AN EFFECTIVE local government in a country and society consolidates democracy from the grassroots. The common people become partners in good governance. Development and services are cost-effective and of high quality and standard. Local government is the primary and middle level school of democracy practice for the local people. Here, democracy practice consolidates national democracy. All in all, the necessity of local government as a subsystem of the state and government is undeniable for building a stable democratic society. Therefore, the local government system is given a prominent place in politics and state structure in the liberal democratic practice of the west. Theorists and philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Alexis de Tocqueville, Harold Laski, CH Wilson, Jeremy Bentham and other philosophers have given special importance to the establishment and nurturing of local democracy as a prerequisite for the development of national democracy.
After the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent state, the hopes and aspirations of the general public increased greatly. As part of the strong desire for democracy, some great positive changes were initiated in the local government system. The first and greatest change among them was the reorganisation of the union council and the municipality on the basis of universal adult suffrage. In the subsequent history, local government became so immersed in various negativities that it kept falling over and over again while trying to stand up. It was being claimed that many progressive provisions were added to the 1972 constitution regarding local governance. We were all in a daze about this. The nation is disoriented by major political issues such as various disasters of democracy, constitutional crises, assassinations, military coups, mass uprisings, elections and the collapse of all democratic institutions.
Local government or local governance, caught in these quagmires, could not attract the healthy and normal attention of politicians. Local government institutions became frontline soldiers in the electoral war, gathering local party workers, tools for their maintenance and use of state resources for individual and group interests, these became the main issues. In Bangladesh, a permanent arrangement of imposing 鈥榙ouble engine鈥� government control gradually developed in the local government system. On the one hand, aggressive politics, on the other hand, strengthening the foundation of administrative or bureaucratic control. Although not all its objectives are dishonest, if done wrongly, it is to tie a knot of local government and local governance.
The parallel presence of elected local governments and field administration in all administrative units of the country and the unbridled power of the central government ministries have made local government institutions a weed. By making elected local governments, the same work has been given to both the local government and the relevant departments and officials of the government. To make a truly democratic local government system effective, four things, namely 鈥� function, functionary, fund and freedom to make decisions, are very important.
Local government has none of them. For example, the upazila health department has all three functions, functionary and finance. Similarly, the situation is the same in every field of education, agriculture, livestock, fisheries, social services, youth, women and children. The responsibility for all the work done by local government departments has been given to the local government in various ways. But even though work has been given, staff, money and freedom have not been given. So, the whole matter has become a blunder. In academic terms, this is called an unfunded mandate, which is the assignment of all responsibilities without specific tasks, skilled personnel and the necessary financial resources to perform the work.
The district council is completely isolated from the district administration and all government and private departments providing development and services in the district. It is a political and party arena isolated from the public due to the voting system. On the other hand, the district council cannot spend any project without the approval of the ministry. The upazila council is torn apart by various conflicts. The upazila council consists of three public representatives 鈥� a chair and two vice-chairs. The size and population of the constituency of all three are the same, but the power and facilities provided are all under the control of the chair.
The chair holds political leadership. The key to all administrative leadership is in the hands of the upazila executive officer. The union council chairs and the mayors of the municipalities are members of the upazila council ex officio. None of them consider the upazila council as their own council. They are only partners in sharing money. Above all, there is a strong control by the invisible hand of the local national parliamentarian. Local government institutions have consistently seen themselves in a position of favour and subordination to the local administration or field administration. Therefore, instead of developing an independent entity of leadership, a culture of subordination has developed. Again, due to excessive politicisation over the past one and a half to two decades, an anarchic culture of not following any rules has started to emerge. Both these trends are a cultural disaster on the way to developing a healthy local government system.
In our local government system, on the one hand, there is a three-tier structure at the rural level 鈥� union council, upazila council and district council. On the other hand, there is a two-tier organisational structure in the city 鈥� municipality and city corporation. Elections are held in these institutions, but the practice of democracy is questionable. The list of legal tasks is attractive, but the work is done outside the law. What is said to be done in the law is not done in that way.
Many other tasks are done that are outside the rules. The existing laws and organisational structures are not compatible. As a result, conflicts and opacity prevail in every institution. In the future, maintaining a democratic environment in local government institutions, preventing the exercise of single power, ensuring the institutional role of everyone in the council and bringing balance in the election of leaders and leadership practices will be a major challenge as suggested by local government reform commission 2024. In addition to democratising the organisational structure, another issue must be addressed. That is, creating a logical uniform form-structure for the inconsistent organisational structures that have been created at different levels for different political needs at different times, so that effective inter-institutional relations can be created.
One aspect is that no solution has been found even after several commissions have been presented one after another, which is the formulation of a unified, easy-to-understand and user-friendly single law on the local government system. At present, there are no wards in the upazila council. The creation of wards in the upazila will not be as complicated and difficult as in the union. All small and medium-sized unions will be divided into three wards or electoral areas of the upazila council. In the case of exceptionally large unions, it may be limited to five wards.
Similarly, each upazila can also be divided into three to five wards for the election of the district council. The wards of the districts and upazilas will be used only for elections. The ward members will not have any executive responsibilities in these wards. Because everything in those areas will be looked after by the union council. These three councils will have a common organisational structure. This organisational structure will have two main parts, one is the legislative part and the other is the executive part.
In the name of democracy, a dictator has been created in all institutions by electing a chair and mayor in each local council in the name of the election of the mayor. Those dictators have seen themselves as bigger than the council and have established them that way. They have often violated the democratic decision-making, participatory planning and budgeting system of the council. As a result, democracy in local government has been completely destroyed.
Considering these issues, the idea of 鈥嬧�媐orming a system where the entire council and council system plays a joint leading role instead of a single person or position has been started. Analysing the experiences of various countries including India and Britain, if we adopt a parliamentary system local government structure in place of the presidential system in Bangladesh, the possibility of getting rid of this situation is bright. Elections are cost-effective, time-saving and more participatory. Apart from that, the elected representatives can be directly connected with the voters.
In the current conventional system, a voter votes for three candidates and the general voter are confused because the responsibilities are divided among the three. If local elections are held under the parliamentary system, all voters will have their own representative. They will be able to hold him directly accountable. Each member of the union, upazila and district will be accountable to the voters. Local governments similar to the central or national government of the country can be of a parliamentary system. Needless to say, sustainable development is not possible without citizen participation. This will make policymaking more inclusive. Citizen forums should be formed in each ward and they should be involved in local decisions. Citizens鈥� opinions should be taken through monthly public hearings. Youth advisory councils should be formed to involve the youth in urban development plans.
This concept of local government or local state is now considered essential, regardless of ideological differences, type and character of organisation 鈥� capitalist, socialist and mixed economy, and on the other hand, in liberal democratic, totalitarian, dictatorial and even monarchical systems, considering the administrative advantages of a single monolithic state, the geographical divisibility of the governance structure is considered essential. Although various recommendations have been made at different times for the establishment of a real governance system, it has not been practically fruitful. However, it is certain that in order to reap the benefits of democracy, timely reforms must be brought in the local government structure. To that end, let us pledge to form a strong, effective and participatory local government in light of the recommendations proposed by the Local Government Reform Commission formed by the interim government.
听
Dr Mohammad Tarikul Islam is professor of government and politics in Jahangirnagar University. He has been a visiting scholar and guest teacher at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard universities and a member of the local government reforms commission.