Local govt bodies need more reform

Twenty-four years back, the country switched over to parliamentary democracy from the presidential form of government. Yet, the local government bodies still function like in the presidential form of government.

This is quite a contradiction between the central and the local government system, though the latter is considered an extension of the former. This anomaly, according to experts, violates the parliamentary principle. It also is symptomatic of how the local government system has remained neglected over the years. 

The difference between these two systems is immense in terms of their formation, exercise of power and accountability.     

In the parliamentary democracy, the prime minister, the head of the government, is elected by the legislature. S/he is a member of the parliament who is elected directly along with other MPs. The premier and her cabinet are accountable to the parliament.

The above parliamentary principles are followed by countries practicing the parliamentary form of democracy.

But in the presidential form of government, the president, the head of the government, is elected directly by the electorates. He is not directly responsible to the legislature.

The formation and functions of our local government bodies still follow the presidential form discarded in 1991 after the fall of autocratic ruler Ershad.

All the heads of the various local government bodies are elected directly by the electorates along with the other members or councillors of the local government institutions. 

A chief of a local government body is vested with full executive power. The members or councillors of the body do not have effective powers to hold their chief accountable for his/her actions. This allows the chief to act in an authoritarian manner.

Kamal Siddiqui, a former bureaucrat and local government expert, explains the reasons behind this culture in his book: "Local Government in Bangladesh."

In Bangladesh, he writes, presidential local government coexists with parliamentary central government not by design but because in 1991, the major political parties were interested to change only the structure of the central government which was presidential and identified with the autocratic rule of Ershad. 

Eminent jurist Shahdeen Malik has said the government should change the local government bodies' laws to conform to the parliamentary form of the government.

The local government bodies, as Shahdeen Malik says, should also be given the power to make by-laws for their functioning. In many countries, the local government institutions have this power.   

Local government expert Dr Tofail Ahmed has echoed Shahdeen Malik.

In this situation, the proposed changes in the local government bodies' laws to hold their elections on partisan lines will not ensure any qualitative change in their functions or power.

Even though, the current elections to the local government bodies' are theoretically non-partisan, the reality is that the polls are held in a partisan manner. The proposed change approved by the cabinet yesterday will only make the polls officially partisan.

It will bring no other changes in the functions of the local government bodies. In the current political atmosphere, it will in no way strengthen the democratic system and practices at the grassroots level as the LGRD ministry claimed. 

There is a fear that the proposed changes may increase the influence of partisan politics over the local government bodies, which will further deteriorate the quality of their services. There is also a fear that this system may throw open the doors of nomination business to the major political parties. 

To curb excessive influence of partisan politics in the local government bodies' functions, the past caretaker government had brought drastic reforms. The then government had introduced new provisions that on their elections chiefs of city corporations, upazila, and municipality must resign from party posts, if they hold any, before taking oath.

The mayors elected in four city corporations and eight municipalities in August 2008 had resigned from their party posts to take oaths.

The political parties including AL and BNP had strongly opposed the legal provision. Assuming the office in January 2009, the AL-led government did not allow that provision to continue.   

And now, finally, the government has moved to hold the elections on partisan lines.

Local governments in UK and India, where these elections are held in partisan line, have significant authority to discharge their functions. But their chiefs do not hold absolute executive powers. They are accountable to the councils.   

The government therefore should bring some reforms to empower the local government bodies--zila, upazila and union parishads, city corporations and municipalities. Otherwise, only cosmetic change will not benefit the local government bodies. The government's intention will also be questioned after the proposed changes in the local government laws.

There are reasons to be skeptic. They include making the MPs advisors to the upazila parishads, allowing the upazila nirbahi officers to run the parishads, bifurcating Dhaka city corporations and appointing party men as administrators to the zila parishads.

On October 1, the government empowered bureaucrats to lead the divisional and district coordination committees to monitor local development activities. This step has further weakened the local government system.

And yesterday, the cabinet came up with more good news for bureaucrats. It approved proposals for amendments to the local government laws seeking to appoint administrators to run municipality, upazila and union parishads if their elections are not held on time. 

At present, the government has powers to appoint administrators to zila parishads and the city corporations. In exercise of the powers, the government has appointed AL men as administrators to 61 zila parishads in December 2011 for an indefinite period, who are still serving in those roles.

It had also appointed over a dozen government officials as administrators since 2011 to the bifurcated Dhaka City Corporations until their elections were held last April. 

Once the laws are amended, the government will have powers to appoint administrators to all the local government bodies if their elections are not held on time after the expiry of their tenure.

Each of the above measures runs counter to the ruling party's last two parliamentary election promises to strengthen the local government system.