The upazila saga takes a new twist

---

Shamsul Huq Zahid
Poor chairmen of upazilas (sub-districts)-the have, apparently, got yet another group of power contenders, the upazila nirbahi officers (UNOs).
Until last Monday, the upazila chairmen have been pressing hard to shake off formidable contenders for power, the lawmakers, in their respective localities. But they might have to open yet another battle front soon against the government move to give the UNOs the power to look into all financial matters at the upazila level.
The Cabinet in a meeting held last Monday with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in the chair approved a proposal to rename the UNOs as principal executive officers enjoying more authority than before. The upazila chairmen would be made chief executives (nirbahi pradhans). The UNOs are now acting as secretaries to the upazila parishads. They would be providing the same service but under a different name.
The proposals approved in the last Monday's cabinet meeting would soon be placed in the parliament as a bill to amend the existing upazila parishad act.
The original proposal placed before the cabinet, reportedly, wanted to make the UNOs as the chief executive officers (CEOs) in line with similar posts in the city corporations. The cabinet meeting, reportedly, just replaced the word 'chief' with word 'principal' and kept the remaining part of the proposal unaffected.
Some of the upazila chairmen, when contacted by the media following the cabinet decision, did express their deep resentment and said that they felt humiliated. According to a newspaper report, the upazila chairmen were scheduled to hold a meeting in the capital yesterday (Tuesday) to discuss the issue and decide on their next course of action.
The upazila chairmen have been going through a troubled time in view of the ' advisory' role kept in the act concerned for the lawmakers in the matters of the upazila parishad. They have held lots of meetings and conferences protesting the advisory role of the Members of Parliament (MPs). They suspect that MPs would interfere with normal development works to demonstrate their power and authority at the local levels.
The chairmen were recently considering some action programmes in support of their demands. However, a meeting between them and the Prime Minister was arranged to diffuse the situation. The Prime Minister had assured them that the upazila chairmen would enjoy full authority over all developments at upazila level. She, however, advised the upazila chairmen to carry out their duties and responsibilities taking cooperation from all concerned.
Obviously, the greater authority given to the UNOs carried the full support of the top bureaucrats manning the secretariat, the nerve center of the country's administration. The bureaucratic network does know the art of prevailing over the political leadership and get things done in their favour.
However, the need for maintaining financial discipline even at the grassroots level cannot be ignored and the UNOs remain to be the administrative focal points at the upazila level. There exists an accountability process in the administration from the centre down to the field level. The administration cannot avoid that accountability process which, of course, has many loopholes.
But the government should have avoided any action that has all the potentials to heighten further the aggrieved feeling of the upazila chairmen. The UNOs could have been empowered with financial authority even without changing their existing status as secretary to the upazila parishad, which is the most important local government institution in administrative as well as developmental matters.
The articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution provide for due importance to power and authority of the elected local government institutions. Under clause 2 of article 59, these institutions, through an act of parliament, are to carry out functions relating to administration and the work of public officers, the maintenance of public order and preparation and implementation of plans concerning public services and economic development.
Unfortunately, even after 38 years of independence, the local government institutions are yet to get the responsibilities as enshrined in the Constitution. They have been, deliberately, kept as lame duck institutions.
Much of the woes, including lopsided development and highly inadequate employment opportunities at the local level, are the outcome of deliberate indifference of both bureaucracy and political leadership to make the local government institutions, including upazila and union parishads, strong and efficient.
No serious efforts have not made until now to make these institutions as catalysts for change. Rather, men in power have always tried to create a client-base at the local level by distributing favours through them.
The restoration of upazila system and getting people elected to run the upazila administration were positive moves. But the row over power sharing has greatly affected their normal operations. The government should dispel misgivings, if there is any, about the power and authority of the elected bodies at the local level and encourage those to take part in the nation building activities with full vigour. Without their active participation, the goal of poverty reduction through higher economic growth would remain as elusive as ever.