Potential for systematising basic services

The term “basic services” can mean different things in different locations and also has much in common across locations. Depending on the legal framework and available resources, basic services could include aspects of education, health care, drinking water, sanitation, solid waste management, irrigation, agricultural and livestock extension, forest and wildlife management, parks and playgrounds, pollution control, zoning, environmental management, disaster management, cultural activities, sports, shelters for vulnerable people, dispute resolution, law enforcement, traffic management, roads, public transport, electricity and even large airports. The focus here is on public goods and services that can be financed and managed at the local (district, city and lower) level with state and other resources within the prevailing legal framework. Most of these goods and services are generally provided on a non-profit or subsidised basis.

If laws permit, and there is a realistic business case, any district or city can access the resources required to provide any of the basic services at any level of sophistication (the Sialkot international airport was constructed by private exporters). There is willingness to pay among service users in the country, provided the service delivers what they are paying for; and there is willingness to contribute among national and international entities (investors, lenders, philanthropists and donors), provided the venture is sound and transparent. Moreover, a local entity aiming to organise a service has access to the same human resources as a centralised one, the same serving and retired planners, managers, technical and social experts, teachers, health personnel, lawyers, judges and so on that are available in the country, and additional expertise is available from other countries. Resources gravitate towards sound ventures, and there is no inherent resource constraint on local action.

Voluntary local partnerships could enable the provision of basic services and provide the basis for reform. The state could be a pivotal partner for two reasons. One, the state has to ensure basic services for citizens in one way or another, and the abdication of this responsibility is the negation of statehood, with all its consequences for state and society. Two, the state is the biggest repository of expertise for these services, which makes it a potentially valuable resource for other partners throughout the country. The state’s human aspect, however, has many faces. For example, at every level of the system, there are some who stand out for their service orientation and others who are consumed by corruption and their patronage networks. Some district administrations may behave as virtual fiefdoms of their masters, and in others entire departments may be dominated by patronage, with the staff interested mainly in their pay cheques and illegal earning.

The frontline functionaries are the human face of the state for most of its citizens. These are the clerical staff, extension agents, health workers, school teachers, police staff, various maintenance and beat workers and similar personnel, whose potential varies from one province to another and often from one department to another within the province. Those among them who wish to serve the public are often unable to do much: their organisational culture is indifferent to public service, and the state does not have the money to give them adequate operational resources. It is possible, however, to engage the willing, whether they are frontline functionaries, heads of department or provincial ministers. Sometimes, a provincial minister, with the understanding of the chief minister, can make or break a department, and just two or three officials, including the secretary, can give direction to an entire department.

It is possible for a few informed individuals in a city, district or sub-district to get together and identify those in government, the private sector and civil society who work within the law and try to help citizens without partisan, proselytising or ulterior motives. Depending on an assessment of who is willing and who is not, methods can be found for working both with and without the state in organising basic services. Those who get together to organise local initiatives need to keep in mind not only the citizens’ needs but also the chances of succeeding in a given administrative context. Unlike organs of the state, voluntary initiatives cannot compel or induce centralised bureaucracies to change: they can only demonstrate alternatives that work.

In general, it is preferable to work with relevant government departments, if the intention is to create ownership for service delivery and a basis for reform, but this is not always possible. Alternatives are available, and all that the willing can to do is to demonstrate them and help the people, their leaders and service providers to learn from what they see. This is a practical and non-confrontational basis for change. The next article will illustrate the kind of policy reform that also needs to be advocated from local levels to provincial decision makers.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.