Frustrated aspirations for effective local government
Monday, 1 June 2009
Kabir Anwar
OPPOSED to the longing across the country for stronger local government as a way of decentralisation for development, the vested interests have been frustrating this aspiration in a very unconscionable manner. Over a long period of time, experiences have accumulated that the country's developmental objectives can be truly promoted with a strong local government in place that would not have to depend on the crumbs to trickle down from a central bureaucracy or the legislators in the name of looking after their constituencies.
The local government structures meaning their lowest tiers, the union parishads (councils) at the union levels followed by the upazilla parishads in the rural areas and their equivalents, the pourashavas in the urban areas, held out the promise that these bodies can achieve a notably faster rate of development within their jurisdictions. For this, such bodies should not be shackled by controls from the members of parliament (MPs) and the bureaucracy. With much fanfare, the upazilla parishad elections were held recently. The elected upazilla chairmen and members of their council are, for all practical purposes, the grassroots level representatives of the people at the local levels. But even three months after the upazilla elections, these elected chairmen and members do not yet know what their powers and functions are. But prior to the election everyone was made to understand that the elected bodies at the upazillas would be extended substantially increased powers and resources to plan and execute different developmental and other activities on their own.
Instead, the Upazilla Parishad Ordinance introduced by the caretaker government and expected to be fully approved as a law by the newly elected parliament, was adopted in a truncated manner. That leaves the upazilla parishads in a limbo as regards their authorities and resources. Furthermore, the relevant law that has been adopted gives the members of parliament (MPs) dominance over the upazilla parishads in their mandatory advisory capacities. Even operational freedom of the parishads have been curbed with an amendment that requires the government appointed upazilla nirbahi officers (UNOs) to preside over the upazilla parishads and not the elected chairmen. Apart from the upazillas, similar rules have been already imposed on the union parishads and, according to media reports, these would be also made to apply in relation to the pourashavas (municipal councils) through legislation when the parliament convenes next for the budget session.
There is no need to explain the high undesirability of the moves to undermine the local government system. The elected representatives at the local levels have become so because of the trust and faith in them from local people to work for the betterment of their life. The elected persons at local levels are also properly cognizant about local problems and their solutions .The urge for development and undertaking of pro-people activities are logically expected to be stronger among their very local representatives than at the upper echelons of governance or their higher representatives (MPs) who in many cases do otherwise demonstrate a detached mentality about the local level needs of people. Thus, the present attitude of the lawmakers appears to be, in substance, antithetical to the democratic spirit as such.
Accusations are filling the air that the amendments and regulations are inspired from the temptation of the vested interested to go on controlling the purse strings of local government funds for their own gain. If this is the case, then the implications of the same need to be understood early in the day by the key functionaries of the government in power. They will have to demonstrate real leadership to keep such vested interests in check to be able to deliver on their election promises.
OPPOSED to the longing across the country for stronger local government as a way of decentralisation for development, the vested interests have been frustrating this aspiration in a very unconscionable manner. Over a long period of time, experiences have accumulated that the country's developmental objectives can be truly promoted with a strong local government in place that would not have to depend on the crumbs to trickle down from a central bureaucracy or the legislators in the name of looking after their constituencies.
The local government structures meaning their lowest tiers, the union parishads (councils) at the union levels followed by the upazilla parishads in the rural areas and their equivalents, the pourashavas in the urban areas, held out the promise that these bodies can achieve a notably faster rate of development within their jurisdictions. For this, such bodies should not be shackled by controls from the members of parliament (MPs) and the bureaucracy. With much fanfare, the upazilla parishad elections were held recently. The elected upazilla chairmen and members of their council are, for all practical purposes, the grassroots level representatives of the people at the local levels. But even three months after the upazilla elections, these elected chairmen and members do not yet know what their powers and functions are. But prior to the election everyone was made to understand that the elected bodies at the upazillas would be extended substantially increased powers and resources to plan and execute different developmental and other activities on their own.
Instead, the Upazilla Parishad Ordinance introduced by the caretaker government and expected to be fully approved as a law by the newly elected parliament, was adopted in a truncated manner. That leaves the upazilla parishads in a limbo as regards their authorities and resources. Furthermore, the relevant law that has been adopted gives the members of parliament (MPs) dominance over the upazilla parishads in their mandatory advisory capacities. Even operational freedom of the parishads have been curbed with an amendment that requires the government appointed upazilla nirbahi officers (UNOs) to preside over the upazilla parishads and not the elected chairmen. Apart from the upazillas, similar rules have been already imposed on the union parishads and, according to media reports, these would be also made to apply in relation to the pourashavas (municipal councils) through legislation when the parliament convenes next for the budget session.
There is no need to explain the high undesirability of the moves to undermine the local government system. The elected representatives at the local levels have become so because of the trust and faith in them from local people to work for the betterment of their life. The elected persons at local levels are also properly cognizant about local problems and their solutions .The urge for development and undertaking of pro-people activities are logically expected to be stronger among their very local representatives than at the upper echelons of governance or their higher representatives (MPs) who in many cases do otherwise demonstrate a detached mentality about the local level needs of people. Thus, the present attitude of the lawmakers appears to be, in substance, antithetical to the democratic spirit as such.
Accusations are filling the air that the amendments and regulations are inspired from the temptation of the vested interested to go on controlling the purse strings of local government funds for their own gain. If this is the case, then the implications of the same need to be understood early in the day by the key functionaries of the government in power. They will have to demonstrate real leadership to keep such vested interests in check to be able to deliver on their election promises.