Pakistan’s fight against terrorism and extremism is often centered around military operations and intelligence-based policing. However, an often-overlooked but crucial factor is local governance—specifically, a well-functioning, administratively and fiscally independent local bodies system.
There is ample evidence from across the country pointing towards the benefits of decentralization. Local governments not only enhance service delivery, they are also very effective in addressing minority concerns and facilitating peaceful conflict resolutions through community engagement and inclusive governance. Unfortunately, there seems to be no tangible plan or motivation within the corridors of power to move in this direction, and thus the entire nation suffers.
Local governments could be an astute solution to a very pertinent problem. In recent years, Pakistan has witnessed a troubling resurgence in terrorism. The Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies reported over 800 militant attacks in 2024, resulting in more than 1,100 deaths and 1,200 injuries. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan have been particularly affected. The former experienced 308 attacks with 331 fatalities and 244 injuries, and the latter witnessed 293 attacks with 404 fatalities and 569 injuries.
Why do we need a well-functioning local body system to counter extremism in Pakistan? Take the example of one of the most notable terror attacks from 2024, where gunmen targeted a convoy of Shia Muslims in the Kurram District, killing at least 54 and injuring 86. This attack intensified existing ethnic tensions in the region, leading to further retaliatory violence that claimed more lives and closure of the main road for several weeks. The prolonged blockade imposed severe economic and financial costs, disrupting trade, livelihoods, and local markets. Empirical research across different countries provides ample evidence of the significant economic and financial losses such events entail. Pakistan is among the worst-affected cases with effects ranging not only from lower actual investment and economic growth, but also on deteriorating individuals’ subjective financial well-being.
If areas such as Kurram were governed by empowered and duly elected local representatives, there could be many interventions that could stop such attacks from taking place. A decentralized governance system brings government institutions closer to the people. Local representatives–elected mayors, councilors, and community leaders are in direct contact with the population. As such, they can detect early signs of radicalization. They can intervene, for example, through the following step-by-step process:
- Identifying at-risk individuals and referring them to rehabilitation programs.
- Encouraging religious scholars and civil society groups to counter extremist propaganda.
- Reporting suspicious activities and persons to police, who are also legally answerable to the elected mayors.
We have one example of such interventions working to ease the pressure of extremism in Swat. During the crisis of 2010-12, local elders with tribal authority played a key role in identifying and opposing militants who were attempting to re-establish their foothold after the military operation. Their grassroots knowledge of the locals helped security forces conduct targeted operations, preventing the resurgence of terrorist groups there. Nevertheless, the terrorist organization remerged after some break. And this was a significantly less organized system of local governance than properly elected local governments.
Take another example. One of the biggest drivers of extremism is the feeling of marginalization, injustice, and lack of economic opportunities. When people, especially the youth, feel abandoned by the state, they become easy targets for extremist recruiters (local or foreign). Local bodies system can counter this by ensuring fair and timely service delivery, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It resolves local disputes before they escalate into sectarian or ethnic conflicts. Furthermore, it provides employment opportunities through local development programs. Balochistan’s insurgency is often cited to be fueled by political exclusion and economic neglect. Empowering local bodies with real decision-making power and financial autonomy can help address local grievances and reduce the appeal of separatist and extremist groups.
A strong local community policing system, integrated with the local government, can significantly improve counter-terrorism efforts. Such a policing system can more effectively monitor radicalization trends in schools, mosques, and community centers. They can work with religious leaders to promote counter-narratives against extremism. The KP Police’s Dispute Resolution Councils have successfully mediated local conflicts, reducing the influence of extremist groups that often exploit disputes to gain support.
Extremist groups thrive where the governance is absent or ineffective. When local governments are functional and responsive, people are less likely to turn to violent groups for justice. Local representatives, being closer to the people and answerable to them, can organize interfaith and inter-ethnic dialogues to prevent sectarian divisions. They can ensure that minority communities are not left out of development programs. They also act as a bridge between communities and the provincial government to ensure fair representation. The Liyari Peace Initiative in Karachi is an example of how community engagement helped curb gang violence.
Pakistan’s counter-terrorism strategy cannot rely solely on military operations. The above piecemeal examples demonstrate that local governance and community engagement, when applied on a larger scale with full autonomy, can effectively counter extremism and terrorism in Pakistan. A well-functioning local bodies system ensures that citizens feel heard, included, and served, thereby reducing the space for extremist ideologies to grow. Therefore, to achieve this, local governments should be granted financial and administrative autonomy, rather than partial and nominal ones, and controlled by provincial authorities. Counter-extremism policies can be integrated into local governance to create mechanisms for addressing grievances and promoting peacebuilding through collaboration with religious scholars, rehabilitators and community policing.
By prioritizing local governance reforms and empowering local bodies, Pakistan has the potential to build a more resilient, peaceful, and inclusive society. These reforms could strengthen democratic processes at the grassroots level, promote accountability of the locally elected representatives, and ensure that public resources are allocated in a manner that addresses the needs of the local population. However, for such a transformation to take place, the stakeholders who benefit from the current system—those entrenched in power and with vested interests—must be willing to relinquish their personal and short-sighted group gains. Only by moving beyond narrow political self-interests and embracing the long-term welfare of the country can Pakistan pave the way for meaningful change. The real challenge lies in whether these stakeholders can rise above their pecuniary and nonpecuniary gains and develop a consensus for the greater good of the nation. The rest can be achieved by designing policies that align incentives and the rules of doing business for the greater benefits of the public.
