Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
It is a known fact that local government is a basic element of a democratic government. If it fails, the democratic system fails. This is because local governments are considered to be the arteries that play an essential role in keeping the vital organs of democracy functional. Here the councillors, elected members of the Union Parishad - the lowest tier of local government, but the closest to the people - make policy decisions on behalf of their communities. Democracy functions best when all citizens, including the most marginalised, actively participate in governance, have the power to question authority, and can demand accountability. Therefore, it is at the local level that democratic principles can flourish most effectively.
The constitution of the country clearly states in Article 59 that "Local government in every administrative unit of the Republic shall be entrusted to bodies composed of persons elected in accordance with law". Article 60 stipulates, "For the purpose of giving full effect to the provision of Article 59, Parliament shall, by law, confer powers on the local government bodies, including the power to impose taxes for local purposes, to prepare their budgets, and to maintain funds."
However, regardless of what is written in the Constitution, successive governments did little to strengthen and make local governments more effective. Instead, when political parties come to power, local government bodies are used as tools for political gain. Ever since the upazila parishads were established there was an almost universal complaint that MPs were interfering in the activities of the local government and the latter was not permitted to act independently. Later, by a controversial law MPs were given "advisory" role in local affairs and their advice was un effect order. This strengthened the MPs' power in local affairs, even in routine matters.
And the Upazila Nirbahi Officers (UNO), who are meant to offer secretarial service to the upazila parishad (UP), were made chief executive officers. That law should be revoked. Ideally, the UP chairman should be totally independent to oversee all development activities within the upazila to benefit their communities and with the UNO serving as an administrative facilitator. But thanks to the controversial laws, local government bodies are effectively under political and bureaucratic control and handcuffed to both. Thus administrative authorities at the union parishad level tend to be bureaucratic and estranged from the people. An efficient and effective municipal service largely depends on the participation of its citizens. It is meant to mirror the concerns, and aspirations of the community, but that mirror is broken when bureaucrats head a civic body. These controversial laws were never designed to empower local government or reinforce democracy at the grassroots, but strengthen the grip of the party in power. When democratically elected members of local government have no freedom of action, they have no accountability. Then what is left of governance? How is it possible for them to serve those who elected them?
The final nail in the coffin of local government was driven when in 2015 the Awami League government amended the law to allow elections for local government to be held under party symbols. This has blurred the lines between people's representatives and ruling party officials. Historically, Union Parishad chairmen have held the critical role of issuing character certificates to citizens, along with vital documents like birth, death, and inheritance certificates. Allowances under the government's social safety net programmes is also administered through the Union Parishads. Besides, as the head of the village court, the chairman's neutrality is also of paramount importance for fair arbitration. Performing all these vital functions impartially may not be possible for those who are loyal to certain party or group.
Moreover, just like the national elections, local government elections, too, were marred by widespread controversies: vote rigging, manipulation, widespread violence, and intimidation. Following the dramatic downfall of the Sheikh Hasina's government on August 5, amidst a student-led mass uprising, many local government representatives, who were complicit in the government's misrule, went into hiding, fearing retaliation. Subsequently, the interim government headed by Dr Muhammad Yunus removed all the representatives of local government bodies. The Ministry of Local Government issued a notification removing the mayors of 12 city corporations across the country, including two in Dhaka. Additionally, 323 municipal mayors, 60 Zilla Parishad chairmen, 493 Upazila chairmen, and 988 Upazila vice chairmen were also dismissed. Later, the councillors of the city corporations were also removed.
The government appointed administrators from civil bureaucracy to carry out the responsibilities of the local government bodies. But there are reports of routine services of cities, municipalities, and UPs being disrupted, much to the sufferings of the people. The problems of the local government bodies are chronic, endless, and cannot be remedied by part-time administrators. There must be full-time administrators. Moreover, because citizens do not elect the administrators, they cannot be held to account by the citizens. Rule by administrators no doubt is well-intentioned, but they can only be for an interim period and not in the long term.
It is urgent, therefore, to rescind some of existing laws and initiate necessary reforms that empower local government bodies through local government elections - the choice of the people. Restoring local government bodies' non-partisan character is a must. And it is essential to resolve the anomalies that create conflicts between different tiers of government. The tensions and mistrust between upazila chairmen, MPs, and UNOs can be mitigated through decentralisation of power and by clearly defining and delineating their respective roles and jurisdictions.
Decentralisation of power is imperative to enable rural masses to participate effectively in development activities of their areas and make the elected government accountable. For a balanced decentralisation of power and empowerment of local government bodies, many believe it is time to seriously consider the prospects of transitioning to a federal government system.