Devolution under autocracy: evidence from Pakistan

Abstract

Authoritarian regimes often direct the course of electoral politics in ways that allow them to concentrate and consolidate power. This observation applies well to Pakistan and its three autocratic regimes under military rulers General Ayub Khan (1958-69), Zia-ul-Haq (1977-88), and General Parvez Musharraf (1999-2008. The political reforms enacted by Zia-ul-Haq, his devolution programme, and his mode of channelling development funds via elected politicians exerted an enduring impact on the country's political system. Specifically, we argue that institutional changes under Zia's regime have stimulated the rise of family politics in replacement of party politics, resulting in the formation and consolidation of political dynasties. They have also contributed to the capture of local bureaucracy by elected politicians thereby entrenching clientelism.

Institutional Challenges at the Early Stages of Development

“…Thus, serious dysfunction of the state apparatus may arise from tensions or contradictions that may come from a variety of different sources: between a government and its administration, between various departments or levels of the bureaucracy, between various political interest groups, or between appointed and elected leaders (say, between district officers and elected councillors). Note that the latter tensions may actually be ignited and nurtured by holders of central power who are eager to 'divide to rule' (for a vivid application of this argument in relation to Pakistan, see Cheema et al, 2005;Malik et al, 2022). Technically, whatever the source of misalignment, the problem can often be framed as one of multiple principals with conflicting interests (Dixit, 1996(Dixit, , 2002Martimort, 1996;Bolton and Dewatripont, 2005: Chap.…”

“…Under his watch, the administration thus became highly politicised. Also worth singling out are Zia's pandering to emerging business elites constituted as political families ready to play by the new rules of the political game, as well as the Islamisation at his behest of the administration, the army (and the intelligence services), the judiciary, and the education sector (Malik et al, 2022). All these steps meant that, in spite of indisputable economic accomplishments -he oversaw the highest GDP growth in the country's history -Zia deeply undermined key Pakistani institutions with ominous long-term consequences (Cheema et al, 2005;Platteau, 2017: 217-23).…”