THIS is apropos of two articles on devolution by Lt Gen (Rtd) Tanwir Naqvi (Aug 10 and 11). He is considered to be the author of the most controversial law of Pakistan: the Local Government Ordinance 2001.

Ironically, the general has not realised even after a lapse of 10 years that the system implemented through an Ordinance in 2001 has created a huge divide in the nation. Drafting of this piece of a contentious law cost billions of rupees to the public exchequer. However, it has never been accepted by the nation. The recent report of the Auditor General is evidence that hundreds of billions were spent outside the net of the audit.

So-called provision for keeping local governments apolitical fell flat when all nazims were Q-legalised for referendum and the election in 2002 to perpetuate a dictatorial rule. All this happened because the LGO 2001 did not provide any workable system of accountability.

The 2001 system also created a serious rift between provincial and local governments. The premise of a deputy commissioner controlling local governments is totally incorrect. After the 1979 law, they had no powers in the regime of district councils or municipal bodies.

One major flaw of the 2001 law was the merger of the district and land revenue administration with municipal functions and local or regional development.

Devolution of judicial functions under the Revenue Act to officers of district governments under political nazims has played havoc with the rights of litigants, public properties, amenity lands and provincial or state lands. These officers adjudicated land matters on the wishes of their nazims for protecting their posts.

Most of the mazims used these officers to settle their political scores by victimising their opponents.

This law is also a major reason for continued political destabilisation in Karachi.

Given political and social circumstances, it would be appropriate to have a system that empowers the community and their elected representatives within the laws enacted by the legislature and without much provincial interference, in managing local and municipal affairs, planning and executing the schemes for local and regional development, managing their properties for public amenity and delivering basic services like health, education, water and sanitation.

All provincial functions should remain with the provinces and all judicial functions should be performed independently in a just manner.

However, to ensure the participation of all stakeholders and for smooth transition it should be done in a manner as if devolution had occurred from the centre to the provinces.

OSAMA KAZI Naushero Feroze