Democratic Governance stands as one of the main themes for SAP-Pk in view of the deprivations of Pakistani citizens and its significance in their lives from every aspect.
Governance in Pakistan is largely centralized in pattern and practice, and - on account of this attribute - it is oppressive and unresponsive towards the varied and complex social, political, economic and cultural needs of the citizens. It demonstrates many shades while dwindling between virtually-presidential and the parliamentary form; with military establishment either on the back or up-front; with lesser willingness to deliver always. In 1999, it again became domain of the Pakistani military. General Pervaiz Musharaf took the office as Chief Executive and introduced a system of local government in 2000 on non-party basis, for introducing political, economic and administrative reforms in Pakistan.

The system of local governance in Pakistan casts far reaching impacts. These impacts are both positive and negative as we take a detached view of its performance and possibilities that it entails. For instance, despite its being widely criticized for administrative implications it rendered, it generally welcomes the participation of religious minorities and nearly 80,000 local representatives, including 33 % women, in showing political interface as well as acquiring some control on resources. Similarly, it creates some space for general people to form their groups and participate in matters affecting their lives and, through forming Citizens' Community Boards (CCBs), implement need-based local development projects. Undeniably, this scenario draws people into a new frame of governance. They are now dealing with general councilors and councilors who represent religious minorities, women, peasants/workers, nazims and naib Nazims; all of whom spread across the union, tehsil, district councils; various committees and sub-committees. They are now forming CCBs and trying to implement development schemes.

But there are various challenges for everyone in this system, too. For instance, the system of local government itself has been quite fluid so far. The Local Government Ordinance which appeared in 2001 remains under a constant review, and it is becoming no better with changes taking place ever since on the behest of power groups. At this point of time, the tussle of power between local governments and the provincial governments seems to halt as Chief Minister of a province acquires authority of sending a Nazim back home on the charge of 'poor REFLECTION 2006 SOUTH ASIA PARTNERSHIP PAKISTAN PAGE 14 performance'. Now giving direct power the Chief Minister to replace head of the local government flouts the very idea of the 'devolution of power'. The article 35, 36 and 37 of the Local Government Ordinance draw our attention to yet other incompetencies of the authors and the implementers of the system that the institution of the Ombudsmen and system of transparency and access to information, all at the district level, are still the denied fruits.

Similarly, another challenge with this system has been that despite its being in place for seven years now, the elected officials are still unclear about their roles as prescribed under it. Many of them continue to ignore aspirations of the people while setting the development priorities and then go unnoticed because people are unaware about the role of the local government and there is no system in place to educate them about it. It is therefore very interesting to note that every thing is taking place around people without their knowledge. Therefore, to build governance on a democratic paradigm certainly involves challenges galore. It involves education of the people about their legal and constitutional rights in the first place; rekindling of the will of the people so they become politically alive and heard in the second place, and, last but not least, enabling of the political representatives and state officials so that they deliver and be accountable.