PERVEZ MUSHARRAF

INTRODUCTION
As compared to GLA, the City District Government Karachi is a system of local government
which has a population of about 113 million (Sharif, 2007). It has a long history of Municipal
governance. It dates back its history to 1853 when Karachi Municipality came into being
through the Imperial Act 1850 (Siddique, 1995).
Afterwards, The Bombay District Act 1873 introduced the local government elections in
Karachi. (Jalil, 2007). It became Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) in 1933 under City
Municipal Amended Act 1933
Since then Karachi Municipal Corporation worked in democratic and undemocratic set ups.
Often, when the elected councils were dissolved, senior government officers were
appointed as Administrators for KMC.
In the year 2000, the new local government system was put in place which renamed the
KMC and it was called City District Government Karachi (CDGK) which is still in place.
The third and last phase of local government reforms took place in 2001, again by the
military dictator, General Pervaiz Musharaf, who like his predecessors, established local
government system in order to appease the masses so that he could continue with his rule
with out elected governments at provincial and central level.

This section gives an overview of the current decentralization reforms introduced as the
Devolution of Power Plan by General Pervaiz Musharraf in January 2000 and implemented
after a series of local government elections that ended by August 2001.
New administration structure of local government has been giving to the people on 23th march
2000. On this devolution plan some people circle has been criticize and some people circle has
been appreciated on this devolution plan .finally new administration structure has been came 14
august 2000.
According to devolution plan, local government administration has been divided in to three part.
Union administration
Town municipal administration
City district government

There are several aspects of the reform that are worth highlighting. First, in addition to devolving
administrative and expenditure responsibilities to local governments, the decentralization
involved, to differing degrees, changes in the administrative level of decision making, the
accountability of the decision making authority (political or bureaucratic) and the nature and
amount of fiscal resources available. In the devolution plan has been reduce voter age from 21
year to 18 year
Second, the decentralization process was not uniform across all functions, with significant
heterogeneity in its extent not only across administrative departments but also across services
within a department. Finally, the reform took place fairly rapidly and under military rule and
hence
at the time when no provincial and federal elected governments were in power. As a result its
implementation is still in a process of flux and is undergoing changes. While one can foresee
some of these changes, a note of caution needs to be raised in taking any description of the
current decentralization as final.
In accordance with the political structure of the local government, an administrative
structure has been proposed at all three main levels of the government namely, District,
Tehsil/Taluka and Union. The district administration is co-ordinated by a District Coordination Officers (DCO), and consists of up to twelve groups which are headed by the
Executive District Officers (EDOs). District officers are in charge of sub-offices at the District
Headquarter; While Deputy District Officers co-ordinate the work of the sub offices.
The Tehsil Nazim is the executive head of the Tehsil Government, while the Naib Tehsil
Nazim acts as the convener of the Tehsil Council. Under the Nazim there is a Tehsil
Municipal Officer (TMO). There are four Tehsil Officers (TOs) reporting to the TMO (Tehsil
municipal officer), for 1.Finance, Budget and account 2. Municipal Standards and coordination, 3. Land Use Control 4. Rural-Urban Planning.
The Union Council has up to three secretaries (Secretary Union Committees, Secretary
Municipal Functions and Secretary Community Development) who are under the executive
control of the Union Nazim.
The District Coordinating Officer (DCO) has replaced the former Deputy Commissioner
(DC) and as a result of decentralization /devolution of power reports to an elected person
i.e. District or Zila Nazim. Under the new system many legal powers of DCOs have been
curtailed which also include control on police. The DCO is the Accounting Officer for the
District thus has significant executive and managerial responsibilities.

INTRODUCTION
The local government system in London has seen many facets of changes in the last 200 years. The
especial attention it has received is mainly due to its importance being the countrys and worlds
commercial capital as well as world fame and its size. (To what

extent London should be called London, has always been very contentious That is why, The
Municipal Corporation Act 1835 was not imposed on London due to its inherent separate entity and
peculiar circumstances). The Royal Commission on Municipal Corporation 1837 discussed the
London issue as a special case. This report called for London to be dealt directly by the central
government (Byrne, 2000). The issue of how to govern London remained hotly debated and it
remained an unresolved issue until Metropolitan Local Management Act 1855 set up two tier system
for the governance of London.
The basic features of that system of local governance in London were as follows
An area of 75000 acres (whose population was 2.8 million then) was finally demarcated to be called
the London.
These vestries and district board along with the One Square Mile City were the lowest tiers. Their
responsibilities included sewerage and drainage, paving, lighting and street cleaning.
A new supreme body as the higher tier was Metropolitan Board of Works which had 45 indirectly
elected members. Its main functions were the controlling of main sewers through
out the London area. The other functions it took over included prevention of flood, fire services,
housing provision, building controls, street improvements and public health.
This system was inherently weak due to indirect elected members and the weak authoritative position
of the higher tier. The functioning of various adhoc bodies also blocked the independent working of
this Board
This situation called for some elected body to run the affairs of London. This resulted in the creation
of London County Council (LCC) in the year 1889 under the Local Government Act 1888. Since the
establishment of LCC, the local government administration of London was run by two tiers namely
LCC with the exclusion of the Square Mile/ Corporation of London, and its 32 London Boroughs.
This system replaced the Metropolitan Board of Works completely. Various adhoc bodies like
Metropolitan Asylum Board, the Boards of Guardian, the Metropolitan police, the Burial Board,
School Board and the Thames Conservancy Board continued to exist which marred the working of
LCC. Despite these odds, the working of LCC was remarkable and soon it got the stature of the only
representative local government of London. The Local Government Act of 1899 checked the
surmounting position of LCC and it envisaged the constitution of 28 boroughs and elimination of
vestries and parishes at the below tier. The boroughs were elected body and they were given
extensive powers to outweigh the
powers of LCC. The new set up gave some other responsibilities to LCC which included planning,
education welfare and health welfare etc.
LCC performed well on these fronts and it created the basis for the metropolitanism of London.
The Hubert Commission (1957-60) examined the London issue once again and recommended the
creation of a Greater London.
Council (GLC) over a wider area than the London County Council(History of GLA, 2007). Thus,
The London Government Act 1963 created GLC in 1965 along with 32 London Boroughs.

The new arrangements consisted of two tier system in which boroughs were assigned as much
powers as could be given which included housing, health, welfare, libraries and non-major roads.
The GLC had been bestowed with wider strategic functions like fire, ambulances, main roads and
refuse disposal. The GLC was also to make development plan to be executed by boroughs. GLC also
had the concurrent jurisdiction over housing, open spaces, sewerage and drainage especially when
these services had the inter-borough jurisdiction. The establishment of GLC was an introductory
effort of creating a strategic body which could work for the betterment of Greater London and the
execution could be
rested with other agency, i-e boroughs. This experiment led to the creation of a remarkable regional
authority which is known as Greater London Authority