Will the upazila elections ensure strengthening local government?

Upazila administration in the country was introduced by Hussein Muhammad Ershad, ostensibly to strengthen the local government bodies and to take administration to the doorsteps of the common people. It actually witnessed a strengthened role in running the affairs of local government when it was introduced first in the year 1985.
 When the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led government came to power, they abolished the system sensing the conflicting situation between the members of parliament (MPs) and Upazila Chairmen, although their respective roles were well defined. The MPs' role is to contribute to the enacting laws of the country and Upazila chairmen's function is to look after the development works in their constituencies. But in practice, MPs get involved in the development works and other local activities so that they are at the helm of affairs.
In 1996, the Awami League (AL) revived the Upazila system probably with the hope of strengthening the local government bodies. But the sad stories of this body have drawn the attention of the nation. The chairmen and the members of the Upazila Parishads have been rendered virtually inactive.
If we look back to have an idea of local government administration in the country, we will find that in 1976, General Ziaur Rahman promulgated a local government ordinance providing for Zila Parishad in each district. It said that the parishads would be composed of elected representatives for a five-year term but no elections were held. Instead, deputy commissioners were appointed ex-officio chairmen of the parishads. Two years after the promulgation of the ordinance, the country's first military ruler amended the constitution through a martial law proclamation to bring back the provision requiring the government to promote local government institutions.
It seems interesting that both Ziaur Rahman and Ershad came to politics from the cantonment but they thought of strengthening the local government bodies which our politicians did not think. Ershad regime held two upazila elections--one in 1985 and the other in 1990. Zila parishads constituted under the act of 1988 worked until 1990. When  the Ershad regime was ousted from  power,  the zila parishad chairmen, most of whom were MPs from Ershad's Jatiya Party, were removed and deputy commissioners returned as ex-officio chairmen. The BNP-led government abolished the upazila system shortly after coming to power in 1991. Things did not improve even after the reintroduction of the constitutional provisions on local government in 1991. The zila parishads continued functioning under the Act of 1988 during the BNP rule between 1991 and 1996. In 2000, the AL-led government repealed the zila parishad act of 1988 and framed a new law providing for direct election to the parishads. But up till now, no election has been held.
Now, let us see the structure of upazila parishad. It consists of a chairman, two vice-chairpersons (one of them a woman), chairmen of all union parishads under the upazila concerned, mayors of all municipalities, if there are any, and women members of the reserved seats. One-third of the total women members from reserved seats of the union parishad under an upazila will be members of the upazila parishad. The women members of the reserved seats of the union parishad will elect them. The upazila parishad chairman and vice-chairpersons will have to resign from their party posts if they hold any. The vice-chairpersons will elect a two-member chairman panel within one month of the first meeting of the parishad. A vice-chairperson from the panel will serve as the chairman if the elected chairman fails to carry out his duty due to absence, illness or any other reason.
Upon suggestions of the Local Government Commission, the government can suspend any chairman, vice-chairperson and women members temporarily if their work goes against the parishad's interest or seems "undesirable" from administrative point of view. Every upazila parishad will have a fund. Government grants, income from local sources, grants from other parishads or local authorities, loans from the government will be deposited to the fund.
When the AL-led government returned to power in the January 05, they seem eager to revive and revitalise the upazila parishads. Accordingly, the Election Commission has announced the schedule of polls for 219 upazilas by fixing February 19 and 27 as polling dates. Elections to the remaining upazilas out of the total 487 will be held later in phases. The BNP and its allies did not take part in the national elections but they have expressed their intent to contest in the upazila elections.
In spite of all these, the upazila election is seen as a positive development towards strengthening the local government bodies but questions arise whether the elections will be able to make necessary contribution to activating the upazila system for which it was actually meant. Our experiences show that the upazila parishads remained dysfunctional due to interferences by the MPs. After the election in 2009, the upazila tangle entered a new phase with the chairmen getting locked in a power struggle with uapzila nirbahi officers (UNOs) while their fight against the dominance of MPs continued. Leaders of Upazila Chairmen's Association allege that they have become inactive due to indecision of government and non-cooperation of the UNOs and the lack of legal framework. Why the UNOs do not want to reactivate the upazila system? UNOs are civil servants, not public representatives. As they are not public representatives, they cannot get actively involved in the local development but the elected persons are answerable to the people who have voted them. People who vie for this post are usually local influential persons and because of their belonging to one or the other party they become more powerful and necessarily they get surrounded by the local petty-leaders and influential persons who try to influence activities in their favour which the UNOs do not want. Do we have any mechanism to mend this situation? If we can, the upazila parishads will accrue benefit for the people. If not, what's the necessity of it?
Though it is a local government body, it turns into political rivalry, between AL and BNP, which influences the local activities at the cost of common people's suffering. If the BNP-backed candidates win in many seats, can we expect that they will enjoy all sorts of cooperation from the government to do good to the people of their upazilas? Our existing democratic practices do not at all assure us so. On the other hand, if the AL-backed candidates win, what will happen? Shouldn't we then remember the maxim 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'? Who will take action against the corrupt practitioners? Who will hinder the ill practices of the powerful?  
The tug of war between the MPs and upazila chairmen made this body inactive since the second term of this parishad. The government's decision not to make a direct liaison between the upazila chairmen and government has infuriated the chairmen. So, they asked for cancellation of the law providing that UZ chairman will contact the government through the local MPs. Besides, they also asked for scrapping the provision that chairmen would have to undertake development schemes in consultation with the local MPs. By accusing the UNOs of non-cooperation, the UZ chairmen have made it clear that they want these government officials to be completely subservient to them. In other words, the UZ chairmen are fighting on two fronts -- against the MPs and the UNOs, both of whom enjoy tacit support of the government. But the UZ chairmen could not get their demands fulfilled and the upazila parishads remained inoperative over the last five years. The country's constitution stresses that the local government bodies are independent and strong. But the upazila parishad Act 2009 does not fulfill this criterion. A better power game is likely to being between MPs and upazila chairmen over exercising power and influence to run local administration and implement plans for economic and social development.
Since majority of the population of developing countries live at the local level, structure of the local government bodies should be designed in such a way that these bodies are administered by elected representatives. At the same time, opportunities should be created for participation of local people in the decision making bodies. Involvement of citizens in the political decision making process can be considered a prerequisite to establish good governance and democracy. To establish an effective and welfare orientated upazila parishad, the government needs to minimise the gap between the conflicting groups. Efficient civil servants must have the opportunity to utilise their potential for the welfare of the people. At the same time, public representatives must be aware that undue political or other sorts of pressure destroys the very spirit of the upazila parishad.
.......................................................................
The writer is Programme Manager, BRAC Eduction Programme and Vice-President of Bangladesh English Language Teachers Association (BELTA].
[email protected]