Decentralization and Devolution: Educational Implications of The

Decentralization and Devolution:

Educational Implications of the

Praetorian Interpretation

By

Baela Raza Jamil

Idara-e-Taleem-o-Aagahi Public Trust

September 2002

Decentralization and Devolution: Educational Implications of the

Praetorian Interpretation

Pakistan has a diverse ethnic population of 142 million people, with 32.2 percent people living below the poverty line (I-PRSP, 2001). It is a federation with four provinces and four federally administered territories[1]. For three decades the country experienced a process of increasing centralization in decision-making, resource management and service delivery. During that period, governments were set up under Islamic Socialism, martial law, experiments with democracy by eight governments, and another military take over. Democratic institutions and service delivery eroded at each reconstruction of the state. To offset poor governance, a process of devolution has been initiated through establishment of local governments across Pakistan. The principle of inclusion through political decentralization was meant to provide institutional entitlements for voice and action. Direct elections were held at the union council level (encompassing a population of 25,000, covering 5-7 villages or more settlements) in 2000 for 21 representatives. As the result of a countywide mobilization drive thirty-three percent seats were reserved for women, an unprecedented accomplishment in Pakistan’s history. In addition, six seats were set-aside for workers and peasants and one for a representative of a minority group.

The latest attempt at decentralized governance and local government has ironically been implemented under the supervision of the military, which abruptly ended civilian rule on October 12, 1999. In the enterprise of state survival, the military and bureaucracy have taken turns as major and minor partners (Siddiqui 2001). Seeking legitimation through local government has been a recurrent pattern adopted by the military, as evidenced in Pakistan’s history. In 1959, Field Marshall Ayub Khan passed the Basic Democracies Order for Local Government reforms, devolving representation to the village level to serve as an electoral college. In 1979 the local Government Ordinance was promulgated by General Zia ul Haq to activate local government. That moves followed Bhutto’s experiment with Islamic Socialism in which nationalization led to centralization and dilution of local councils. In 1999, the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) was set up as a central authority to formulate and implement devolution under the Local Government Plan (LGP). The NRB devised the Devolution Plan in 2000 and by August 2001 all district governments were in place, mediated by sub-district and union council teams and headed by district, sub-district and union council nazims (mayors). The LGP adhered to the principle of moving comprehensive authority to autonomous units as conceived by NRB.

It is within the framework of political decentralization that education decentralization is located. All modes of decentralization (deconcentration, delegation, devolution and privatization) currently operate within the devolution design under implementation. The praetorian initiative is not coincidental. The martial guardians have intervened four times since 1947 for prolonged periods, taking over civil society’s management and restructuring of the Republic of Pakistan for protection of its best interests. The praetorian imperative to bring civil order and reform logically flows from the military’s urgent need to seek legitimacy for intervention in dysfunctional democratic processes, where accountability had been severely undermined and policies had become anti-development and anti-people. The recent drive towards decentralization through a comprehensive devolution design has implications for efficient and equitable service delivery.

The decentralization story in Pakistan in its recent carnation is a complex one. It merits a narrative that locates the problem in a wider evolving political context. This chapter has five major sections. Section I covers the context for decentralization in Pakistan. Sections II highlight the key features of the Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005 and responses to devolution. Section IV, focuses on the emergent public private partnerships and the new policy environment to address equity. Finally, emerging mechanisms for financing decentralization are addressed in Section V.

I. Background: Contextualizing Decentralization in Pakistan

The need for decentralization in education was initially discussed as a strategy for meeting Education For All goals after the government of Pakistan sought recommendations from the UN Inter-Agency experts in 1995 (UN Mission 1995; PMSP, 1997; Department of Education, Punjab 2000). The UN Inter-Agency mission statement articulated the need for education reforms in this area and suggested:

Moving the organization and management structure of basic education from one of a highly centralized and government –managed operation to one that supports a true partnership of the government, communities, non-governmental organizations and private sector and brings more of the decision making to the schools/villages and the districts.

(UN Inter-Agency Mission, 1995, p. 2)

However, an institutional approach to administrative decentralization, as suggested by the UN Mission, was bypassed. Instead, the focus was on the creation of School Management Committees/PTAs for local governance in education at the school level. In some provinces, elaborate analyses of comprehensive decentralization were undertaken (NWFP and Punjab 1997; 1998). In Punjab, active measures for creating “district education authorities” were taken, but implementation was ad hoc (Department of Education, Government of Punjab, 1997 and 1999). The piecemeal interpretation of decentralization was clearly not sufficient to produce tangible results. Responsibility and authority were not always aligned and decision rights remained centralized at the provincial level.

Public sector shortfalls in education, in spite of 160,000 government institutions (ESR, 2002), led to the emergence of a robust private sector. It is estimated that the private sector provides 28 percent of all education in Pakistan, with this number rising to more than 40 percent in urban areas (World Bank, 2001; FBS, 2001). From a completely nationalized and closed system of 1970s, the government incrementally adopted a laissez faire approach towards private sector, NGO, and community initiatives. This provided multiple spaces to multiple partners. The stage has been set for various individuals and groups in Pakistan with a vested interest in education to form partnerships that address the delivery gap in education. The policy environment, emerging institutional arrangements, financing, and partnerships in education present a unique and comprehensive opportunity for education. Improving education service delivery is therefore one of the core objectives of this comprehensive exercise.

In Pakistan, the devolution exercise is underway against such a complex backdrop. The country has been engulfed in prolonged legitimacy and fiscal crises. These are embedded in the history of the state, which has in turn triggered the crises of democracy, participation and distribution (Ahmed, 1998). The current praetorian set up aims to put in place “good governance” and in turn create legitimacy for its actions.

There have been four broad responses to the multiple crises of the state which were initiated simultaneously soon after October 12, 1999. The four concurrent strands are:

1.  Economic revival through debt rescheduling, macro-economic reform, and accountability.

2.  Poverty alleviation as set out in the Interim Poverty Reduction Paper (I-PRSP). The strategies for achieving this include governance reforms, revival of the economy, asset creation, social safety nets, and improved human development.

3.  Good governance through social sector reforms, including the Education Sector Reforms (ESR) Action Plan 2001-2004.

4.  Political reform through devolution, as outlined in the Local Government Plan 2000, which calls for the devolution of decision making powers to local levels.

Handpicked task forces designed the above initiatives. These comprised of a cross-section of experts drawn from civil society and government in the last quarter of 1999. By 2001, these programs were fully integrated in the I-PRSP[2], which has become the macro policy, program performance and resource mobilization document for the Government of Pakistan.

II. Education Sector Reforms – Action Plan 2001-2004

The state of the provision of education in Pakistan has frequently been critiqued

in studies, surveys, and site reports. Those assessments emphasize that a lack of demand is not at issue; instead, problems relate to the sub-optimal quality and quantity of the education supplied (Kardar, 1996; Gazdar, 1999; Khan, et.al, 1999;MSU 2001). In December 1999, a National Education Advisory Board was created and given the responsibility of outlining measures for improving education at all levels. In July 2000, the Board presented a list of proposed education sector reforms to the President (then Chief Executive) as an action plan.

The Education Sector Reforms Action Plan 2001-2005 was designed through an inclusive strategy of mobilizing private sector and civil society partners, reinforcing the idea that the government should not serve as the sole provider of education. Contributions from these partners included innovative approaches and resources for meeting demands for public goods, such as, education, health, sanitation, and security. The ESR is an action plan rather than a new education policy[3]. It focuses on universal primary education, literacy, technical education at the secondary and post secondary levels, madrassahs (religious schools), higher education, and quality across all sectors. The plan is anchored in sector-wide framework, public-private partnerships (PPP), and poverty reduction through education entitlements. The Education Sector Reforms (ESR) highlights the state’s responsibility to reach out when private sector options are inaccessible to the poor. There is also an implicit acceptance “quality education for all” must be regarded as a fundamental human right.

All institutional and financial arrangements for implementation of the ESR must be negotiated within the recently installed devolution plan. The district governments, which have been in operation since August 14, 2001, are currently undergoing a transition phase, adjusting to new rules of business within district-based realities. The ESR programs pertaining to all sub-sectors up to the secondary and college levels must now be implemented through district government mechanisms. This is a radical shift from previous arrangements whereby all decision making was settled at provincial headquarters. Devolution thus carries major implications for education with new arrangements at national and sub-national levels.

Key institutional characteristics of devolution are outlined in the Local Government Plan 2000, with the legal operational framework. The four provinces also follow their own governance documents, called the Local Government Ordinances 2001, approved by their respective cabinets, which detail roles and responsibilities at all tiers. The devolution plan is a comprehensive attempt to restore legitimacy to the state through a bottom up system of governance by mobilizing civil society through direct elections at the union council level, the tier closest to the beneficiaries. It is conceived as a counterpoint to the colonial structures where bureaucracy and local governments were juxtaposed in an adversarial hierarchy.

The Local Government design is based on five fundamentals: Devolution of power, decentralization of administrative authority, deconcentration of management functions, diffusion of power-authority nexus, and distribution of resources to the district level. It is designed to ensure that the genuine interests of the people are served and their rights safeguarded. A coherent integration of these principles and application in various sectors is a major challenge. (NRB, 2000: 1)

Elections for local governments were undertaken from December 2000 and the process was completed in July 2001 in 97 districts. Councilors, nazims (mayors), and naib nazims (deputy mayors) have all been elected. In all districts, governments are now organized around political and administrative teams. According to the devolution manual, the Local Government Ordinance, and the District Rules of Business, each district is composed of eleven departments that function as separate entities. Each of these departments (including education, literacy, and information technology) is managed by an Executive District Officer (EDO). Like all EDOs, the EDO-Education’s line managers are, the District Coordination Office (DCO) as the direct administrative head and the district mayor or Nazim as the political head. The federally administered areas are awaiting devolution transformations. The EDO must also respond to the demands of his/her provincial line department manager, or the Secretary of Education.

Structures and Functions

Education decentralization in Pakistan is evolving as a negotiated and iterative process, aligned with new national directions. Decentralization, as stated earlier, is not merely confined to the education departments of the provinces and district governments but is part of macro level efforts for civil service and fiscal reform. Both personnel and resources have been devolved to the local level to improve decision-making. This exercise may be seen as a gigantic “architectural effort” of decentralization, whereby form must follow the function of people-centered development.

On January 24, 2002, the President of Pakistan, addressing the Pakistan Human Development Forum, expressed his political will for good governance and the role of education in national reconstruction. The President enunciated three gradations of change: improvement, reform and restructuring. Pakistan, he stated, has opted for the latter. He was categorical in his view that Pakistan’s future lies in its ability to restructure for human development, stating, “Human development is the anchor of my economic revival policy, which will focus on education, health, and poverty alleviation” (President of Pakistan, January 19, 2002).

The colonial administrative pyramid guided by the paradigm of bureaucratic control for managing dissent and mobilizing resources, consisted of well-structured geographical tiers. The colonial arrangements persisted for fifty-four years in Pakistan.

Figure I

Pre-Devolution –Administration Post –Devolution

Classical Pyramid Flattening

Federal Government

Federal

Province Provincial Government

“Division”

District

Tehsil/sub-district

“Markaz”

Union Council

PTAs/SMCs

As Figure I illustrates, the Local Government Plan 2000 for devolution eliminated “Division” and “Markaz” from the administrative hierarchy, mediating the tiers within the district by Village /Neighborhood Councils, Citizen Community Boards and PTAs/SMCs. Whilst the latter two are emerging and ongoing, the Village/Neighborhood councils have yet to be formed.

In 2000, the Ministry of Education (MOE) approached the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) with a list of concerns to be addressed in the devolution plan (MOE, 2000). That list included the following issues: protecting the budgets for education in district government; establishing mechanisms for implementing the Compulsory Primary Education Acts; integrating special needs within Education Departments; rethinking the separation of the education and literacy departments, and declaring the SMCs/PTAs as legal identities (MOE, 2000). Although not all of the proposals advocated by the MOE were adopted, some significant changes were made. For example, matters related to special needs were placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and the NRB agreed in principal to legally designate the SMCs/PTAs as Citizen Community Boards (CCBs). Some of the key contrasts between pre- and post-devolution structures are outlined below: