Mohiuddin Ahmad
We are familiar with two types of government. One is the local government and the other is the national or central government. But in general we mean the latter when we refer to the government. Government implies people in Dhaka calling the shots. They are in charge of the secretariat, the parliament and the judiciary. And there is also the jail, the intelligence, the police and the military.
There are three tiers to the local government — zila parishad at the district level, upazila parishad at the upazila level and union parishad at the union level. In the small towns there is the poursashava (municipality). In the larger cities there are the city corporations. These are ostensibly called government. In our country the local government runs at the behest of the central government. It is a sort of extension of the government, the central government’s flunky at a local level. The government officials can dismiss the local government elected representative if they so desire.
All said and done, the local government does have importance. After all, it is at the doorstep of the citizens. Take the union parishad, for instance. If all goes well, the election to the union parishad is held after every five years. This has been in place since the days of the British rule. It was called union board at the time. During the Pakistan rule it was called union council. Its scope of work has increased, in the meantime and so has its expenditure and allocations. The head of the union board had been the president. During the British rule, president meant the president of the union or district board. Now the president means the head of state, sitting in Bangabhaban. At the local level the presidents are now chairmen.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate over which is to come first, reforms or elections. Added to this is the debate over whether national elections are to be held first, or local elections
The civil society and politicians in this country have long been taking about empowerment of the local government. Self-rule is the basis of empowerment. For example, the union parishad is to be independent. It will earn revenue, draw up a budget, spend accordingly and provide services. That has not happened. Those who sit in the capital and rule, that an insatiable hunger. They want to keep the entire country within their grasp. They do not have the mentality to share power for delegate responsibility. The central government is sovereign. The local government is its subservient agent.
When there is a government in Dhaka, it does all its service-related work through the union parishad or the upazila parishad. If all this is in their control, they feel safe and sound in Dhaka. That is why whoever becomes a member of parliament, wants to see loyal persons of his liking in the local government. In that way he can establishment his ownership over services and resources at a local level.
The union parishad is the basis of a parliament member’s power. The local leaders are the sources of the parliament member’s muscle and money. During the parliamentary election, they ensure the votes. And by keeping up close ties with the national leaders, the local leaders keep themselves safe and also use this ‘political patronage’ in their own interests. This has been going on down the decades.
There was a time when the most educated, decent and well-bred person would be the local government leader. In many cases he would spend from his own picket for the people’s welfare. Those sound like fairytales now. In most cases it is seen that the worse persons of the village is “elected”. He manages this through muscle power and the patronage of the concerned leader.
The local government is considered to be the golden goose for the members of parliament. There are many politicians who cannot sleep at night, concerned about the welfare of the people. They keep this business running in their worldly interests.
Things turned topsy-turvy in the country in August last year. We think we have become independent anew and so things cannot carry on like before. But not everyone is thinking in this manner. Many are changing, while many remain just the same as before. There has been such an upheaval, so many people have died, but that makes no difference to them. One cannot vehemently say that there will be a qualitative change to the politics of power.
There has been a lot of discussion and debate over which is to come first, reforms or elections. Added to this is the debate over whether national elections are to be held first, or local elections. Those who hope to form the government through the national elections, want to see the national elections first. They want the local government elections under the elected government.
For example, the military backed 1/11 caretaker government wanted to hold the upazila election before the national election. The larger parties, BNP and Awami League in particular, were unwilling. And so whatever was to happen, happened.
The Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament) election was held in December 2008. Awami League formed the government in 2009 and called for the upazila election. The Awami League-backed candidates forcefully won in almost all the upazilas. The election commission watched helplessly. The head of the commission ATM Shamsul Huda remarked that fair elections were not possible under a partisan government.
During the rule of Sheikh Hasina, the provision was put in place to contest in the local government election under party symbol. Hasina’s sycophants reasoned that, this system exists in so-and-so countries, so what not here? And so, the local government system was ruined by holding the local elections on a party basis. Politicisation seeped down to every hearth and home. Who will explain to that them politics and politicisation are not one and the same thing?
Politicians have come up with a new contention nowadays, that a process of depoliticisation has been put in place. What election can there be by leaving out political parties? They do not take into consideration that the local government is a government for all, above party interests, where everyone can have access to services, and so there is really no question about party power there. Party means cronies, oligarchy. They want their cronies on control everywhere.
A local government free of political influence is problematic for politicians. Given the way they plot and plan their power graph, they feel they will be in a problem without control on the local government. That is why they are vehemently against the union parishad or upazila parishad election being held before the parliamentary election. How will they be able to collect votes for the national election if the local elections are held first, they ponder. There is the matter of funds too.
Certain parties aspiring for power feel that the interim government wants to hold the local elections first so that they can stay in power for an extended period. This is a conspiracy. General Ayub Khan and General Ershad stayed in power for long in this manner. That, of course, is a matter of apprehension. The interim government needs to make it clear that they have no political ambitions. It must be seen that in holding the local government elections, focus must not be shifted away from the national election.
Hasina’s plots and plans were all disrupted with the fall of her government. Many of those supported and patronised by her government have now fled. The mayors and chairmen have been removed. The people cannot avail basic services. If the national election takes place after a year or a year and a half, why should the people be deprived of these services for so long? In that sense, the local government polls should be held as soon as possible. These elections should be held within April or May this year. Then the monsoons will arrive. At the same time, a date for the parliamentary polls can be fixed too.
prothom alo
