -0700
From: fmayraj@yahoo.com
Subject: Integrated government is good for where the chateau is located but not for Pakistanis
I find it ironic that President Zardari has a chateau in France, the country whose ambiance he enjoys is the fount and continued major venue of integrated governance-while he denies the same to the country he governs.
A little research would reveal the 3-tiered system the Indian colony got under Lord Ripon was first implemented in France in 1789! The British adopted it in the late 19th century, when the system they had wasn't working. But before they did they put in place a modified system in rural India. I have an article ( that I will finish drafting) which discusses how the British era has not helped the Indians evolve their local government. The Indians do want a local system. After all they believe they are a democracy and local government is its most basic form. But the actions and omissions of the British and then the actions and omissions of the Indians in the post-Independence era has meant that India suffers- while China develops from east to west using integrated local governance. India had plenty of time to do this and it had the advantage of having a prototype;but, they never understood what it was or what it should be or what they could do with it. It seems this characteristic is shared by the present leaders of Pakistan!
The French have all the forms present in other countries. The reason is that the weighting of the system they have meant they needed more integration. Unlike the Anglo version of the system, the weighting is not hierarchical. It was originally hour glass in shape and at the bottom level there were 40,000 + local units. So in 1890, they established interlocal cooperation bodies-these are now common in Europe. There still are over 35,000 local units at the commune (bottom level) [President Zardari as a property owner will have been in touch with his local commune.] Also, with suburbanization and the realization that Paris was becoming too dominant in the economy, they put in place regional bodies. With growth of urban regions other countries have started to follow the trend France established. [Most countries have urban systems. Only a few have rural systems and France is one of them.]
The fact that Pakistan's version never got a regional body meant that it remained more Anglo-centric. This is how the system should have evolved, if the political parties understood what they were beneficiaries of. When you don't have regions like the British still do there is lop sided development. In England's case there is a prosperous London linked southern part and a depressed northern rust belt section. The commissionerate system will only reinforce the imbalanced development in these provinces. [The state of the Sindh's cities and those of other provinces outside the one major city are appalling. They all needed a system like Karachi and because of resistance in the 2d Musharraf Govt from the politicians, this never came to pass.]
In UK, the British system is not productive. In 2004 (at the height of the City's prosperity), a govt funded report found that the richest cities in Europe were on the continent! London came 21st on the list, much to their shock! What was the Government's prescription: an elected mayor. [ That is not the right prescription for integrated systems;but, as most cities were not decentralized it didn't matter. ]Germany had the most representation, including the top 2! Germany is now developing regional bodies after seeing the great success of the Stuttgart Region (which had some admiring US government visitors which included the Obama administration). Three of its major cities have decentralized structures, including the largest:Berlin. Three of France's largest cities also have decentralized systems. Of these the smallest has only a population of less than half a million and a 9 borough system. Compare this to how many districts Karachi is being reduced to. It reveals a total lack of understanding of local governance needs. I should mention here that just after Pakistan's new system was being put in place, the 2d largest British city (with a population of 1 million) announced it was too big to be governed centrally and would be decentralized. It said it would permit decentralization to the neighborhood council level. I suppose those politicians who have home in UK and must have read this in the news, kept it to themselves!
Aside from China, continental Europe is the leading region for integrated governance. Major European cities have been decentralized since the 1980s. Canada has three provinces (those where most Canadian reside) that are leaders in North America and those with the oldest systems (that got their start in the 1950s and 1960s) have a record to demonstrate how they have benefited. A US magazine ( read by govt. officials) even had an article which revealed how one system in one of the provinces had benefited its region, while lack of integration had meant US side remains in a persistent state of depression.
I am sorry for Pakistanis that for them that civilian rule for them means none at the most intimate level, the one that is closest to the people. And even more that they get a system that even Lord Rippon in the 1800s said was inadequate.
__._,_.___
