The local government at Musakhel district comprises 10 union councils and one district council. The mandate of local councils is to address various socio-economic development issues on local level through need assessment, planning and implementation (see annex 4 for functions of local government). These local councils are supervised and supported by the Local Government and Rural Development Department through an Assistant Director at the district level. However, it is a common complaint that instead of working as an auxiliary organisation, LG&RDD plays a constrictive role in the affairs of the local government institutions by posing bureaucratic hurdles.

Local government institutions were constituted on the assumption that grassroots decision making and implementation for development could be ensured, but this ideal has not been realised. Although small communities elect their representatives at local level, participation of the common man in decision making process is minimal. After election, members of local councils rarely consult their voters on development issues. In practice, the appraisal of development potential and planning for the exploitation of this potential does not happen according to the bottom-up approach. Rather a top-down decision making and implementation approach is followed. This approach leaves no room for participation of local government institutions in development planning.

All the local government institutions in Balochistan have been dissolved on 18th of December 1996 for new elections in 1997. Now these institutions are working under the supervision of government officials.

The union council is the smallest local government institution. In Musakhel membership of union councils varies from 10-14 members. In addition, the elected councillors in every union council elect 2 women and one peasant representatives in their union council. There are 10 union councils in the district, a list of which is given in annex 1.

Ideally, a union council provides an opportunity for the people of rural areas to participate in decision making at micro level. It was assumed that a council of a small community will have better chances of grassroots appraisal of the people’s problems. Yet, in practice, chairmanship of union councils has become a status symbol. This has made this vital institution an aggregation of uninterested councillors under the chairmanship of a person with political motives. Distribution of zakat, prominence in the area, and small favours by public officials are some of the vested interests which attracts most of the people to the chairmanship of a union council.

The only income of the union councils is a regular grant of Rs. 18 thousand per annum from the provincial government. This small amount does not allow the union council to plan development strategies for the people in rural areas. The union council is not consulted in development planning for the rural areas. Usually, decision making follows top-down approach, therefore, nullifying the potential function of union councils.

As no tax culture prevails in Musakhel, union councils are helpless regarding development activities. According to the Treasury Office, cumulative income of a number union council decreased from Rs. 346,621 in 1994-95 to Rs. 216,399 in 1995-96. Surprisingly in the first financial year (1993-94) of Musakhel district, the union councils did well and earned Rs. 1,379,020 from octroi and other taxes. However, a continuous decrease in revenue could not be clarified. On the other hand, expenditure of the union councils, except for the year 1993-94, has been more than their income. The cumulative expenditure by all the union councils was Rs. 1,069,762 in 1993-94, Rs. 904,114 in 1994-95, and Rs. 865,289 in the financial year 1995-96.

At present (1997) there is no town committee in Musakhel.

At present (1997) there is no municipal committee in the district.

The district council Musakhel consists of 14 councillors, out of which 10 are elected directly (one from each of the 10 union councils) and 4 councillors, including 2 women, one peasant, and one labourer representatives, are elected by the elected councillors. The district council is primarily responsible for the overall development of rural areas of the district (detailed functions of the local government institutions are described in annex 4).

Since inception of the district, the district council has not received an Annual Development Plan (ADP). Financially speaking, the council has ever been in deficit balance. In 1993-94, it earned Rs.3,127,902 against expenditures of Rs.5,092,589. Its income was Rs. 217,068 against an expenditure of Rs. 2,431,086 in 1994-95. In the financial year 1995-96, expenditure of the district council decreased to Rs 634,959, while the income increased a little to Rs. 325,407. The highly fluctuating trend of the income of the council could indicate mismanagement in revenue collection. If appropriate funding and proper management of revenue collection is arranged, the council can achieve its mandatory goals.

Back to Musakhel