The change that is not for the better

Shamsul Huq Zahid The results of a recent survey, conducted in some selected city corporations and municipalities by the private think-tank, the Centre for policy Dialogue (CPD), have not been anything different from the obvious. The majority of the respondents have expressed their dissatisfaction at the services rendered by these local government bodies. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents, according to the CPD survey, are not happy with the services offered by city corporations and municipalities. Over the years, the number of municipalities and city corporations has gone up, gradually. A good number of small and medium-scale urban centres have become pourashavas (municipalities). This transformation has been necessary to ensure basic civic services to the residents of those centres. But in most cases, the services delivered by those municipalities have been well below the expectations of people who wanted, or even waged movement locally, to have those local government entities in place. But is the dissatisfaction expressed by the respondents of the survey anything unexpected? Had there been any survey 10 or 20 years back, the findings would have been similar to that of the CPD's. Nor it will be, possibly, different if a similar survey is carried out 20 years from now. Is it, however, fair to be so much pessimistic? What alternative does one have when indications are rather strong that factors responsible for poor performance of the local government bodies would continue for many more years in the future? Major factors that have been seriously affecting the performance of the local government bodies such as city corporations and municipalities include resource constraints, political interference and corruption. The services delivered by these institutions have remained confined mainly to construction and maintenance of roads and drainage system and make provisions for street lights. There are other services but the extent and quality of the same continue to be too narrow and unsatisfactory. If seen in the true perspective, the performance of the city corporations and municipalities has a strong bearing on the day-to-day life of the residents. Poor road conditions or drainage systems can cause enough trouble for them. The quality of other services that are supposed to be rendered by these bodies is no less important. On top of all the problems facing the city corporations and pourashavas remains the resource constraint. These local government entities have been perennially dependent on financial support from the government, usually given annually. The revenues these bodies fetch through levying of holding and some other small taxes on their own is woefully inadequate to meet their actual requirements. The fund made available annually by the government is also far too short to meet the resource gap. With a view to helping these institutions in terms of resource availability, the government should either substantially enhance the volume of annual allocations or allow them to collect a number of taxes that are mobilised by the central government. Moreover, the system of collecting holding and other taxes by the local government bodies is not that strong. Though there are punitive provisions for non-payment of these taxes, those are hardly enforced. Such leniency has led to higher rate of tax evasion by eligible residents of most city corporations and pourashavas. Besides, the poor service delivery on the part of local government bodies has also put them on the defensive. The management of these entities appears to be morally weak to pursue the tax default cases. Political interference or politicisation has seriously affected the performance of these representative organisations at different levels. Grabbing the posts of chairman and ward commissioner by political persons has become more important than ensuring better services for the people living in city corporations and pourashavas. The legal provision made in the recent past to replace the elected mayors with so-called administrators is yet another wrong provision. The government, if it desires so, is free to abuse the provision to remove people's elected representatives under different pretexts. There is no denying that a worst-performing mayor is better than a bureaucrat administrator since the people, at least, enjoy some access to the former. But the latter is a hard-to-reach individual who would not take any risk even if it is worth-taking for the sake of people's welfare. The all-prevalent graft also has a very damaging effect on the ability of the local government bodies. A substantial part of the funds meant for development and maintenance of different infrastructures, roads and drainage system is misused or misappropriated by a section of officials and contractors regularly. There has not been any serious effort to combat this. In fact, the city corporations and pourashavas, of late, have assumed greater importance for political reasons, not for making available improved services to the residents living in their respective command areas. The change in emphasis, surely, is not what people expect from them. [email protected]