What remains of elected status of Upazila Parishad?

WE are saddened by the fact that elected upazila parishads are being increasingly emasculated. As if giving the members of parliament a mandatory advisory role over the parishad was not enough, now comes its further weakening: the power of UNOs has been increased vis-a-vis the upazila chairmen.
Let's not be oblivious of the fact that upazila nirbahi officers are part of the parishad in an administrative sense. They have their own importance. They head the other agencies of the government assisting the working of the elected body. So their status is very much a given quantity. Hitherto they have been known as secretary to the upazila parishad, but now, according to a cabinet decision, they will be designated as principal executive officer through an enactment of law.
It is understood on good authority that the UNOs will continue providing secretarial assistance to the upazila parishad. But it appears that since they will look after financial matters and would issue cheques, the power of the purse will be held by them. This has given rise to an apprehension in the minds of upazila chairmen and vice-chairmen that in the power equation elected representatives are being put at a disadvantage in terms of implementing projects.
We understand the value of check and balance being an important prerequisite for an effective and public welfare-oriented development regime with assured transparency and accountability. But what we find baffling is lack of clear-cut delineation of authorities. In rewriting the equation between MPs and upazila chairmen, the primacy of the latter as the head of the elected body has been rudely undermined. Consequently, rivalry has been bred in two sets of elected public representatives whereas they should have been working in coordination with each other. Similarly, executive branch of the government, as represented by the UNO, is being brought into conflict with the upazila chairmen and vice-chairmen.
It is claimed by the proponents of the latest proposal that just as a secretary is to a minister so will now be a UNO to the upazila chairman. But the reality is while a minister has a policy-making responsibility, the upazila chirman is denied of that role due to the obligatory advisory meddling by members of parliament.
Our final point is: if the government was bent upon disempowering the upazila system, what good does it expect from it by showering expensive perks and privileges on the upazila chairmen and vice-chairmen, except to emphasise ornamentation rather than real work.