Pakistan’s debate on local government has reached a point where a familiar question is no longer enough: do we believe in devolution? Almost every political party says that it does. The more difficult question is this: why, after nearly a quarter-century of constitutional recognition, does meaningful local autonomy still depend so heavily on the willingness of a provincial government?

That question leads directly to Article 140A. Who designed it? Why was it written so broadly? Why did the Eighteenth Amendment, despite transforming Pakistan’s federal structure, not give local governments the same degree of constitutional protection that it gave the provinces? And why, in August 2025, did a private member’s bill return to Parliament proposing precisely the fiscal and institutional safeguards that the Constitution still lacks?

The historical answer requires an important distinction. The wider devolution system associated with General Pervez Musharraf was designed through the National Reconstruction Bureau, headed by Lt Gen (retd) Tanvir Naqvi. The NRB produced the Devolution Plan 2000, followed by the provincial Local Government Ordinances of 2001. Article 140A came later and was incorporated into the constitutional framework during the Musharraf period. So, if by “architect” we mean the operational model, the answer lies principally with the NRB under General Tanvir Naqvi. If we mean the constitutional insertion of Article 140A, it was a product of the Musharraf-era constitutional arrangements.

There is another qualification worth making. It was not Article 140A alone that made Musharraf-era devolution visible. The 2001 ordinances, administrative restructuring and the political authority of a centralised military regime enabled the provinces to operate a relatively uniform system. District governments, tehsil administrations and union councils were assigned functions, taxation powers and administrative structures under that framework. Yet the system also existed within an unelected federal order. That distinction matters when comparing constitutional principle with administrative delivery.

The real constitutional paradox arrived in 2010. The Eighteenth Amendment is associated with the restoration of parliamentary government and a major transfer of authority from the federation to the provinces. But its treatment of local government deserves closer examination. The amendment replaced the earlier Article 140A with a new Article 140A retaining the requirement that provinces establish local-government systems and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected representatives. It also added that........

© The Friday Times