Giving upazila parishad chance to deliver
Syed Jamaluddin | Thursday, 26 February 2009
THE immediate past caretaker government brought some significant reforms in the local government laws, but the upazila election could not be completed during their tenure. This election was held under the elected government amidst irregularities and violence. The caretaker government took the initiative to keep the parliament members detached from upazila activities. This is now being reversed. The Local Government and Rural Development (LGRD) minister has announced that the lawmakers would be made advisers to the upazila parishad. Thus, approval has not been given to Local Government Commission Ordinance, 2008. Experts believe that the local government will face a setback, in the event of dissolution of the commission. During the disposal of a call attention notice in parliament, the LGRD minister earlier said lawmakers' authority over local upazila parishads would be restored. Members of parliament welcomed the move thumping their desks.
The LGRD minister strongly criticised the provisions of the ordinances by the last caretaker government on local government institutions. His comments have some strong overt or covert resentment among the upazila representatives. The move to involve the lawmakers in upazila affairs may lead to misuse of funds of upazila councils. This view is held by experts. It will be difficult for upazilas to function if lawmakers are formally associated with the system.
While supporting the local government ordinances promulgated by the caretaker government, a number of experts have noted that strong local governments are a prerequisite for good governance and balanced economic development. An effective local government commission (LGC) is also a must for a strong local government system. They fear local governments might be rendered ineffective and lawmakers might end up lording over upazila parishads, running the risk of letting corruption creep into the system, if parliamentarians are allowed to have their previous controlling authority over the elected local governments.
The revenue resources of upazila parshads should be protected from political interference and the role of bureaucracy in local governance also needs to be adjusted as the people want to see a strong local government. It is pointed out that parliamentarians are not required to be made advisers to city corporations, so why they should become advisers to upazila parishads.
The local government system is a part of the fundamental structure of the constitution and so it cannot be changed by formulating new laws. Any indirect authority of MPs over local governments, as those who strongly support administrative decentralisation and development devolution with a great deal of forceful reasoning do maintain, runs counter to the provisions of the constitution and relevant court verdicts. If the government so desires, a parliamentary committee on local government may be constituted to suggest guidelines for strengthening the local government system. A point is made that the people have given a mandate to upazila chairmen to serve the local people, but it seems the system is being sought to be made ineffective by not approving the upazila parishad ordinance.
Experts feel that offices of MPs should not be set up in upazila complexes. Their offices, if at all necessary, may be set up in the parliament complex. The elected upazila officials expressed their worries about whether they will be able to work without any outside interference. Feuds between MPs and upazila officials are likely to erupt, if lawmakers are allowed to interfere in the functioning of the parishads. These views were expressed by upazila representatives in a seminar held in Dhaka
Earlier, parliament witnessed commotion on February 27, 2009 as lawmakers shouted and thumped desks, demanding restoration of their authority to oversee development activities in their constituencies. As things heated up and threatened to go out of control, the speaker brought the situation under control. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was present in the house during the debate. Strengthening the local government system was one of the electoral pledges of Awami League. But it now seems that they are now likewarm about redeeming their pledge. This indicates the change of the course of their platform for change.
A strong and truly effective local government is needed for the country. This is necessary for spreading democratic practice all over the country. As Bangladesh does not have a strong local government system, it has no stable democracy. The local government has to be given dignity and it has to be brought to the centre of the development process.
The immediate past caretaker government tried to restore authority of upazilas through the promulgation of an ordinance. The government has now decided to maintain political control over the upazilas through the MPs. But the special committee of Jatiya Sangsad did not, regrettably recommend the upazila ordinance for ratification.
The cross-section of people time and again wanted to see upazilas as vibrant and dynamic growth centres. The caretaker government wanted to transform the upazilas as strong tier of local government with least political interference. That is why they were very serious about holding the upazila election whereas the political parties wanted to delay this. Intention of politicians has become very clear now.
It is true that MPs have to implement their promises made to the voters. There may be mechanisms for allocation of funds to be utilised by MPs without disturbing the functioning of the local government instrument .The rationale for an effective local government cannot be missed by the government. It will be most unfortunate, if government cannot live with the idea of a well-functioning local government system.
There is no disagreement about giving greater authority for development work in the hands of the elected local government representatives. Such an assurance was given by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Indications are that the government is going back on this understanding. The elected local government functionaries may be sidelined at the peril of good governance. Upazila election was held under a certain framework which is being changed now. This cannot be a fair deal. This will give a wrong signal about government commitment.
It is necessary to retain the local government commission to study local government problems on an on-going basis in order to deliver effective local governance. It will lead to tangible development benefits for the people. Undoing of local government ordinance and local government commission is not likely to augur well for other reforms needed for forward march of the country.
Speakers at a press conference on February 19 last held in the National Press Club called for self-governance of all local government institutions in order to strengthen democracy at grassroots level. Research has found that the country with a strong local government system has produced sound economic growth. People's participation is necessary which is possible only through strengthening the local government system.
The ruling party in its electoral manifesto pledged for strong local government before the parliament election. We must give the upazilas a chance to play their legitimate role as envisaged in the constitution and the ordinance. The matter may be reviewed by the government, if the reformed upazila structure does not deliver
The writer is an economist and columnist
The LGRD minister strongly criticised the provisions of the ordinances by the last caretaker government on local government institutions. His comments have some strong overt or covert resentment among the upazila representatives. The move to involve the lawmakers in upazila affairs may lead to misuse of funds of upazila councils. This view is held by experts. It will be difficult for upazilas to function if lawmakers are formally associated with the system.
While supporting the local government ordinances promulgated by the caretaker government, a number of experts have noted that strong local governments are a prerequisite for good governance and balanced economic development. An effective local government commission (LGC) is also a must for a strong local government system. They fear local governments might be rendered ineffective and lawmakers might end up lording over upazila parishads, running the risk of letting corruption creep into the system, if parliamentarians are allowed to have their previous controlling authority over the elected local governments.
The revenue resources of upazila parshads should be protected from political interference and the role of bureaucracy in local governance also needs to be adjusted as the people want to see a strong local government. It is pointed out that parliamentarians are not required to be made advisers to city corporations, so why they should become advisers to upazila parishads.
The local government system is a part of the fundamental structure of the constitution and so it cannot be changed by formulating new laws. Any indirect authority of MPs over local governments, as those who strongly support administrative decentralisation and development devolution with a great deal of forceful reasoning do maintain, runs counter to the provisions of the constitution and relevant court verdicts. If the government so desires, a parliamentary committee on local government may be constituted to suggest guidelines for strengthening the local government system. A point is made that the people have given a mandate to upazila chairmen to serve the local people, but it seems the system is being sought to be made ineffective by not approving the upazila parishad ordinance.
Experts feel that offices of MPs should not be set up in upazila complexes. Their offices, if at all necessary, may be set up in the parliament complex. The elected upazila officials expressed their worries about whether they will be able to work without any outside interference. Feuds between MPs and upazila officials are likely to erupt, if lawmakers are allowed to interfere in the functioning of the parishads. These views were expressed by upazila representatives in a seminar held in Dhaka
Earlier, parliament witnessed commotion on February 27, 2009 as lawmakers shouted and thumped desks, demanding restoration of their authority to oversee development activities in their constituencies. As things heated up and threatened to go out of control, the speaker brought the situation under control. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was present in the house during the debate. Strengthening the local government system was one of the electoral pledges of Awami League. But it now seems that they are now likewarm about redeeming their pledge. This indicates the change of the course of their platform for change.
A strong and truly effective local government is needed for the country. This is necessary for spreading democratic practice all over the country. As Bangladesh does not have a strong local government system, it has no stable democracy. The local government has to be given dignity and it has to be brought to the centre of the development process.
The immediate past caretaker government tried to restore authority of upazilas through the promulgation of an ordinance. The government has now decided to maintain political control over the upazilas through the MPs. But the special committee of Jatiya Sangsad did not, regrettably recommend the upazila ordinance for ratification.
The cross-section of people time and again wanted to see upazilas as vibrant and dynamic growth centres. The caretaker government wanted to transform the upazilas as strong tier of local government with least political interference. That is why they were very serious about holding the upazila election whereas the political parties wanted to delay this. Intention of politicians has become very clear now.
It is true that MPs have to implement their promises made to the voters. There may be mechanisms for allocation of funds to be utilised by MPs without disturbing the functioning of the local government instrument .The rationale for an effective local government cannot be missed by the government. It will be most unfortunate, if government cannot live with the idea of a well-functioning local government system.
There is no disagreement about giving greater authority for development work in the hands of the elected local government representatives. Such an assurance was given by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. Indications are that the government is going back on this understanding. The elected local government functionaries may be sidelined at the peril of good governance. Upazila election was held under a certain framework which is being changed now. This cannot be a fair deal. This will give a wrong signal about government commitment.
It is necessary to retain the local government commission to study local government problems on an on-going basis in order to deliver effective local governance. It will lead to tangible development benefits for the people. Undoing of local government ordinance and local government commission is not likely to augur well for other reforms needed for forward march of the country.
Speakers at a press conference on February 19 last held in the National Press Club called for self-governance of all local government institutions in order to strengthen democracy at grassroots level. Research has found that the country with a strong local government system has produced sound economic growth. People's participation is necessary which is possible only through strengthening the local government system.
The ruling party in its electoral manifesto pledged for strong local government before the parliament election. We must give the upazilas a chance to play their legitimate role as envisaged in the constitution and the ordinance. The matter may be reviewed by the government, if the reformed upazila structure does not deliver
The writer is an economist and columnist