By Usama Majeed
In Gilgit-Baltistan, people are gearing up for the June 2026 general elections, and grievances bubble just below the surface. This feeling cannot be more pronounced anywhere than in GBLA 21, Ghizer 3-Yasin, where the voters have been taken to the point of expressing their anger at former members of the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly. Roads remain unpaved, hospitals unfinished, and school buildings long overdue. The Gupis-Yasin Road, which is a lifeline for tens of thousands of residents, has become a symbol of broken promises. Its contractor is apparently unconcerned with timeframes, its completion is now estimated in years, not in months anymore.
In election season, it’s tempting to direct anger at sitting or outgoing legislators. When a road you travel daily remains a patchwork of bumps and dust, the politicians who made promises become an easy target. Yet, the right target is often elusive. This is not a time to incriminate the political leaders, but rather a time when the honesty of the political leadership is to be questioned. A member of the Gilgit Baltistan Legislative Assembly’s first duty is to legislate, represent, and advocate. In development matters, they lobby for projects, secure budgets, and direct funds to their constituency through ADP and discretionary funds. However, performance and monitoring of construction contracts are outside their scope and authority. After a project is approved and funds are released, the Communication and Works Department, or in some cases, the National Highway Authority, takes over. These departments float tenders, evaluate bids, award contracts, and are legally responsible for monitoring contractor performance and imposing penalties.
The contractor on the Gupis-Yasin Road failed to meet deadlines, crippling trade, travel, and daily life in the valley. The question is: why didn’t the C&W Department use penalty clauses? Why wasn’t the contractor blacklisted or replaced? These are executive machine malfunctions, not legislative failures. To blame a legislator for the pace of physical construction is like expecting a democratic form of governance from a dictator. The comparison isn’t perfect, but the reasoning is straightforward. Accessing resources is one thing, using them well is another, and these two tasks fall under different branches of the state. Under the election season blame game lies a deeper story that politicians, civil society, and the media in Gilgit-Baltistan have yet to grasp. The stagnation of development projects in constituencies like Yasin aren’t due to individual incompetence or corruption, but to the lack of a functioning local government in Gilgit-Baltistan. In a well-governed society, public works are controlled by local government institutions including municipal committees, district councils, and union councils. These bodies monitor project implementation, report contractor non-performance, consult communities, and play as a bridge between citizens and executing departments. Local government institutionalizes accountability at the grassroots level. Gilgit-Baltistan has long suffered from a severe lack of substantial local administration. The GB Local Government Act exists, but the provincial government has been unwilling to hold local body elections or devolve power to elected representatives. It has led to a vacuum in governance at the sub-district and village levels.
Within this vacuum, the GBLA member becomes everything by default, a legislator, ombudsman, contractor supervisor, community liaison, and development monitor. The citizens, when deprived of actual representative to whom they can address their grievances, take all the grievances, whether it is a delayed school construction or a blocked road, to their MLA. When it goes wrong, as it must in an environment with limited resources and low institutional capacity, all blame is thrown onto the member concerned. This is unsound. It’s a symptom of a distorted governance architecture that concentrates the burden on a single elected official, undermining the institutions meant to share the burden. The Gupis-Yasin Road case is one to which closer attention should be paid, as it represents a problem not unique to Yasin. Contractors can easily get away with not fulfilling project schedules without repercussions. The causes are complicated yet well understood, tendering processes favor low bids over sound capacity assessments, weak contract management, political interference, and a culture where penalty clauses are negotiable.
A more aggressive MLA isn’t the answer to non-performance by the contractor. Enhanced public financial management, autonomous project monitoring, a credible contractor blacklisting regime, and empowered local government bodies that serve as community watchdogs are needed. The structure of incentives for contractors is fundamentally altered by the authority to formally report contractor delay to the executing agency, and the real consequences that follow. This isn’t about blindly voting in officials or dismissing legitimate advocacy failures. When an MLA fails to follow up with departments, raise contractor non-performance, or demand accountability, those are valid criticisms. In a dysfunctional system, the issue of political will is crucial.
But the people of Yasin and Gilgit-Baltistan should demand more than empty promises of project completion from candidates. They should insist on practical commitments to governance reforms, a believable timeline for local government elections, devolved powers and resources, and stronger contract management legislation. These are not as newsworthy campaign pledges as a new hospital or a newly asphalted road. But, these commitments, if fulfilled, would ensure that the next hospital is built on time, to standard, and with someone locally held responsible if it’s not. Elections are a time of united strength of citizens. However, that power would be watered down when it is used on the premise of falsely attributing blame. The half-complete road between Gupis and Yasin is a legitimate complaint, and those living on the roadside have every reason to be frustrated. However, their distress should be directed at the proper institutions.
Blaming MLA because he is not successful in getting the project? Fair. Finding fault with them for not holding the executing department accountable is reasonable. Blaming them as the cause of the contractor acting in a manner on a site that is run by a government department? That is one thing that the system was not created to fulfill. Gilgit Baltistan needs more proper governance structure. That starts with clarity, thinking about who is supposed to do what, and with political courage to demand the restoration of the local government institutions. Which is the missing link in the chain of responsibility of this province.
The contributor is a student and researcher based in Islamabad, with an academic focus on governance and public policy.
