Where are we on the local government front?

Some milestones can be noted. The cycle of elections for the two existing forms of local governments i.e. union parishads in the rural areas and pourashavas in urban areas, has proceeded apace, union elections in 2003 and pourashava elections in 2004. The provision for gram sarkars too was implemented in 2003, though amidst a sense of a lack of political consensus. What, however, did not happen is the implementation of the provision for elected upazila parishad despite a majority recommendation of the concerned cabinet sub-committee on the matter. For many, this was the fatal blow to any optimism on the decentralisation agenda. The non-implementation of upazila has also fueled a counter-productive trend whereby rural localities not ready for an urban status have vied to make themselves into pourashavas to ensure a backdoor electoral space. The process has merely served to create a plethora of "sick at birth" pourashavas. A compounding source of concern has been the increasing tendency of members of parliament to intrude into the affairs of union parishads and pourashavas, a process which effectively began from the late 1990s.

Other milestones too have been mixed. A good beginning was made with the first-ever combined orientation training for all union parishad members in late 2003. Job descriptions for women members elected on reserved seats were also developed. Revised model tax schedules for union parishads have been issued. Construction of union parishad complexes has been underway. As against these institutional steps, local governments, particularly union parishads, have become even more starved of resources. ADP allocation has in fact declined in per capita terms. More than anything, it is this lack of resource attention which has reinforced the feeling that local governments have fallen off the political radar.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Paradoxically however, while reform attention from above has dwindled, the political and social importance of union parishads and pourashavas appears to have, if anything, increased. In a highly competitive political atmosphere, union parishads and pourashavas offer vital electoral spaces. A new crop of rural leaders, younger, more educated, and outward-looking, appear to have emerged through the union elections of 2003 as revealed through the PPRC survey on the subject. No doubt, they are stymied in their social and developmental ambitions by the continuing limitations of these local government bodies. But their emergence signals new contenders on the political scene. The same PPRC survey further revealed that union parishads are no longer isolated political entities. 92 percent of elected chairmen have an affiliation with national parties. For good or bad, the rural political rhythm has become entwined with the national political rhythm.

Another interesting development has been the veritable explosion in donor-driven pilot experiments regarding in particular union parishads. Experiments in Sirajganj, Tangail, Faridpur, and Noakhali have sought to develop a second resource channel outside of the ADP channel for union parishads. The focus of this second channel has been on micro-infrastructure projects identified through a participatory process. Access to this channel is not automatic but linked to specific performance standards. Other experiments have sought to strengthen accountability mechanisms such as open budget sessions. Even NGOs who shunned local governments in yesteryears are eyeing a rich prospect of "capacity-building projects" focused on union parishads and pourashavas.

None of the above makes for any easy reading of the political prospects of the decentralisation agenda. Government appears far from being reform-minded on the issue except where project possibilities exist: for example, linking union parishads to the sanitation for all campaign. The upazila question is effectively in a stalemate as members of parliament of both government and opposition are opposed to upazila implementation. Indeed, not only are they opposed to upazila, they are also actively intruding into the affairs of the lower-level bodies, i.e. union parishads. Meanwhile, a rich body of institutional lessons on incremental strengthening of union parishads are accumulating from the variety of pilot experimentation going on.

For advocates of decentralisation, it is easy to despair at the situation. This, however, would be the wrong conclusion to draw. While prospects of big-push "reform from above" have dimmed, the social and developmental visibility of union parishads and pourashavas have, if anything, increased. There have even been attempts to form associations of local governments, albeit in a very donor-driven style. The challenge for decentralisation advocates in today's circumstances, however, is not to remain trapped in the politically correct but ineffective position of demanding only big-push reforms from above. Rather, the challenge really is about how best to re-energize the focus on local government taking into account the ground reality of parliamentary and bureaucratic hostility to strong local governments. Three courses of action are open all of which need to be simultaneously pursued.

The first course of action is to seize and build on the incremental possibilities which lie in the current situation. PPRC research findings show that at least a quarter of the newly elected chairmen of union parishads carry promise as transformative rural leadership. Fostering expanding islands of best practices by targeting such leadership should be a promising line to work on. Incremental potentials also lie in linking union parishads to critical new functional arenas such as micro-infrastructure, early child development and local economy promotion. The other major entry point is in the field of local government training. The first-ever orientation training initiated last year provides a good base to develop innovative follow-up training strategies. PPRC has already completed an inventory exercise on existing training provided by government and NGO sectors. Critical gaps have been identified. Collaborative initiatives between research organisations, government institutions, and NGOs to pursue these openings is a critical necessity. Incremental potentials also lie in consolidating a performance-linked second resource channel (outside of ADP) for union parishads: this has been the focus of many of the pilot experiments.

While the strategy of incremental strengthening in institutional, functional, and resource availability arenas is critical, the issue of political decentralisation is not to be abandoned. The meaningful course of action here is to revive the political debate on the upazila question. The non-implementation of upazila is intimately linked to widespread unease and hostility to the issue among members of parliament. In many ways, this hostility has simply been criticised but not engaged with. It is a moot point that the national debate on the upazila question has revolved around simply a restoration argument, namely to restore the upazila model introduced under the Ershad regime in the 1980s. While the principle of an elected upazila parishad has come to find great resonance within the population at large, the specifics of the structure have not been critically engaged with. There may be an important entry point here by which the debate can be revived and a consensus created for a long-term solution.

The third course of action is to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive legislation on local governments. At present, there are a plethora of laws and circulars, often outdated and self-contradictory, which govern existing local governments. These need to be streamlined into a comprehensive cct. Government is unlikely to be the driver in this task. The initiative needs to come from advocacy organisations, research institutions, and civil society actors. The approach here has of necessity to be a long-term one and the task realized through a coalition effort. If a working draft on such a comprehensive legislation can come to be prepared, it can be used as a powerful advocacy instrument to persuade and prod politicians and government of the day to adopt and eventually produce a formal legislation. This is how it happened in India with its 1992 constitutional amendment on the matter.

The decentralisation agenda has certainly hit a road-block. But ground reality shows that it is in no sense a dead-end. While the likelihood of big-push political decentralisation appears uncertain, there are promising prospects of pursuing a revised strategic goal of local governance promotion along functional and innovative lines utilising existing local governments. Bangladesh can ill afford to ignore the critical importance of local governments for its democratic and developmental future. The debate, and not just the debate but also the actions, need to be re-energised. Dividends are likely to be large if not enormous.

Hossain Zillur Rahman is Executive Chairman, PPRC, and Member-Secretary, Local Government Support Group