Challenges before civil servants in charge of local govt. bodies

Since the August 5 changeover in political power courtesy of student-led mass upheaval, the representatives of country's local government bodies have been on the run to escape the public's wrath. No wonder their absence seriously hampered day-to-day function of the city corporations, municipalities, zila, upazila and union parishads depriving the public of the service the functionaries were supposed to render. So, to avoid further public suffering, the interim government through a gazette notification on Monday last removed 12 city corporation mayors, 60 zila parishad chairmen and members, 493 upazila parishad chairmen and vice chairmen and 323 municipality mayors. Notably, the mayors were removed, as reported, in exercise of the section 13 Ka of the Local Government (City Corporation Amendment) Ordinance 2024. Similarly, through another notification the removal of all zila parishad chairmen and members was done in exercise of Section 10Kha of the Zila parishad (Amendment) Ordinance 2024. To run these local government bodies after removal of their absentee representatives, the incumbent government appointed administrators to carry out the functions of the city corporations and the municipalities. But the decision did not mention who would perform the duties of the ward councilors who are also elected public representatives and whose close connection with local people is crucial to the service delivery by the mayors in their respective constituencies.
Also, who will take charge of the upazila vice chairmen including chairwomen is yet to be determined. It may be recalled that in an order on August 14, the incumbent administration gave the chief executive officers of the local government bodies full administrative and financial powers and explained why the move was made in the post-August 5 situation. Then, five days after that move, came the decision to appoint administrators in place of the previous local government representatives who were basically the leaders and activists of the ruling party of the fallen government. Obviously, they cannot be said to have been elected ones as all the so-called elections under the previous regime were stage-managed and hence seriously flawed. But the question is, how far bureaucrats who, unlike elected representatives, lack contact with local people, are supposed to serve the public effectively?
The interim government's adviser to the Local Government and Rural Development (LGRD), AF Hassan Ariff, however, explained the step as one of what he reportedly said 'cleaning up the entire local government'. Obviously, clearing the mess left in every tier of the administration by the immediate past government is an urgent task before the present administration. But administrative house cleaning is one thing, addressing day-to-day issues affecting public life is another. That discharging such responsibilities requires elected public representatives with whom citizens of the constituencies concerned have direct communication. Some experts on local government issues supported the interim administration's measure on the ground that the void created by the former regime's mayors and councilors, many of whom are either in hiding or have fled the country, was an unavoidable one. Even so, it has to be admitted that appointing administrators is a stopgap measure. In that case, the appointees to the mayoral positions can only perform routine tasks and continue implementing existing projects, but not undertake any fresh venture. Evidently, this will be a limitation on the part of the government servants who will also be doubling as public representatives.
The interim government will be required to think long and hard about how long the vital public institutions like local government bodies could be operated to the satisfaction of the citizens by civil servants in absence of elected public representatives.