Sadly neglected, frustrated tasks of strengthening local government
Saturday, 6 June 2009
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
Both the BNP and the Awami League stated in their election manifestos last year that they would work for decentralisation and development of local government on going to power. But these commitments were made ritualistically, it seems, as a matter of course signifying no special importance attached to them. One can search the manifestos of the major parties from the time these started appearing and it would be seen that every one of them contained some ritual statements about promoting decentralization. So, there is nothing very special in the task lists of the party in power about the issue, this time either.
But over time it has crystallized that devolution of the powers of the government, is very necessary in the context of Bangladesh. The devolution must not be understood also as a way of only loosening central controls in administrative matters to more empowered local authorities. The devolution, to get any benefits from the same, must be essentially of a developmental nature. The same should lead to more resource mobilsation at the local level ; much greater channeling of resources to enabled and empowered local governments and institutions to utilize well the flow of resources ; the greater use of local awareness and expertise in planning exercises for local developmental projects, etc. But it does not seem that the leadership of the Awami League have given enough thoughts to these issues and even formed a primary development oriented decentralization plan after taking over the reins of government.
However, they can be sensitized afresh by the media, think tank bodies and others to reprioritize to push up developmental decentralistion higher up in their agenda. This could lead to formulation of concrete plans at the earliest so that the same can be implemented within their tenure. The main part of the plan should concentrate on allocation of resources, the adequacy of such resource flows and their proper use by the local government authorities to be readied for the purpose.
Some proponents of stronger local government see the merit of raising resources locally as a way of substantially solving the problem of insufficient resources to undertake developmental activities at the local level. But this is not a very objective approach perhaps given the fact that the local areas in many cases are not so well off to permit the harnessing of enough resources to meet their developmental needs. So, there will be no effective substitute to much increasing resources from the centre to the local authorities for the latter to meet their needs.
The great importance of promoting stronger development oriented local government should be obvious. Nearly 90 per cent of the population of the country have an existence in the rural areas. But the developmental activities at their points of origin are meager in most cases . Hardly finding economic opportunities where they have always lived, these people in great number have been migrating to the few big cities in the elusive hope of a better life and livelihood contributing to the congestion and squalor of the cities mainly.
There is noted hardly any uniform development of the country with the development activities getting monopolized by the few urban concentrations and their hinterlands bypassing the vast rural population. The way to positively change the lives of this vast and neglected rural population is through taking economic activities or opportunities to their doorsteps. And this would be attainable mainly through a process of devolution for development.
But opposed to this aspiration throughout the country for stronger local government through devolution of powers and greater allocations of resources , the various group interests have been standing on the way . 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 counterparts, the pourashavas in the urban areas, have always indicated that these bodies could achieve a faster rate of development and accelerate economically useful activities, provided they are not burdened by regulations or controls by the members of parliament (MPs) and the bureaucracy.
With a great deal of publicities and enthusiasm, the upazilla parishad (UZ) elections were held recently. The elected UZ chairmen and members of their council represent the people for all practical purposes at the grassroots. But it is bewildering but a fact that though more than three months have passed away since the UZ elections, the elected chairmen and members of the UZ councils have not the least ideas about what their jurisdictions are or what they are expected to achieve or even their powers and functions.
What is more, the Upazilla Parishad Ordinance introduced by the caretaker government and expected to be fully adopted as a law by the newly elected parliament, was approved only after major amendments of it that virtually makes it a very different document from the one prepared by the caretaker government.
Under the amended version of the law, the members of parliament (MPs) have been given dominant powers over the UZ councils ; the MPs would be practically presiding over the UZ councils instead of the UZ chairmen. Even the day to day operational freedom of the UZ councils 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, would be also made to apply in relation to the pourashavas (municipal councils) through legislation when the parliament convenes for its budget session.
It should be too obvious why these developments are found to be not consistent with the prevailing consensus among people-experts-local people's representatives-intelligentsia that the local government system should be effectively empowered on the one hand and, on the other, made the beneficiary of financial and related autonomies in the discharge of duties through elected persons at the grass roots. The elected persons at local levels are fully knowledgeable about local problems and their solutions .The yearning for executing development projects and carrying out of pro-people programmes sincerely should be stronger among the very local representatives than their higher representatives (MPs) who in many cases are like the traditional absentee landlords with a detached outlook about the felt needs of people.
Allegations have justifiably become louder that the amendments to the UZ Ordinance are really inspired by the motive of the MPs and the bureaucrats to go on holding sway over the resources of local government funds to ensure their personal gains from the same. If this charge would be true, then the consequences of the same need to dawn early on those few who are in the strongest positions in the ruling party and the government. They will need to demonstrate courage and review the developments in relation to local government in the backdrop of the surge of public opinion favouring the same. The review should lead to amendments afresh giving suitable powers to the local bodies without the need for them to suffer external interferences in these respects as well as the freedom to spend adequate funds under their jurisdictions without the compulsion to be subordinated in these matters to government official and MPs.
Both the BNP and the Awami League stated in their election manifestos last year that they would work for decentralisation and development of local government on going to power. But these commitments were made ritualistically, it seems, as a matter of course signifying no special importance attached to them. One can search the manifestos of the major parties from the time these started appearing and it would be seen that every one of them contained some ritual statements about promoting decentralization. So, there is nothing very special in the task lists of the party in power about the issue, this time either.
But over time it has crystallized that devolution of the powers of the government, is very necessary in the context of Bangladesh. The devolution must not be understood also as a way of only loosening central controls in administrative matters to more empowered local authorities. The devolution, to get any benefits from the same, must be essentially of a developmental nature. The same should lead to more resource mobilsation at the local level ; much greater channeling of resources to enabled and empowered local governments and institutions to utilize well the flow of resources ; the greater use of local awareness and expertise in planning exercises for local developmental projects, etc. But it does not seem that the leadership of the Awami League have given enough thoughts to these issues and even formed a primary development oriented decentralization plan after taking over the reins of government.
However, they can be sensitized afresh by the media, think tank bodies and others to reprioritize to push up developmental decentralistion higher up in their agenda. This could lead to formulation of concrete plans at the earliest so that the same can be implemented within their tenure. The main part of the plan should concentrate on allocation of resources, the adequacy of such resource flows and their proper use by the local government authorities to be readied for the purpose.
Some proponents of stronger local government see the merit of raising resources locally as a way of substantially solving the problem of insufficient resources to undertake developmental activities at the local level. But this is not a very objective approach perhaps given the fact that the local areas in many cases are not so well off to permit the harnessing of enough resources to meet their developmental needs. So, there will be no effective substitute to much increasing resources from the centre to the local authorities for the latter to meet their needs.
The great importance of promoting stronger development oriented local government should be obvious. Nearly 90 per cent of the population of the country have an existence in the rural areas. But the developmental activities at their points of origin are meager in most cases . Hardly finding economic opportunities where they have always lived, these people in great number have been migrating to the few big cities in the elusive hope of a better life and livelihood contributing to the congestion and squalor of the cities mainly.
There is noted hardly any uniform development of the country with the development activities getting monopolized by the few urban concentrations and their hinterlands bypassing the vast rural population. The way to positively change the lives of this vast and neglected rural population is through taking economic activities or opportunities to their doorsteps. And this would be attainable mainly through a process of devolution for development.
But opposed to this aspiration throughout the country for stronger local government through devolution of powers and greater allocations of resources , the various group interests have been standing on the way . 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 counterparts, the pourashavas in the urban areas, have always indicated that these bodies could achieve a faster rate of development and accelerate economically useful activities, provided they are not burdened by regulations or controls by the members of parliament (MPs) and the bureaucracy.
With a great deal of publicities and enthusiasm, the upazilla parishad (UZ) elections were held recently. The elected UZ chairmen and members of their council represent the people for all practical purposes at the grassroots. But it is bewildering but a fact that though more than three months have passed away since the UZ elections, the elected chairmen and members of the UZ councils have not the least ideas about what their jurisdictions are or what they are expected to achieve or even their powers and functions.
What is more, the Upazilla Parishad Ordinance introduced by the caretaker government and expected to be fully adopted as a law by the newly elected parliament, was approved only after major amendments of it that virtually makes it a very different document from the one prepared by the caretaker government.
Under the amended version of the law, the members of parliament (MPs) have been given dominant powers over the UZ councils ; the MPs would be practically presiding over the UZ councils instead of the UZ chairmen. Even the day to day operational freedom of the UZ councils 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, would be also made to apply in relation to the pourashavas (municipal councils) through legislation when the parliament convenes for its budget session.
It should be too obvious why these developments are found to be not consistent with the prevailing consensus among people-experts-local people's representatives-intelligentsia that the local government system should be effectively empowered on the one hand and, on the other, made the beneficiary of financial and related autonomies in the discharge of duties through elected persons at the grass roots. The elected persons at local levels are fully knowledgeable about local problems and their solutions .The yearning for executing development projects and carrying out of pro-people programmes sincerely should be stronger among the very local representatives than their higher representatives (MPs) who in many cases are like the traditional absentee landlords with a detached outlook about the felt needs of people.
Allegations have justifiably become louder that the amendments to the UZ Ordinance are really inspired by the motive of the MPs and the bureaucrats to go on holding sway over the resources of local government funds to ensure their personal gains from the same. If this charge would be true, then the consequences of the same need to dawn early on those few who are in the strongest positions in the ruling party and the government. They will need to demonstrate courage and review the developments in relation to local government in the backdrop of the surge of public opinion favouring the same. The review should lead to amendments afresh giving suitable powers to the local bodies without the need for them to suffer external interferences in these respects as well as the freedom to spend adequate funds under their jurisdictions without the compulsion to be subordinated in these matters to government official and MPs.