“The elections in the second phase of fourth Upazila Parishad polls were held peacefully barring some isolated incidents of violence”, said the Chief Election Commissioner on 27th February after suspension of election at Noakhali Sadar Upazila. The election of the second phase was held in 115 Upazila where one person was killed, clashes, conflicts and irregularities occurred almost at everywhere. The election was postponed in more than 100 centers. The Civil Society Organisations and prudent senior citizens are very much concerned about the consequences of such conflicts being perpetrated and encouraged in the name of politics and partisan views to claim superiority at the localities.
The question was raised time and again about benefits that derived so far from such Upazila Paishad established with Local Government (Upazila Parishad and Upazila Administration Reorganization) Ordinance, 1982. Barrister Nazmul Huda as chairman of a committee straightway discarded this concept of Upazila Parishad in 1991 as a tier of local government institution considering its possible clashes with local Member of Parliament and development activities that might be stalled without having any decentralised mandate or budgetary provisions from the central government for Parishad. The Upazila Parishad (Repealed Act, Reintroduction and Amendment) Bill, 2009 passed in Parliament on April 6, 2009 made Upazila chairmen and vice chairmen as subordinates and sycophants to concerned Members of the Parliament. Upazila Parishad cannot even refer to a matter for decision without the approval and clear consent of the concerned MP. Once the chairman of Chandpur Sadar Upazila, Yusuf Gazi, in a reaction stated that Upazila Parishad Act did not even open the opportunity for Upazila chairman to pay respect at the graveyard or attend an invitation to a dinner without the clear approval of the local MP.
Another vice chairperson of Bahubal Upazila once observed that the Upazila chairman and local MP consider female vice chairman as simply a woman, not at all an elected representative. No function is specifically earmarked for her to perform although people voted her with much expectations of fair deal and impartial mitigation of risks at local level. Once Mr. AKM Mozammel Huq, now minister for Liberation War Affairs as MP from the treasury bench raised a bill against downsizing the power of the Upazila Chairman and Upazila Parishad. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Matin Khasru, MP (former Law Minister) from Burichang and Brahmanpara of Comilla district raised a motion in 2009 to designate the UNO as chief executive officer of Upazila and thus undermining the executive as clerical staff.
In fact, no effort has been taken so far to make Upazila Parishad really independent, as the body corporate with decentralised authority and a development unit at the grass roots levels. There were suggestions to revisit the present provisions but this time also the government in a hurry arranged the fourth election of Upazila Parishad to may be keep the opposition party busy with elections campaign and to avoid the agitation against the 5th Januray, 2014 national parliament election controversy. It is simply doing some politics with no commitments to make the local government institutions effective and significant. Different media are publishing the election results on the basis of party affiliation whereas the election commission and some spokesmen of party-in-power describing it as non-party elections. There are total confusions in expectations and realities and in conceptions and actions about the total system of empowering the local government institutions.
In fact, the central government in Bangladesh, irrespective of party in power was found always in total disarray about the spectrum of exact role and authority of the local government under a unitary form of government with unicameral parliamentary system. Bangabadhu wanted to place his nominated governors in each district and Jatiya Party Chief Ershad demanded to divide the whole country into eight regions for effective governance.
On the other hand, MPs of National Parliament nowadays, think of them as the only policymakers to interfere in all affairs including the settlement of marriage and appointment of MLSS in government offices in their constituencies. What a ‘fantastic’ sense of power and authority of the local government! There are total confusions about the retained subjects and transferred subjects with no clear circular issued from the Local Government Division in this respect. Every government in power placed their party secretary general to be the minister-in-charge of Local Government, RD and Cooperatives in order to have their control over the local bodies so that they can supersede any chairman, not loyal to the party in power and/or control their activities with budgetary sanctions or grants in lump sum.
It was imperative to constitute the District Parishad at first and then to go for Upazila Parishad election. But it was not done since a political motive prompted the government for holding Upazila elections that indirectly generated more conflict throughout the country. This does not in anyway reflect the motive of a government to ensure good governance and delegation of authority with the empowerment of local level institutions in true sense of the terms.
It is true; Bangladesh is not a federal government in structure and design as per Constitution. At the same time is not fair that MP of the National Parliament might be so dominating a factor to interfere in the divorce and dacoity of his constituency. He should in no way play the role of an executive and judiciary besides his inherent power as a member of the legislative assembly.
Politics is good but politics to create conflict and chaos throughout the country is not tenable and desirable. To develop a people oriented political system with the empowerment of local bodies, the government should immediately start to ponder how to establish a meaningful local government with its sustainability and acceptability of all political parties and civil society organisations and also massive support of the people in particular.
The creation of conflict at every stage of dealings is easy but establishment of a local level authority with sustainability to impart justice and ensure social capital development is difficult.
———————————–
Dhiraj Kumar Nath is a former secretary and adviser to the caretaker government.
Source: bdnews24
