Upazila parishad polls may bring politics back on track

With the announcement of election schedule for 102 upazila parishads (sub-district councils) of the country on February 19, the country's politics certainly enters a new phase. Subsequently elections will be held to the rest of the upazilas - sub-district level elected local government (LG) bodies -- in phases - to more than 100 of them by the end of February and to another 100 in March. On paper, upazila parishad is the most important local government tier but in reality it remains to be an ineffectual angel flapping its wings in vain. Now that the election to the local body is going to be held within the next three weeks following the not so ideal and representative a national election, the stake for the local government polls this time will assume an added significance far removed from its original context. Because the de facto main opposition party -- Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) -- has publicly declared its dissociation of violent politics of the past few months, an opportunity has arrived for it to demonstrate its popularity. One would like to believe that the party will grab the opportunity to vindicate its claim to greater popularity than its rival and ruling Awami League (AL).
And this is notwithstanding the fact that the election to the upazila parishad under the provisions of the constitution is supposed to be contested without the basis of party affiliation. However, party politics actually dominates the polls at this level without naming the game. So both the ruling party and the major opposition party that did not take part in the just concluded flawed nation election will have an ample opportunity to pit against each other their organisational strength and acceptance to the people. Sure enough, there is a fundamental difference between national elections and local ones, but in such times as this there is a likelihood that the voters will make their choices known in a resounding manner. Even if they reject the politics of both the contending parties, the chances are that they will express their opinion in not so uncertain terms.
It was the mayoral elections before the June 05 national election that proved so much crucial for the BNP and conversely for the AL as well. If one party made strategic mistakes, the other riding on the crest of popularity was not wise enough to make the most of it. Both contenders opted for hard lines or else political outcome could be completely different. The missed chances for both the major parties only prompted them to commit further mistakes to the dislike of the common people. The upazila polls have arrived to lend them yet another opportunity to salvage the political reversals suffered by both of them. They can start afresh to make amend for the past mistakes if they are serious about respecting the people's will.
Much will however depend on how the BNP reacts to the scheduled election. A faction is still opposed to going to this election because it thinks that it is yet another ploy by the government to shift the focus from the 'election fracas'. But another faction, appears to be the dominant one, favours its participation, only more so because the time is propitious for the party. If it goes to polls, there is every chance for it to clinch an overwhelming majority of upazila seats. There is everything to gain but nothing to lose for it if it goes to the upazila polls, this faction argues. As an incumbent, the AL will find itself in a soup, it reckons.
Apart from revisiting the political link where the major political parties left, the polls to be held on February 19 will however not do it any credit in terms of its role as a centre of local administration. The existing format of the upazila parishad as such is in direct conflict with the provision of the country's constitution. Section 59 of the Constitution holds that the upazila parishad must be formed by representatives elected through direct plebiscite. But not all the parishad members are elected through direct votes of the voters within the jurisdiction of an upazila. Apart from the upazila chairman, two vice-chairmen (one of them female), the rest are elected by votes of his or her respective union, not through the exercise of franchise by voters of all the unions under the union. Also there is the question of the membership of the mayor of the concerned municipality (pourashava), if any, and the woman lawmaker to a reserved parliamentary seat.
That union council chairmen are busy with the workload of their respective unions is quite understandable and they are only less interested to put things in the perspective of the entire upazila when it comes to its development. This indifference has been further accentuated by the fact that the position of the upazila chairman counts secondary to the upazila nirbahi officer (UNO) or sub-district level executive officer), which in fact should have been other way round or at least complementary to each other. Above everything else, the lawmaker of the constituency, as adviser to the parishad, holds the key. It is this supreme authority that prevails over everyone else. Finally, if there is a minister from any constituency, there is no way s/he can be disobliged. His or her wish is the last word.
Here indeed lies the fundamental flaw. Local bodies could not grow as strong and independent bodies because of the pushes and pulls from players of varying degrees of power and positions. Unless this problem is taken care of, there is little hope of taking administration and service at the people's doorsteps. The need is for stronger local bodies with enough power tagged with compatible accountability.
nilratanhalder2000yahoo.com