Pakistan holds national and provincial elections regularly, has a Constitution that explicitly requires local government, and has seen periodic local body elections since 2001. Yet the tier of government closest to ordinary people, the one meant to fix broken streetlights, run municipal water supply, and clear garbage  remains chronically weak, underfunded, and often simply absent. This gap helps explain a paradox many Pakistanis feel every day: the country has “democracy” in a formal sense, but very little of it shows up in daily services.

The Constitutional Promise: Article 140-A

The 18th Amendment of 2010 transferred major powers in areas such as education, health and agriculture from the federal government to the provinces, while Article 140-A required provinces to devolve political, administrative and financial authority to elected local governments. More than fifteen years later, this promise remains largely unmet. A 2026 Task Force on Reforms in Local Governance found that none of the provinces has implemented Article 140-A in a sustained and constitutionally compliant manner, citing parallel administrative structures, bureaucratic control over local affairs, the lack of guaranteed fiscal transfers and frequent changes to local government laws as major barriers to meaningful devolution. 

Devolution Stopped at the Provincial Capital

The core problem, as several commentators put it, is that devolution under the 18th Amendment travelled from Islamabad to the provinces and then stopped. One analysis notes that the 18th Amendment shifted substantial powers from federal government to the provinces and increased their share of federal revenue through the 7th National Finance Commission Award, but that this power did not consistently continue moving from provincial capitals down to cities, districts and neighbourhoods, calling it one of the great unfinished tasks of Pakistan’s federal system. Provinces, in other words, fought hard for autonomy from the centre but have been far less willing to extend the same autonomy downward to elected local bodies.

This pattern is not new. As far back as 2018, a Senate committee chaired by Senator Mir Kabeer Ahmad Muhammad Shahi found that provincial governments seemed the least interested of all stakeholders in implementing the 18th Amendment’s local government provisions, estimating that only about 10% of the devolution process had been completed at that point. 

Why Provinces Resist Empowering Local Governments

Several structural incentives push provincial governments to keep local bodies weak:

• Political competition. Strong, empowered local governments can become independent centres of political power that threaten the patronage networks of provincial elites  which is one reason, according to research from the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, that provinces such as Punjab have repeatedly postponed local government elections, citing legislative amendments and procedural concerns, leaving the Election Commission of Pakistan unable to proceed.
• Control over development funds Members of national and provincial assemblies have little incentive to support local body elections, since a strong local government would divert development funds and visibility away from them, while chief ministers may gain more political benefit from spending on provincial capitals than on distant districts. 
• Loose constitutional wording. Article 140-A itself grants provinces significant discretion in defining and modifying local government structures, which  as the Sustainable Development Policy Institute research notes enables delay and manipulation without real consequence.

A Patchwork Across Provinces

The result is a fragmented, inconsistent system rather than a uniform one. According to one recent overview, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has made relative progress with directly elected mayors and village councils under its 2013 Local Government Act, though its fiscal autonomy is still constrained; Punjab has cycled through repeated amendments, suspensions and election delays; and Sindh and Balochistan lag furthest behind, with Sindh’s 2013 Local Government Act criticised for centralising power with the provincial government and leaving local bodies largely toothless.

What This Means for Everyday Services/How does weak local government affect the services people experience in their daily lives? 

Nowhere is the cost more visible than in Pakistan’s largest cities. In cities such as Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Peshawar, Quetta, Rawalpindi and Multan, local governments operate within systems where significant administrative and financial authority remains at the provincial level. Karachi’s fragmented governance structure and Lahore’s reduced metropolitan powers illustrate the broader challenge of giving cities sufficient authority to manage their own affairs.

Turkey provides a useful comparison. Its local government system operates within a common national legal framework, with municipalities assigned defined responsibilities for local services and metropolitan municipalities responsible for services in major urban areas. Local elections are held every five years. Pakistan, by contrast, has different local government structures across provinces, and the extent of local governments’ administrative and financial authority varies. The comparison highlights the importance of not only holding local elections but also providing local governments with clearly defined responsibilities, predictable resources and sufficient administrative authority to manage local services.

Weak local government can also affect the delivery of education, health and other basic services, although these outcomes are shaped by many factors beyond local governance. Problems such as unsafe school buildings, inadequate sanitation facilities, teacher absenteeism and limited community participation are often experienced at the local level, where effective local institutions can play a role in coordinating and monitoring services. In rural Sindh, a World Bank assessment identified weak local capacity and limited community oversight among factors affecting education service delivery. A Punjab district-level study also found an association between fiscal decentralization and higher primary-school enrolment, suggesting that the availability of resources at the local level can matter for service outcomes.

Conclusion 

Pakistan’s local government problem is not simply a lack of institutions, but a lack of meaningful devolution. Much of the political, administrative and financial power remains concentrated at the provincial level, leaving local governments with limited authority and resources to respond to citizens’ everyday needs. Without stronger local institutions, predictable funding and clearly defined responsibilities, democracy will continue to feel distant from the people it is meant to serve. Strengthening local governments is therefore essential to making governance more accountable, responsive and effective at the level where citizens experience it most directly. 

About the Author:

Ayesha Saleem is Program Associate at Accountability Lab Pakistan and can be reached at ayesha@accountabilitylab.org