Editorial
New upazila law
It whips up further controversy
Not even four-day old, the enactment of the Upazila Parishad Bill is being assailed in such a convincing manner with such outpourings of arguments that it is easily the ruling party's most controversial legislation to-date. This has already driven a wedge between the large community of elected Upazila Parishad office bearers and the large body of MPs giving rise to a conflict of stakes issue. The very working of the Upazila Parishad may have got off to an inauspicious start.
Through the battle that has ensued, detractors are coming out with new ammunition: the amended Upazila Parishad Act militates with the AL's election manifesto. The relevant portion of the manifesto reads, "Local governments of districts and upazilas will be made self-reliant and autonomous and they will play pivotal roles in local development". But the provisions of the new law stop the elected parishads from being self-reliant and autonomous in functioning as the lawmakers have a controlling role over them. It is actually a sad commentary on the government's failure to defend a cabinet decision that sought to keep the MPs from taking a role in the Upazila Parishad. The ruling party leadership should have held its ground against the pressure of MPs.
The second incongruity as far as the application of the law goes relates to the fact that more than hundred upazilas comprising areas falling in two parliamentary constituencies, such upazilas might get two lawmakers as advisers with a greater degree of conflict of interests being presaged.
The fallout should force an introspection into the ruling party leadership so that it takes a pause and think of putting the law on test. It needs to be reviewed, if not immediately, at least in the near future, on the basis of how it has worked. For, we are certain that with the veto power vesting in the MPs there is bound to be a debilitating conflict between the two sets of elected public representatives with both lawmaking and local government functioning suffering in the process.
Comments