UZ chairmen, vice-chairmen make a valid point
The issue of what kind of local government we mean to have in Bangladesh has once again been highlighted through the convention of upazila chairmen and vice chairmen in Dhaka. That it needs these elected representatives of the people at the grassroots level to inform the country and the government about the state of inactivity they have been forced into not only raises questions about the future of democracy but also makes a mockery of this entire idea of local bodies supervising development work at the local levels. Let us make no mistake about it: when upazila chairmen, vice-chairmen and members complain that they have no specific responsibilities other than having tea, engaging in small talk and going back home, they are not indulging in humour. They are raising a fundamental issue of how and why the very principle of local government may be getting undermined in the country.
The undermining of the upazila system, despite the fact that it is a directly elected structure, is being done in two ways. In the first place, with MPs playing a direct role as advisors to the upazila parishads and in effect pushing their way into local development activities, the upazilas are clearly not in a position to assert themselves. In the second, the administrative organ of the government, through the upazila nirbahi officers (UNOs), has as good as made sure that upazila chairmen and others in the upazila structure are not able to supervise the activities of the upazilas in a way they should have under the normal concept of local government. Either way, it is a hamstrung upazila system we have in the country; and the UZ chairmen and vice-chairmen are right to mention that unless their duties and responsibilities are clearly spelt out, the whole idea of local government will fall flat. It is a sentiment that is shared by people across the board. One is compelled to ask the government: why must the upazilas, despite their status as elected bodies, be kept in the limbo they have found themselves in since they were elected early last year?
We raise this question for two fundamental reasons. The first relates to the constitutional stipulation of local government being at the core of democratic governance in the country. The second refers to the pre-election promise made by the Awami League, through its manifesto, of strengthening the UZ system and thereby adding substance to the concept of local government. The unfortunate fact, though, is that the Awami League, now the ruling party, has carefully stepped back from both the constitutional requirement and its electoral pledge. The result is a situation where we have local government on paper but see precious little sign of it in reality. If MPs are to impose themselves politically on the upazilas and if UNOs are to be responsible for all administrative and financial dealings of the upazilas, where does all that leave the elected upazila bodies? It is crucial that such questions be answered, and soon. Unless the powers and responsibilities of the UZ parishads are specifically defined and unless UZs are made the focal point of local government, this whole idea of local government will turn out to have been a sham. Worse, an emasculated local government system can only lead to increasing centralisation and, in the end, gigantic problems that the national government located in the capital will not be able to handle.
We share the sentiments of the upazila chairmen and vice chairmen. Let the government now step forward to resolve a crisis that ought not to have been there at all.
Comments