Reading between the lines
THE results of the upazila elections should not be taken lightly. Read with the results of the national elections, they have far reaching implications for governance at the district and upazila (sub district) level. The upazila results should be considered as a package, they should not be confined to the list of elected chairmen only.
The female and the male vice-chairmen along with the chairmen will form the caucus of upazila administration. They will be supported by many government functionaries, of whom the UNO (upazila nirbahi officer) and the OC (officer in charge of the thana) are the most important. The elected representatives will provide the leadership of the upazila administration.
The Bangladesh Constitution unequivocally provides for elected leadership at each tier of administrative units. With a unitary government at the centre, the need for autonomous and powerful local bodies as buffer organisations to safeguard the rights of individual citizens can hardly be over-emphasised. The creation of the upazila parishad was theoretically sound.
It did not take off because a martial law government introduced it. Major political parties did not participate in the elections held in 1985 and '90. The elected chairmen were considered social pariahs and opportunists who, in most cases, had a walkover in the absence of formidable opponents.
The elected chairmen never commanded the trust and respect of the common people of the upazilas. Citizens all over the country looked down upon them as they were elected through dubious elections conducted by the dictatorial martial law regime.
Elected chairmen of the upazila parishads were removed in 1991, soon after the democratic government took over. Since then, there was no elected head of the upazila administration -- it was officially run by the executive officer appointed by the central government.
Despite specific directions of the higher judiciary elections to upazila parishads were delayed indefinitely on lame excuses. Influential members of both the ruling and the opposition parties joined forces to scuttle any move to install elected chairmen at the upazila parishads.
With the extinction of the elected chairman's position in the parishad, the upazila turned out to be the exclusive preserve of the executive officer (UNO) or the local MP. In the democratic dispensation the ruling party MP with his popular support base at the local level and hefty clout at the centre gradually arrogated into the jurisdiction of government functionaries and office bearers of community organisations.
The opposition MPs were often ignored by the upazila officers, except in cases where consultations with and approval by them were mandatory. The ruling party MPs, in effect, exercised the power of a fief without formally assuming the office of the local administrator. The officials were at his beck and call. In some upazilas the power of the lawmaker was stretched to an untenable limit.
A new structure of power equation is likely to emerge with the restoration of elected chairman's position along with the creation of two vice-chairman's positions. The position of the local MP will be exalted, but three other persons will be juxtaposed to share power with him at the upazila level.
By design or by default, the executive position of the chairmen and vice-chairmen, so long held by the local MP or the UNO, will bestow some administrative power to them. The results of the upazila elections present interesting and complicated features in this respect.
Contrary to headline impressions, a careful examination of the results will reveal that they do not throw a monochromatic shade so far as party affiliations are concerned. Though the chairmen overwhelmingly belong to the ruling party, in many upazilas the chairman and the vice-chairmen are affiliated to three different parties. If the local MPs are included in the blending, they will construct a more tessellated setting.
If the MPs, the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the upazilas assemble in a seminar room at the district headquarter to speak out their minds, one is likely to hear the voices of all the major political clusters of the country. Seen from this perspective, the 300 MPs, the chairmen and vice-chairmen of about 465 upazilas (withheld and cancelled results excluded) constitute a highly valuable resource pool in the country. Policy planners can greatly benefit if they use this resource to assess citizens response on important issues.
For the first time Bangladesh has four elected leaders of consequence at the upazila level. Each one of them has to find out and secure his/her niche in the upazila by using wits, intelligence, services to and acceptability by the people. It will be interesting to see how these elected leaders build up the governance equations in the upazila for the welfare of their existing and potential constituents.
Comments