Upazila administration: Changing contours
THE government's recent decision about the possible role of the members of parliament (MP) with regard to running of the upazila (UZ) administration has taken the nation by surprise. Murmurs about the people's disapproval of the decision are getting louder. One is quite likely to be apprehensive of the future of the UZ administration. We had hoped that revitalising of the UZ administration under public leadership would bring about an atmosphere where enthusiasm and earnestness of local participants in the development would be visible.
The government's decision of making it mandatory for the UZ chairman to seek approval of the local MP may shatter local aspirations, and it is sure to drive a wedge between the MP and UZ chairman. This decision appears to insinuate at power sharing between the MP (law maker) and the chairman, who is supposed to run the administration with devolved authority.
Who does not know that there is a razor sharp difference between obtaining approval of a plan (may be politically motivated) and executing the plan (supposed to be non political in nature). Although the same voters who elect the UZ chairmen elect MPs, the motivation of the voters in either case is widely different. In the first case, they choose along the party line, and in the second case they select one who can address local concerns and sensitivities.
Who, in this case, will shoulder the responsibilities of non-fulfillment of the assigned task? I fear that the tendency of passing the buck will reign supreme, which may not augur well for the people who elect them with the hope that the two elected persons will act in their respective fields.
I would not wonder if an MP, who is the trusted man of a political party, does things to promote his people so that his hold in the constituency remains firm, which may prevent the possibility of getting cooperation of the UZ chairman if he is from another political party or is a non-partisan. It is likely that any chairman of the UZ who does not curry favour with the MP will suffer from erroneous conclusions of the MP.
At the same time, the mistrusting UZ chairman may even withhold pertinent facts from the MP, which will be extremely damaging for the government. This will engage the two elected persons of the locality in mutual destruction of each other's images, which will impede the planning of development and its execution.
Most MP's that we have seen over the last several decades have been arrogant about power or about the source of power, and have been generally obsessed and whimsical. This makes them emotionally empty. Instances of MPs presiding over looting, vandalising, unleashing of terror, illegal tree felling, extortion etc are rife. If there has to be some legal check, only a legal authority can do so. Who can do it better than a well-meaning chairman of UZ?
MPs are most often impatient with criticism and often exercise power divorced from morality, which is a sure road to disaster. They tend to forget that even great leaders once hailed as infallible had been dumped into the dustbin. We had anchored our hopes on our MPs to plead for development of facilities with the government or in the parliament, but often we have seen that they would pursue only those projects that give them an edge over the opponents, and the UZ chairman could also fall in his line of fire. This clash of Titans will ultimately lead to loss of trust of the voters in the MP and the UZ chairman, and this will affect development.
So I strongly feel that the role of MPs should be clearly defined to enable them to frame laws while keeping national development in view. This turnaround will not come immediately, and MPs will not like to be stripped of the sources of fortune. The surest way to ensure that this happens will be to allow intervention of the UZ chairman or stakeholders of the UZ Parishad who enjoy the confidence of the community or neighbourhood.
A UZ chairman who can craft with diligence a network to gain the people's confidence despite negative interference of the MPs will be the right person to preside over local development, assisted by the officials of the Republic. Investing an MP with the power to give his nod to the UZ's proposal will act as an apple of discord. Any UZ chairman who does not kowtow to the pressure of the MP and declines to hitch his cart with the MP's bandwagon is likely to suffer a setback as the MP, in all, probability will not approve the UZ Parishad's proposal on even a flimsy ground.
To my mind, the UZ administration is an effective tool to take development to the doorsteps of rural Bangladesh. The government's decision to revive the UZ administration as a tier of local self-government is salutary. The government's assertion to make it functional may not be rewarded with achievement if the grounds for a clash between MP and the UZ chairman are not removed. The most potent way is to stipulate the role of MP in the UZ administration. I recommend the following:
- Supervise the planning of development and share his thoughts with the UZ Parishad when he is requested to do so.
- Advise against acts prejudicial to good order to ensure social harmony.
- Recommend reward or penalty for achievement and failure.
- Issue strictures and admonishment when a situation is magnified beyond proportion.
- Plead with the government for allocation of funds for development on the basis of priority fixed by the UZ Parishad.
- Encourage owning-up of lapses to boost transparency.
- Act as mandarin along with the UZ chairman to help navigate in the correct and ethically acceptable path to revive whatever has been lost and to strive for development.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments