Bringing slums to the mainstream of governance

While the pace of urbanisation in Bangladesh has been growing fast over time, the condition of the urban poor - mostly residing in slums - has obviously assumed greater importance. It would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that unlike the rural ones, the urban poor are in a relatively disadvantaged situation as far as permanent shelter is concerned, not to speak of a community they left. However, within a few decades, almost half of the population of Bangladesh are going to reside in towns where the poor would swell in slums. Admittedly, many services are provided by different organisations to the poor in the slums but haphazardly, if not half-heatedly. Like the lack of coordination among government agencies, an integrated approach to government and non-government providers is seriously missing.
This writer was invited recently to a dialogue on "Targeting the Urban Poor for Development Interventions: Influence and Factors'. It was moderated by Asif Saleh, Senior Director and a pioneer of Urban Development Programme of the BRAC where interesting research papers on slums opened up new insights. We reckon that government agencies, civil societies, donors and NGOs (non-governmental organisation) that are striving hard to serve the slums, need to take a close look at the 'structure' and 'superstructure' of slums. Otherwise, their efforts could turn counterproductive.
Dr Peter Walters of Australia's University of Queensland kicked off the conversation with two case studies on slums from Rajshahi city.  The slums are governed by the City Corporation, and roughly one-thirds of the population of the city live in slums. Of the two case studies, the first one falls under the Urban Partnership Development for Poverty Reduction (UPPR) - funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UN-Habitat and the UKaid. It has three components: (1) providing grants for construction of basic services and physical environment; (ii) providing support for livelihood development programmes in the community through community contract system, and (iii) capacity building of local government to address the needs of the urban poor.
Many of the projects initiated for the poor usually rest on some assumptions and this programme was not an exception to this rule. This donor-driven programme rests on some restrictive assumptions such as: (a) community structure in the target slum; (b) the functional relationship with Ward Commissioner and (c) women in a position to take leadership. The researcher observed that most of the residents in that slum are poor, well established and almost permanent. Almost full employment is there, there is very little use of child labour, women are in a position to organise and lead, good relationship with Ward Commissioner, and a reasonably cohesive community.  By and large, developmental interventions are more likely to work in this kind of slums.
The other slum Mr Peter picked up as a case study, is very poor with a mix of kinship group (not cohesive); child labour is rampant there as there are many single women in that slum. The slum lacks leadership and tends to face significant drug problem. Finally, a poor relationship with Ward Commissioner constrains development works.  However, the upshot of the discussions is that both slums deserve donor aid but the model of community-driven development may not suit the needs of the slum. It is mainly because of lack of cohesive leadership, wider role of women and strong political connections. It is thus no wonder that "a significant number consists of 'leftover' people and the current model of community driven-development does not suit these people…in many cases the poorest of the poor are being left behind".
Ms Ferdous Jahan looked at the 'Power Structure' in a few slums although critics would possibly contend that slums are ruled by 'rulers' without respect to any structural system. The word 'structure' is apparently antagonistic with slum governance. However, the case studies presented by her point to perilous state of governance and the differentials thereof. For example, in Kallyanpur slum - standing illegally on government land - local Ward Councilor and his followers control the slum. The word of the Ward Councilor is the law there. Established by one Salam Sikder of Bhola, most of the residents there hail from that district (possibly through social network) and seem to be powerful as a group.
There are pockets controlled in the name of "freedom fighters" or (Disability Association). Police hardly hunt the criminals there as the opposition is well organised. They're not involved in politics but politicians have to listen to them.  Further, in that slum, the NGOs and other organisations are not at the centre of power; they just participate in development activities and justice mediation. The Ward Councilor (of the ruling party) is the most powerful person without whose endorsement it is difficult to get projects implemented.
 On the other hand, the Gabtoli City Colony Settlement is a so-called legal settlement on government land. A 15-member panchayat is directly elected for two years to serve as the centre of power. Hardly any political segmentation prevails in the slum - all seem to target welfare of the slum as a whole.
Quite opposite to the earlier two case studies, is another called the Sadek Khan slum which is claimed to be a legal settlement on a private land. But people in and around the slum find it as land grabbed by an individual and rented out to poor slum dwellers. Despite the residents being most vulnerable in this slum, no efforts at improving life and livelihoods of the dwellers could be in evidence.
 By and large, excepting in the first slum, generation of fear of eviction through 'private force' seems to grip households all the time. Slum committees turn into perverse instruments of exploitation.
Finally, the third speaker, Professor Adil Khan, provided an excellent preview of the development concepts, conceptualising governance and challenges.
There were a few words on the take-home lessons from that dialogue. First, a firm political commitment to develop the slums is necessary. Rather than residual, slums should be construed as an integral part of urban development in the light of their contribution to city GDP. Second, for delivering services to the poor, slums need to be governed by a structure of power arising from firm political commitment to depoliticise the local grabbers, mastans and hoodlums. In other words, slums should be brought to the mainstream of governance. Rule of law is the best course in this case. Third, the government should seek help from NGOs and the civil society in addressing the problems of the urban poor. And finally, service providers need to be integrated to put all services in one basket so that these are delivered cost effectively and efficiently.  
The writer is Professor
of Economics at
Jahangirannagr University.
[email protected]