Democratic district govt for inclusive growth

In the post-budget press conference, Finance Minister AMA Muhith expressed dissatisfaction over the performance of bureaucrats. In this situation, it is not understandable why he has taken such a big stake in hefty revenue collection with the existing human resources. In all these eight years, catch words in his budget speeches have been alleviation of poverty, better medical facilities and increase of social safety networks. Were the achievements satisfactory? Health facility in government clinics and hospitals are rudimentary. Treatment of diseases relating to kidney, heart, cancer etc are beyond the reach of the common people. The quality of the education is not good. Management of educational institutions is highly politicised.
Considering all these factors, the Finance Minister said in the valedictory chapter of the latest budget speech that the existing local government system now seems to be the main impediment to our progress. In terms of size and population, any district of this country is bigger than some countries in the world. In such a densely- populated country, it would be difficult to infuse dynamism in development initiatives to achieve 10 per cent gross domestic product (GDP) growth unless an enabling environment is created by devolving powers. It is very significant that he wants devolution of power, not decentralisation.
Why did the minister speak of devolution of power to come out of 6.0 per cent growth trap of GDP? It is because there has to be inclusive growth and inclusive growth can only be delivered by inclusive institutions. At present, development projects are implemented with extractive psyche. Crossing the bar of one dollar a day, poverty probably gives great satisfaction to our development authorities. But it makes little difference unless adequate free medical facilities, education opportunities, housing facilities and pure potable water are available. Adequate infrastructural development is a must for overall improvement of the people's lives.
In the same speech, the Finance Minister stated that capacity development in public administration, e-governance, modification of land management, establishment of rule of law including people-centric local government system together will take a long way towards building a just society. The words 'people-centric' local government is very important as this type of institutions will be an inclusive one and this can ensure inclusive growth and help establish a just society.
The Finance Minister said time has come for establishing a democratic district government system that Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had planned to establish. The district government, as enunciated by the then government, was supposed to start from t September 01, 1975. Sixty four governors and district magistrates were appointed for the proposed district governments and they were on an orientation course in Dhaka when Bangabandhu along with the members of his family were killed.
After liberation, no government till date has tried to establish local government at the district level. Of course,  Bangabandhu's government had a different plan, as stated earlier. The word 'governor' indicated how much emphasis was laid on district government. Presently, the government is probably contemplating to revive district council and an act has been passed. But that would be far from the type of the district government Bangabandhu had cherished  and even far from the thought of the Finance Minister.
The district government will have to be collectively responsible, not a one-man show.  Councilors should be elected from among the people and the number to be decided depending upon the size of the population. Representatives of the nation- building departments and the law enforcing agencies shall be ex-officio councilors. But their number shall not exceed one third of the elected members. The district government (council) should have an elected speaker, who will preside over the session. Any decision shall have to be a majority decision and there will be no personality cult.
In case of upazila parished, the chairman of the parishad and the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) are at loggerheads. The government has made compromise by creating two divisions- one upazila parishad and another upazila administration. It is a misnomer to call upazila parishad a local government institution. This anomaly should be removed if the people's interest is to be served. The country belongs to the people, not to bureaucrats. Members of the parliament should not be included in the district government either as advisors or in any other capacity. Conflict of interest will follow their involvement. By remaining outside, MPs can function as strong watchdogs.