THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION IN BANGLADESH: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

 MD. MONIRUZZAMAN
First Secretary (Commercial)
Bangladesh High Commission, Kuala Lumpur

INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation state in 1971. Although a new state, Bangladesh is an old country with a long recorded history of several thousand years. In its recent past it was part of Pakistan (1947-1971) and was known as East Pakistan. Prior to this, different parts of the present Bangladesh territory were under the British India (1765-1947), the Mughals and other Muslim rulers and before them under Buddhist and Hindu rulers. The institutional form of the local government administration in Bangladesh was originated in 1870 when the British Government in India passed the Chowkidari Panchayet Act, 1870. The institution of Local Government in Bangladesh has a long tradition. The British rulers institutionalized this system to perpetuate their political, economic and administrative ends and colonial extortion (Ali, 2001). This system was later changed and renamed in different regimes from the British period to present Bangladesh as three-tier Union Committee (1885), two-tier Union Board (1919), four-tier Union Council (1959), and Union Parishad (1973) (Shafi, et.al, 2001: 3).

Local Government can be defined as the government below or government as organized locally. Historically, local government was always there in Bengal. The ancient and medieval governments of Bengal were heavily dependent on village institutions, which made the structure of the local government. The village society was left to itself for its own governance. The king remained contented with its share in produce in the form of tax. There were state-sponsored institutions, such as village headmen and village councils of many denominations. These were instituted for double purposes: to collect tax and to keep the people together for keeping production going and for keeping the kingdom happy and prosperous. It is quite possible that above the village level, there existed not local self-government but a local extension of the central authority, perhaps tempered by some degree of local consultation system through a social council system.

The main concern of this paper is to focus on the local Government administration of Bangladesh from historical perspective. The purpose of the paper is to discuss (i) existing structure of local government administration in Bangladesh, (ii) Constitutional Provision for Local Government Administration, (iii) evolution of the Local Government Administration in Bangladesh, (iv) Role and functions (v)  local government finance in Bangladesh (vi) Centre-local government relations (vii) Problems and challenges, and (viii) Conclusion. 

EXISTING STRUCTURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION IN BANGLADESH

 Bangladesh has a unitary form of government and for the convenience of administration the country is divided into six Administrative Divisions: Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Rajshahi, Barisal and Sylhet. Each Division is placed under a Divisional Commissioner and is further subdivided into Districts with a District Commissioner (DC) as the Chief Administrator. After the administrative reorganization carried out in 1982, the country was divided into 64 Districts. 20 of these Districts existed for a very long period while the rest are the ones upgraded from former Sub-Divisions. The 20 old Districts are now popularly known as Greater Districts. Below the district level there are the Thanas which number 490 in the country. During 1982-1990, 460 of the Thanas were upgraded to Upazillas or Sub-Districts. With the abolition of the Upazilla system in 1991, the Upazilla Regional Administrative System reverted to the earlier Thana structure.

The divisional level is the highest tier of administration, after the national level. He only plays a supervisory role over all the departments and agencies in the Division because the divisional office of each department is directly linked to its national office. The Divisional Commissioner became involved in development functions only since the establishment of the Regional (Divisional) Development Boards in 1976. The Regional Development Boards is responsible for those projects of the District Boards which the latter cannot finance or does not have expertise to look after. The Regional Development Boards are somewhat less active at present. The District has been the focal point in the administrative system of Bangladesh. The head of the district administration is known as the Deputy Commissioner (or more popularly the DC). In addition to the administrative offices at district level which (linked to their respective higher echelon) the office of the Deputy Commissioner is divided into a number of Divisions and sections. Within its planning and implementation section the Annual and Midterm Plans are prepared. The physical infrastructure section is responsible for the construction of physical infrastructure throughout the district unless it is of very small nature. In that case it falls under the jurisdiction of the Thana administration.. The administrative head of the Thana is known the Thana Nirbahi Officer.

The District and Thana executives are assisted by a large number of officials as well as professional and technical personnel appointed by the central government. Local government in urban and rural areas is entrusted to bodies elected by the people. Such bodies are called Municipalities or Pourashavas (numbering 138) in urban areas and Union Parishads or Union Councils (numbering 4,451) in rural areas (BBS, 1993). With the passage of the Gram Parishad Bill and the Union Parishad on 4 September 1997 in Parliament, local government structure is to be implemented at the grass-roots level. Four of the largest Municipalities, Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna and Rajshahi, have been given metropolitan status and are known as City Corporations. For many years these City or Municipal Corporations were run and headed by nominated rather than elected Mayors, although members of the City Corporation Council (Ward Commissioners) have been elected from the respective wards. Once again, in March 1994, the four metropolitan areas had their Mayors elected directly by the people.

The following figure shows the existing local government structure in Bangladesh:

Figure 1: Existing Structure of Local Government in Bangladesh

Local Government Categories and Hierarchies

The rural/regional local government have four tiers:

1. Gram (Village) Parishad, (40,392);

2. Union Parishads (4499;

3. Thana/Upazila Parishads (460);

4. Zila (District) Parishads (64).

Urban areas have a separate set of local governments. The Bangladesh Census Commission recognized 522 urban areas in 1991 (with a population of about 5000 or more) but only about 138 of the larger urban areas among these have urban local governments. The four largest cities have a City Corporation status, while the rest are known as Pourashavas or Municipalities, which again are classified according to financial strength.

In addition, there are also some urban centers that are under military Cantonment Boards. As the City Corporation and Pourashavas (Municipalities) are true urban local governments, their function, administration and financial structure will be further elaborated on below. The large numbers of small urban centres are administered under the Union Parishad system of (rural) local government. Some urban centres have a fairly large population but have not yet been declared a Municipality and therefore also remain under Union Parishad management.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION 

For the purpose of this paper, local government is defined essentially in terms of some attributes: first, its statutory status; second, its power to raise finance by taxation in the area under its jurisdiction; third, participation of the local community in decision making on specified subjects and administration; fourth, the freedom to act independent of central control; and lastly, its general function, in contrast to the single-purpose character of many autonomous bodies. Constitutional and Legal Basis of Local Government

In any democratic polity, local government is given legal recognition either by an act of Parliament or by incorporation of relevant provisions in the Constitution (Khan, 1996: 1)Sometimes the local extensions of the central government, and in others, traditional local power structures utilized for supporting field administration, have been misconstrued as being equivalent to local government. At times local government has been mistakenly considered an insignificant segment of the government. However, in industrialized countries, the number of civil servants at the local level is much larger than is commonly believed. In the United States, for example, there are four times as many local government employees as federal employees; even in a developing country, like India, the number of local level employees is as high as 40 percent that of federal employees (Siddique, 1994: 2). Bangladesh's Constitution of 1972 clearly spelt out the legal basis and responsibilities of local government. Article 59, Chapter III of the Constitution states that, 'local government in every administrative unit of the Republic shall be entrusted to bodies composed of persons elected in accordance with law’. Article 60 of the Constitution states 'for the purpose of giving full effect to the provision of article fifty nine, Parliament shall, by law, confer powers on the local government bodies referred to in that article including power to impose taxes for local purposes, to prepare their budgets and to maintain funds (Constitution of People's Republic of Bangladesh, as modified up to 30th of November, 1998). It is necessary to mention the constitutional and legal basis of the local government of Bangladesh because if the duties and responsibilities of the local government institutions are not demarcated by the Constitution or by the act of the parliament, or if there is no scope for the government to decentralise powers to elected local bodies, it is difficult to devolve powers. It is evident that the legal basis of the local government is clearly spelt out in the Constitution and the Constitution through Article 59, Chap III has ensured the devolution of power to local government bodies.

EVOLUTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION IN BANGLADESH 

It is believed by many, but disputed by others, that administration of villages in medieval times was left to the panchayet. Each village had its own council or panchayet. It appointed or elected its own headman who served as a link between the village and the central government. The headman collected revenue from the cultivators and forwarded the same to the treasury. A patwari or village accountant working under the supervision of the headman used to keep records of crops and revenue. The panchayets were generally entrusted with the task of looking after education, irrigation, religious practices and moral conduct of the villagers. Holding fairs and festivals, and maintenance of law and order were also their functions.

It is not clear whether the administrative units during the medieval period were the same as those in the ancient period, but it seems that revenue collection became more organized during the Mughal period (1526-1858) and local administration was more geared up to that end. Thus, during the Mughal rule, Sarkar/Chakla and Pargana emerged as the focal point of revenue and general administration. Secondly, during the medieval period, there is no evidence of local consultation through the council system; it was quite simply a top-down administration consisting of the extension of central authority into the local areas. These two characteristics are likely to have undermined the authority of whatever self-government was prevailing at the village level. During the medieval period, particularly under the Mughals, the town gained importance in Bengal. The Mughals were essentially an urban people, and their most remarkable contribution in respect of local government was in the urban areas. The office of Kotwal was developed as the cornerstone of the municipal organization during this period. Appointed under a Sanad of the Emperor, the Kotwal was a person of high status; law and order was his first responsibility, and he used to maintain a body of horses, city guards and a group of spies. Almost every sphere of city life was under his responsibility.

British period, 1793-1945

The early period of the British rule did not much touch upon the structure of the existing local government system. Pargana system was abolished, so was the panchayet system. The new civil and criminal justice and its adalat system became the basis of the local government. Zamindar means Landlord, but particularly of the group of landlords and the zamindar system that emerged after the British Permanent Settlement (Landlease) Act of 1793. In essence, the former tax collectors of the Mughal period (1526-1858) became landlords under the British. The zaminder became an administrator with concurrent judicial functions, who ensured revenue flows from the localities to the central government and handled a wide variety of official business. The end of east India company rule in 1858 and parliamentary commitment to take the people of the country in partnership in phases led to many reforms leading to increasing participation of people in the local governance. Thus, government passed the Bengal Chowkidari Act of 1870. The Act tried to revive the traditional Panchayet System. It authorized the District magistrate to appoint a panchayet at the village level consisting of five members. The primary function of the panchayet was to appoint village watch-men called chowkidars for the maintenance of law and order. The panchayet could also assess and collect taxes from the villagers to pay the salaries of the chowkidars.

…..The most direct mode of western self governance was attempted by Viceroy lord ripon (1880-1884). His administration resolved in 1882 to introduce local self-governing institutions in phases. In implementing the resolution, the Bengal Council passed the Local Self-Government Act, 1885 under which a three-tier system of local government for rural areas was provided: (i) a District Board in each district, (ii) a Local Board in a sub-division of a district, (iii) a Union Committee for a group of villages. The District Board was made the centre-piece in the local government system and entrusted with extensive powers and responsibilities. A Local Board acted as an agent of the District Board and could exercise only those powers delegated to it by the District Board. The Local Board acted as a supervising body of Union Committees and could delegate any responsibility to Union Committees which were designed to administer, on an average, an area of twelve square miles in the villages. Union Committees, consisting of not less than five or more than nine members, were to be elected from among the residents of the union.

….The Act of 1919 initiated the second major attempt to create a network of self-government bodies in rural Bengal. The Act replaced existing Chowkidari, Panchayet and Union Committees by a new body called the Union Board. The Union Board was composed of not less than six but not more than nine members of whom two-thirds were elected and one-third nominated. Nominated members were chosen by the District Magistrate. Elected members were chosen from union residents who attained 21 years of age and had paid at least a rupee of land tax and at least another rupee as tax assessed by the new Board. After the election, the members elected a president and a vice-president from among themselves. The president was the chief executive of the Board. He could be removed from office by a no-confidence resolution passed by two-thirds of the members of the Board. Nominated members of the Union Board were to be chosen by the District Magistrate. Primary functions of the Union Board were: (a) supervision of chowkidars, (b) maintenance of sanitation and public health, (c) maintenance of roads, bridges and waterways, (d) establishment and upkeep of schools and dispensaries at its discretion and (e) supply of information as and when needed by the District Board. The supervision and control over the Union Board was exercised by the circle officer who served as a link between the District Board and the thana administration.

….The British colonial administration established local governments through the Local Self-Government Act of 1885 to maximize land revenue collection and maintain law and order. Local officials during this period came from the local elite. But the process of decentralization during British rule was obscure. Although India was the first colony to become the experimental ground for such policies of decentralisation, the British reluctance to implement any real degree of decentralisation is also evident. One example of such reluctance is when the empire rejected the report of the Decentralisation Commission in 1907 which recommended an elected Panchayat (Tinker, 1967: 87).

Pakistan period, 1947-1971

The colonial situation of local government persisted until 1959. A new experiment was tried by ayub khan who was in favour of a kind of democracy called basic democracies which was to be characterized by authoritarian government at the top and qualified representative government at the local level. The Basic Democracies Order was promulgated in 1959. East Pakistan was divided into 60,000 electoral units with an average population of 1070. The persons enlisted in the electoral roll for each electoral unit were required to elect from among themselves a person known as the elector for that unit. The electors of all electoral units in both the provinces were known as members of the 'electoral college'. These members played the political role of electing the President of the country and members of the National and Provincial Assemblies.

It had four tiers in the rural areas. From bottom to top, this consisted of Union Council, Thana Council, District Council and Divisional Council. A Union Council generally consisted of ten elected members. The Council elected from amongst its members one chairman and one vice-chairman. The usual term of office of chairman, vice-chairman and members was five years. The vote of no-confidence passed against a chairman or a vice-chairman was not to be questioned in a court of law. A Thana Council consisted of elected representatives as well as official members. The total number of official members of a Thana Council could not be more than the total number of representative members. The Thana Councils consisted of three categories of members, i.e. representative members, official members, and appointed members. Generally, 50 percent were representative and the rest 50 percent were official and appointed members.

The main function of the Thana Council was co-ordination of activities of Union Councils under its jurisdiction. All the chairmen of the Union Councils and Union Committees were required to be present in the monthly Thana Council meetings where they could discuss their problems. The sub-divisional officer (SDO) found these meetings useful for ascertaining the problems of the outlying areas.

The District Council was the next tier of local government under the Basic Democracies Order. There was an obvious difference between the District Board and the District Council. The District Board was an elective body headed by an elected chairman and was independent of the bureaucracy at the District level. Under the Basic Democracies Order, the District Council was brought under the control of the bureaucracy. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector was the ex-officio chairman of the District Council. All executive powers were vested in him.

Every Division had a Divisional Council. It was the highest tier among the rural local bodies. A Divisional Council was formed by official and non-official members. The number of Divisional Council members differed from Council to Council which was to be decided by the government. The total number of non-official members was not to be less than that of the total number of official members. The non-official members were elected from amongst an electoral college consisting of the members of the District Councils falling within the Division. The official members were the deputy commissioners (as chairmen of the District Councils) and a few division level officers.

The Divisional Council had no power of levying taxes. Government placed funds with the Divisional Council, which, in turn, sanctioned such funds to District Councils and other local bodies as grants. Thus it was an organ without any real function of local self-government.

The Basic Democracies system of local government had failed entirely. With the fall of Ayub Khan his system also collapsed. In 1972, under a Presidential order (President's Order No. 7) the Basic Democracies system was abolished.  

Bangladesh  period

As a result of the long history of struggle for freedom and democracy, Bangladesh saw the importance of developing a sound democracy and increasing people's participation in the political process, decision-making, and development of the country after it emerged as an independent nation.

The Mujib Period, 1972 to 1975

After the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, the Awami League government, headed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, brought the following reforms in the local government.  

1. The system of basic democracies was abolished and government bodies carried over from the days prior to independence were dissolved.

2. Public officials were authorized to form committees at different tiers of government to fill the void created by the termination of some government bodies. The committees created would, for the interim, perform local functions.

3. District governorship was introduced in 1973. This provided for a three-tier system with a directly elected Union Parishad (Council), a Thana development committee under the control of the sub-divisional officer, and Zilla Parishad under the control of Deputy Commissioner.

Although the Union Parishad (Council) was designed as a decentralized body of local government and the election in 1973 was to ensure grassroots democracy, the Awami League did not hold elections to the higher level councils, nor did it take any measures to devolve authority to any of them. There was a substantial lack of political and behavioral support among Awami League leaders for democratizing the system of governance. It was manifested when Sheikh Mujib abolished the parliamentary system altogether, introduced presidential rule under one-party rule known as BAKSAL, along with the 'governor system' introduced at the district level (Rahman and Khan, 1997:8).

Under Ziaur Rahman Regime, 1976 to 1981

In August 1975, amidst political turmoil, Major General Ziaur Rahman became the Chief Martial Law Administrator. He played a critical role in reviving the local government institutions in the country. The Local Government Ordinance 1976, promulgated by Zia, created Gram Sbaha (village councils) in an attempt to decentralize government down to the village level. In 1980, two years after General Zia became the elected president, all the Gram Sbahas were transformed into Gram Sarkar (village government) in each of the 68000 villages of Bangladesh. The Gram Sarkar was a body consisting of gram pradhan (village executive) and 11 elected members representing different classes of the village. The Gram Sarkar was a mini-government which could undertake planning and promotional programmes (Chowdhury, 1987:20). The Local Government Ordinance 1976 made provisions for the formation of three types of rural local government, Union Parishad, Thana Parishad and Zila Parishad. The composition and functions of the Union Parishad remained much the same as in Presidential Order 22 of 1973, except for the abolition of the post of vice chairman and the inclusion of two additional types of Union Parisad members, i.e., two woman members and two peasant members to be nominated by the government. Its term was fixed at five years. The LGO also prescribed detailed provisions as regards the qualifications and removal procedures of the UP chairman/members as well as how the UP proceedings were to be conducted. But the government retained much controlling power over the UPs in that its prescribed authority, i.e. SDOs in the case of UPs, could veto any of UPs' decisions. The UP was entrusted with forty functions. The main functions included public welfare, maintenance of law and order, revenue collection, development and adjudication. Its sources of revenue remained almost similar to those of the BDO of 1959, i.e. the government grants, taxes, rates, fees, etc.

The reforms initiated by President Zia were different from the earlier policies of decentralisation. The bureaucracy was given a free hand to control the local councils once again. The only exceptions were the Union Parishads and Gram Sarkars. The Gram Sarkar had many characteristics common to those of Mawhood model of decentralisation. Although for the first time in Bangladesh, the Gram Sarkar provided for an equality of representation to various functional interests, many argue that implicit objectives of the reform package of decentralization during Zia's period was to gain direct political support for the military regime in its process of civilianization (Hossain, 1989).

Lieutenant General Ershad Regime (1982 to 1990)

The decentralization scheme implemented under Ershad's government was the most ambitious attempt in the history of Bangladesh to bring responsible government to the local level. The system officially began with elections in 1983 for four-year terms to union councils and with elections in 1984 for three-year terms to sub-district councils. However, there were major problems with this scheme of decentralized administration. First, the electoral system tended to represent only the wealthiest and most influential members of society. These persons made decisions that strengthened their own patronage networks and influence at the local level; the poorest strata in society had little direct voice in elected committees. Second, the sub-district councils were designed to create and implement development activities in their areas, but they were typically slow to draft five-year plans or carry through broad-based development efforts. Most of their projects emphasized construction or public works, (e.g., school buildings or irrigation canals, and they sometimes neglected the personnel and training components necessary for social involvement. Third, civil service members have long lacked respect for local politicians, looking to their own advancement from their supervisors in Dhaka. They have often been slow to cooperate with elected members of local committees. For example, although the sub-district council chairman was responsible for writing the Nirbahi (Executive) officer's annual evaluation, the officer was expected to submit the evaluation form to the sub-district council chairman, and in many cases these forms did not appear, thus preventing the chairmen from exercising control. Finally, the entire system of decentralized politics was viewed by opposition politicians as a patronage network designed to attract local elites to the party of the regime in power. Observers tended to conclude that instead of furthering decentralized democracy, the system only strengthened the national party controlled from Dhaka.

            The political history of Bangladesh was repeated in the 1980s as the Upazilla was politicized in favour of the ruling military regime the way Pakistan's dictator Ayub Khan used the system of Basic Democracies in the 1960s, and the Gram Sarkar of the 1970s (Rahman and Khan, 1997:9).

Under Khaleda Zia's Five-Year Rule (1991 to 1996)

After the fall down of Ershad government through mass movement in 1990, the government of Bangladesh Nationalist Party led by begum khaleda zia came to power and chose to change the upazilla system within a few months and reinstated the previous bureaucracy-dominated thana administration by promulgating the Local Government (Upazilla Parishad and Upazilla Administration Reorganization) (Repeal) Ordinance, 1991. Nothing appreciable, however, was done during the five years of BNP rule. Elections to constitute fresh Union Parishads were held in 1992 in accordance with the provision of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Ordinance of 1983, but to constitute local bodies at other higher levels a bill to that end was submitted to Jatiya Sangsad in 1992. Unfortunately it remained a pending case in the Sangsad until the end of 1996. Therefore, local government reforms have remained in limbo throughout the period of BNP government.

In June 1992, a cabinet division resolution was passed to replace the Upazilla Parishad with Thana administration (GOB, 1992). Khaleda Zia’s decision to depoliticize the Upazilla system was also due to the fact that her party Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) had only a handful of chairmen in the Upazilla of the country. Since BNP had not taken part in the first Upazilla election in 1985. In the second Upazilla election in 1990, BNP was placed at the 5th position getting only 24 Upazilla (out of 460) under its control (Mukta Barta, 31 March 1990). However, the abolition of the Upazilla is seen as a victory of the bureaucrats whose plan during this crucial period was to exploit the changed political situation to their own benefit. Ironically, the democratically elected government of Khaleda Zia indulged in anti-democratic practices with regard to decentralisation. The local government institutions have become weak. The NGO's effective intervention rendered the local government institutions purposeless since they failed to perform. The rural people apparently getting more resources from the foreign funded NGOs seemed to have distanced themselves from local government (Rahman and Khan, 1997:9).

Sheikh Hasina's Period (1996 to 2001)

When the Bangladesh Awami League Government led by Sheikh Hasina came to power in 1996, they formed a Local Government Commission to suggest viable local bodies based on the principles of local democracy. The Commission recommended a four-tier local government structure including Gram/Palli (Village) Parishad, Union Parishad, Thana/Upazilla Parishad and Zila (District) Parishad. Besides, there are 182 municipal councils and 4 city corporations in Bangladesh. In addition, a separate local government structure also exist for those regions designated as 'special areas' such as the hill districts of the Chittagong Hill Tracts. They formed a regional council which came into being as part of an peace accord signed between the government and the parbatya chattagram jana-samhati samiti (1996) is a unique example of decentralisation in Bangladesh.

While local government bodies' exercised some degree of local autonomy, the central Government or a higher body in the administrative hierarchy of the state closely supervised them. Westergaard (2000) observes that, ‘like the previous local government systems, the local bodies are controlled by the central government in all aspects.’

The present Four-party Alliance Government (since 2001)

The four-party alliance government led by Begum Khaleda Zia initiated a change in the local government structure. Gram Sarkar in place of Gram Parishad has been introduced. These bodies will be created at the Ward levels. Each Gram Sarkar(GS) will represent one or two villages comprising about 3,000 people at an average. The UP member elected from the Ward will be the Chairman of the GS, which will have other members - both males and female - elected in a general meeting of the voters of the Ward under the supervision of a 'prescribed/ directing authority'. There are defined functions of the GS and other functions may be assigned to it as may be specified by the government from time to time. GS will have the right to constitute issue-based standing committees as and when required, and determine the membership of such committees. The way the Gram Sarkar Act has been passed and its members selected in each ward, has been criticized by every section of society. It is obvious that this has been done for strengthening the power base of ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party in the rural areas.

ROLE AND FUNCTIONS

Traditionally, Local Government in Bangladesh has limited jurisdiction over specific (and limited) developmental functions. The area of regulatory administration has always been kept aside from the purview of the role and functions of these bodies (Hussain and Sarker et al, 1994). Most of the developmental functions for which LG units are made responsible under the legal framework, such as: family welfare, education, public health, social welfare, etc., are administered by different agencies of the national government. Local level infrastructure development is one of the important functions of the LG. These projects are generally implemented through food aid and grants received from the national government. Food aids are channeled thorough different agencies of the national government. In addition the other functions of the LG units are again subjected to bureaucratic supervision and guidance (Khan, 2000).

Rural and urban local government bodies are entrusted with a large number of functions and responsibilities relating to civic and community welfare as well as local development. The functions of the Gram Parishads, Union Parishad, Thana/Upazila Parishads and Zila (district) Parishads are elaborate and include amongst other optional functions. The present government in its recent Local Government Institutional Strengthening Report, written by the Local Government Commission in May 1997, has laid down the responsibilities of the various rural and rural/regional local bodies. The Gram Parishad and Union Parishad Bills have been approved on 4 September 1997, while Thana Upazila/Zila Parishad Bills will be placed in Parliament soon.

The Gram Parishad functions are as follows:

1. Conducting socio-economic surveys of households, every five years to be used for development plan preparation;

2. Maintain vital statistics like registration of births-deaths, marriage etc.;

3. Make plans for natural resource management and development;

4. Supervise management of primary educational institutes; motivate parents to send their children to school and create better awareness for adult and female literacy;

5. Create awareness for better primary health care;

6. Maintain law and order and control terrorism, violence against women etc.;

7. Ensure participation in local and central government development planning;

8. Assist various organizations in their development efforts.

Union Parishads have also been assigned functions quite similar to Gram Parishad functions. In addition, Union Parishads have been assigned with the adoption and implementation of poverty alleviation programmes directly by themselves and through NGOs and co-operatives. The Thana/Upazila Parishads are entrusted with functions similar to Gram Parishads and Union Parishads. In addition, they have the responsibility of making integrated 5-year development plans for the Thana/Upazila on the basis of plans submitted by the Union Parishads. Zila (District) Parishads are responsible for monitoring activities of the Thana/Upazila Parishads, implementing district level economic, social and cultural development programmes and preparing project proposals for road, bridges and culverts.

Urban local government functions

Pourashavas (Municipalities) and City Corporations constitute the two types of urban local governments. The four largest cities of Bangladesh (Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna and Rajshahi) are City Corporations. The functions of Pourashavas and City Corporations are basically similar with one important difference: the 1997 Pourashavas Ordinance categorized the functions of Pourahsavas as compulsory and optional. This categorization does not apply to City Corporations. However, for both Pourashavas and City Corporations functions continue o be seen as compulsory and optional.

Mandatory functions

1. Construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and culverts;

2. Removal, collection and disposal of refuse;

3. Provision and maintenance of street lighting;

4. Maintenance of public streets, provision of street watering;

5. Provision and regulation of water supply;

6. Establishment and maintenance of public markets;

7. Plantation of trees on road sides;

8. Regulation of unsanitary buildings and prevention of infectious diseases and epidemics;

9. Registration of births, deaths and marriages;

10. Provision and maintenance of slaughter houses;

11. Provision and maintenance of drainage;

12. Control over the construction and reconstruction of buildings;

13. Provision and maintenance of graveyards and burning places;

14. Control over traffic and public vehicles.

 Optional functions

1. Checking adulteration of food products, Control over private markets;

2. Maintenance of educational institutions and provision of stipends to meritorious students;

3. Provision of flood and famine relief;

4. Provision and maintenance of parks and gardens; Establishment of welfare homes, orphanages, prevention of begging and organization of voluntary social welfare services;

5. Establishment of public dispensaries, provision of public urinals and latrines; Establishment of veterinary hospitals, registration of cattle sale and improvement of livestock; Celebration of national holidays; Reception of distinguished visitors; Establishment of public libraries and reading rooms;

6. Promotion of community development schemes; and

7. Naming of roads and numbering of houses.

The Pourashavas/City Corporations are empowered to perform a variety of socio-economic and civic functions, as described above. In practice, however, they cannot perform all these functions owing to the acute paucity of funds caused by poor and irregular collection of taxes, non-realization of taxes from government, semi-government and autonomous organizations for years together and insufficient government grants. The functions actually performed are:

1. Construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and culverts;

2. Removal, collection and disposal of refuse, Provision and maintenance of street lighting;

3. Provision of water supply, Establishment and maintenance of public markets;

4. Provision, maintenance and regulation of graveyards and burning places;

5. Registrations of birth, deaths and marriages, Maintenance of slaughter houses;

6. Control over private markets; Provision and maintenance of parks and gardens;

7. Naming of roads and numbering of houses, Provision of nominal stipends to primary education institutions and Slum improvement.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE IN BANGLADESH

The sources of their income are generally taxes, rates, fees and charges levied by the local body as well as rents and profits accruing from properties of the local body and sums received through its services. Contribution from individuals and institutions, government grants, profits from investments, receipts accruing from the trusts placed with the local bodies, loans raised by the local body and proceeds from such services are another source of income governments may direct to be placed at the disposal of a local body. Holding taxes is the most important source of own income of local bodies. Loans and voluntary contributions are rare. Non-tax revenues are of two kinds: fees and tolls and rents and profits on properties of the local bodies. Urban local bodies raise between 55-75 per cent of the revenue from their own source while a significant proportion comes from government grants. Nowadays, foreign or international project funds also contribute a significant share of a corporation's budget.  

Sources of Municipal Revenue

Source: Chowdhury, 1997

Resource mobilization

Local government bodies have been chronically resource poor in Bangladesh. The Local Government regulations empowered them to mobilize resources from local sources through assessment and levy of taxes, leasing of local Hats and Bazaars, water bodies, etc. But they do not receive the total resources generated from their entitled sources. For example, in the case of Union Parishad, of the revenue generated from the leasing of the rural market, 25 per cent is retained by national government, 10 per cent by the Upazilla, and 15 per cent is earmarked for the maintenance of the market, and the rest 50 per cent is the entitlement of the Union Parishad. Another feature of financial control is that the UNO receives funds transferred from Union Parishad mobilized resources like share of land transfer tax, market lease money for retention in the accounts maintained by him for later distribution to Union Parishads on basis of prescribed government guidelines. This shows that the Union Parishad have no direct control even over resources generated from their jurisdictions. Such practice of regulating and controlling of the financial resources by the national government functionaries keeps the LG units ever resource poor and resource dependent on the national government (Khan, 2000).

The local government institutions are entitled to Annual Development Plan (ADP) grants from the national government. The local government regulation holds strict instructions that the block grant must be used specifically in certain sectors determined by the central government.  

CENTRE-LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

The local government bodies are being strongly control by the higher level authorities, specially the central government. The local governments are subject to control in various matters, such as:

1. The National Government exacts legislation on local bodies and formulates detailed rules relating to conduct of election, business, powers and duties of chairmen, assessment of taxes, preparation of budget, making of contracts, appointment and service matters of local government employment, accounts and audit and many other important areas. The Central Government has the final authority in the determination of the size and boundaries of the local body's territory;

2. The Central Government has the power to decide on the structure and composition of the local bodies. The Central Government substantially controls the personnel system of local bodies, particularly the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer in City Corporations and Pourashavas as well as other officials;

3. The Central Government controls the functional jurisdiction of local bodies. Besides, designated functions (as in ordinance), the government can assign any other function to a local body. Inter-institutional disputes within local body areas are to be settled by the Central Government;

4. In the field of finance, government supervision and control is wide and strict. In addition to financial control in general, the central government can wield power by reducing or enhancing Grant-in-aid to local bodies, even to city authorities like Dhaka;

5. The Central Government asserts control and supervision over general administration of local bodies, including of large City Corporations. The central government may order an inquiry into the affairs of a local body generally or into any particular affair either on its own initiative or on an application made by any person to the government; and

6. The Central Government has the power to dissolve a local body on charge of gross inefficiency, abuse of power, or inability to meet financial obligations.

7. In addition, the central government also exercises substantial financial and administrative control over the local government institutions in different ways. The above facts reveal that the local government units in Bangladesh are being constantly controlled by the national government through various mechanisms for almost every aspect of their operation

THE PROBLEMS AND THE CHALLENGES

The local government bodies had never been, in independent Bangladesh, ‘self-governing’ bodies in the true sense of the term. They could simply be labeled as an extension of the central government with guided and limited local participation. Consequently, local governments have always been institutionally and financially weak, poorly managed and lacked social and political credibility. The importance and significance of earlier reform efforts with regard to local government lie in their contribution towards some incremental strengthening of the system. However, there is a consensus that the following issues should be taken into consideration in any future attempt to reform the local government institutions and reorganize them to make them truly decentralized, institutionally effective, financially viable, participatory, gender sensitive, transparent and accountable. The decentralization initiatives have suffered from a lack of genuine political commitment to devolution. Notwithstanding the widespread experiment with varied decentralization schemes and models the crucial issues and problems, which regulate the success of local institutions, have not been adequately addressed. [Tofail Ahmed and Niaz Ahmed Khan]

The main challenge to the local government is to finding ways and means that can involve people representative at every administrative level through democratic process. Local government institutions can enforce accountability of the central/national government authorities. The more aware, vigilant and active the community becomes through its participation in local government bodies, the greater is the pressure on both local government institutions and the government authorities to become transparent and responsive (Z. R. Khan: 1999).

The potential of local government institutions can be realized more effectively where there is decentralization and devolution of power. Accountability, transparency, participation, empowerment, equity and all other attributes of good governance can become a part of the daily work of both the government and local bodies when decentralization and devolution take place. Without decentralization and devolution, local government bodies remain paper organizations without any effective role. It is no exaggeration to say that it is in a decentralized local government system that most of the attributes of good governance have a chance to survive and prosper. Strengthening of local government institutions can, therefore, be seen as a positive trend towards good governance. Despite the strong support for local government enshrined in the Constitution, the central government has compromised these advantages by exercising control over local government and starving these agencies of resources. Several abortive attempts have been made at decentralization, but the system has remained highly centralized. As of such, local bodies are characterized by weak administrative capacity, a limited financial and human resource base and little public participation" (Ahmed 1997).

CONCLUSION

It is observed that six major attempts have been made to reform local government under six different governments. The objective of all, at least at the level of rhetoric, was to introduce participatory and accountable local governance through decentralization of functions and powers to locally elected institutions. All these governments also recognized the relevance of the role of decentralized local institutions in planning and implementing need-based development projects for poverty alleviation and reduction of socio-economic inequality. However, the objectives were not realized and the governments failed to keep their commitment towards grassroots democracy and to devolve power to the people at lower levels to manage their own affairs. Nevertheless, every successive government of Bangladesh has used the local government bodies to strengthen their own political base in the rural areas, ignoring the principles and importance of decentralization of power to the local level. Consequently, the primary goal of poverty reduction, economic equity and gender balance remained unfulfilled.

In line with efforts made in most other countries, experiments on decentralization have been initiated in Bangladesh both before and after independence. Indeed, during ancient times the system of administration in the region now constituting Bangladesh had features characteristic of strong local government systems. In other words, central authorities in those days had practically devolved much of their administrative powers to local bodies. Thus, decentralization as part of measures to transfer administrative powers from the centre to the local bodies in effect had its early beginning long before the British came to the subcontinent. Bangladesh has repeatedly experimented with decentralization in the post-colonial and post-independence period. Every successive regime between 1957 and 2001 attempted to reform the local government structure. The induction of local government, however, failed to ensure access and participation to the poor. The absence of tangible rewards for participating in local affairs often resulted in apathy and frustration to the villagers.

All successive governments in Bangladesh felt the need to have viable local government for ensuring effective governance. As a result, we have seen 'decentralization' as an important policy agenda of all governments. The repetitive process of local government reform has been handed down to Bangladesh from Pakistan as a post-colonial extension. However, the necessity to reform the existing structure of local government by various successive governments in Bangladesh indicates their failure to create effective institutions for enhancing local democracy and delivering development programs.

The four-tier local government system in Bangladesh is unlikely to help ensure better public service unless it can be taken truly down to the local level, pulling it out of the present vicious cycle of politics. Decentralization of power and institutionalization of democracy absolutely depend on the goodwill of political leaders and honest leadership. . Local government system in Bangladesh is left almost unreformed despite having potentials. Local government system in Bangladesh could not yet be established effectively because of frequent change of decisions with the change of government. Public representatives need to understand the real life situation in rural Bangladesh so that they could be more responsive to the needs of the people. With an integrated system, local government can help improve the partnership between the central government and its other agencies.