Dysfunctional UP committees

If the objective is to take government service at people's doorsteps at the grass-roots level, the present set of union parishad (UP) committees are of no help. In effect the 13 standing committees of a UP are a mini edition of the standing committees of the country's Jatiya Sangsad (JS). The idea behind framing such replica committees under the lowest rung of the local government is unmistakeable. But what the proponents of this set-up visualised seems to have gone amiss subsequently. Neither has devolution of power become a strong point of the kind of governance the country is now pursuing nor has there been enough awareness of this vital issue among the people at large. The deputy commissioners (DCs) have argued for more power, so have the upazila nirbahi officers (UNOs). But upazila chairmen, who are elected through people's vote, are sidelined. In a situation like this, the office bearers of UP are not likely to give a most positive account of themselves.
When the immediate higher tier is not allowed to enjoy the benefit of a system called decentralisation of administration, its impact is naturally felt on the lowest tier. Had this been an absorbing engagement on the part of UP chairmen and members, it surely would have attracted better qualified people for the job. Now this unfortunately is not the case; rather people with dubious records contest for the posts and win. So there is nothing to be surprised by the fact that the office bearers of UP lack proper knowledge of the issues concerned and are also hardly aware of the executive powers they hold. Whereas the standing committees are supposed to hold meetings every two months, in some cases they do so perfunctorily by completing all 13 meetings in a day. This shows that the purpose of forming the committees has been totally misunderstood. In certain other cases, the committee members even are not quite aware of the assignments they were given according to the rules.
Local bodies once known as 'Gram Panchayet' were almost a sovereign body in this part of the world. In the state of Paschimbango in India, the Panchayet system had worked well for a long time before they were unduly politicised. Sure enough, the old system could not match the challenges of a changed society where many of the modern amenities are now available and people's appetite for such things has grown. The chain of command in village society has broken down with the political touts taking the centre stage. In a situation like this, the form and substance of Gram Panchayet should as well be reformed to suit the changing time. Union Parishad could be a fitting replacement for Panchayet because it represents people at the grass-roots level. But qualified people, not political henchmen, must come forward to undertake the responsibility. Perhaps arrangement of some basic training for them will be required in order to familiarise them with the do's and don'ts of the system.