With the council of advisers approving the Upazila Parishad Ordinance last Sunday, the caretaker administration is now halfway through its mission to make the Upazila Parishad a credible and effective local government institution.
The Ordinance, which is expected to be promulgated by the President soon, delegates full decision making and implementing powers to the chairmen of the elected Upazila Parishads and returns back the lost authority of the Election Commission to announce Upazila Parishad election schedule.
But what is more important is that the Ordinance removes the main bone of contention- the arbitrary powers enjoyed by the Members of Parliaments (MPS) in the affairs of the Upazila Parishads under the existing Upazila Parishad Act (UPA).
The Upazila system despite having all the potentials for becoming the growth centres at the grassroots level is yet to make a contribution to the national interests due to opposition from a section of politically influential people. Thus, the system is very much existent in black and white but not on the ground.
The Upazila system was introduced at the middle of the three-tier local government system by autocrat military ruler Ershad in 1985 with an intention to create a political coterie of his own at the grassroots. At one stage, some wings of the lower court were also transferred to Upazilas as part of the Ershad government's so-called decentralisation of administration and judiciary. A few benches of the High Court were also set up in some selected districts. These steps had infuriated the lawyers who were otherwise politically influential. The lawyers and the major political parties, the BNP and the Awami League, wanted the Upazila system to go, notwithstanding the fact the rural people, who were not anyway aware of the political motive of the rulers, were happy with it. The abolition of the Upazila system was one of the major issues of the mass movement waged by the political parties in the latter part of the 1980s.
Soon after coming to power through a free and fair election in 1991, the BNP government abolished the system. But the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the government to hold a fresh Upazila election within six months. But the then government sought time from the highest court on a number of occasions and completed its term without complying with the SC directive.
The Awami League (AL) that came to power in 1996 adopted the UPA in 1998, making provisions for an advisory role by the MPs in the matters of the Upazila Parishads. Actually, the law gives absolute powers to the MPs. Under the UPA, 1998, it is mandatory on the part of the Upazila chairmen to seek advice from their respective MPs and follow the suggestions given by them. However, the AL government also did not hold any Upazila Parishad election.
The BNP-led political alliance moved to hold Upazila election after winning the 2001 general election and constituted a cabinet committee to make suggestions in this connection. But the committee failed to reach a consensus on the issue of curbing MPs' authority over Upazila affairs and the alliance government could not hold election during its five-year tenure. This is how an import local government tier has been barred from playing an important role in national development.
The local government institutions in Bangladesh that have been subjected to lot of experimentations could never prove their worth. The institutions which are closer to the people living at the grassroots have been made redundant by the politicians across the divide.
Since the present caretaker administration does not have its own political agenda, it is in a better position to ensure election of suitable persons at the helm of local government institutions, particularly the Union and Upazila Parishads. However, getting such people elected or giving them enough authority to decide on administrative and development matters is unlikely to meet the objectives. The issues relating to availability of adequate resources to local government bodies and their effective participation in the national level planning also need to be addressed now.
The local government bodies should no more be seen as institutions involved in the implementation of a few rural roads and culverts or the government's social safety net or population and health programmes. They have the potential to do more for the rural community and help the country to achieve many of its lofty goals. What they need are policy support and resources enough to transform the areas under their jurisdiction into small economic growth centres.
Funds worth billions of taka are wasted on redundant projects while these important rural institutions, at times, cannot even pay wages of their low-paid employees for want of money. This scenario has to be changed with the intended replacement of bad guys with good guys at the helm of local government bodies. The caretaker government, which has not bothered much to go well beyond its constitutionally mandated jobs in many areas, should also look into this important issue.
[email protected]
