Recently, Local Government Minister Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir announced that elections to all local government bodies would begin towards the end of this year. We welcome his statement. However, it is important to remember that school and college examinations are scheduled for the year-end period. Therefore, it is essential that these elections begin and conclude as quickly as possible.
Holding local government elections without delay is imperative because the establishment of elected local government institutions is a constitutional obligation. Article 59 of the Constitution of Bangladesh states that “Local government in every administrative unit of the Republic shall be entrusted to bodies, composed of persons elected in accordance with law.” In other words, elected district councils must govern districts, elected upazila parishads must govern upazilas, elected union parishads must govern unions, and similarly, elected representatives must administer city corporations and municipalities.
It is noteworthy that the Constitution specifically refers to entrusting “local governance” to elected representatives. This means that elected representatives are meant to oversee all matters at their respective administrative levels, just as the elected central government administers affairs at the national level.
Put differently, the role of local government representatives should not be confined merely to constructing small-scale infrastructure, selecting beneficiaries for government welfare schemes such as TR or Kabikha programmes, or conducting minor arbitration proceedings. Rather, they are intended to govern at the local level in a meaningful sense.
To enable them to fulfil this responsibility effectively, the Constitution also places “administration and the work of public officials” within their jurisdiction. That means all government officials and employees at the local level are constitutionally expected to operate under the supervision of elected local representatives, just as all officials at the national level work under the elected government led by the Prime Minister.
In fact, the foundation of local government in this region was laid through the Bengal Local Self-Government Act of 1885. Our system, therefore, was intended to be one of autonomous local self-government, not a centrally controlled structure.
Yet, in practice, the opposite has occurred. While public officials at the centre work under elected representatives, at other administrative levels elected local representatives have effectively been subordinated to bureaucrats.
It is therefore evident that under the existing constitutional framework, the local government system was meant to function as an autonomous governing structure alongside the central government. In other words, local government constitutes a parallel system of governance responsible for administering affairs at all local administrative levels.
The Constitution also assigns three specific responsibilities to local government institutions: maintaining public order, planning and implementing public services and welfare programmes, and preparing and executing development plans. These are fundamentally important responsibilities for ensuring public welfare, and Parliament cannot ignore them when legislating on local government matters, as established in Kudrat-e-Elahi Panir vs Bangladesh, 44 DLR (AD).
The theoretical foundation of local government is the principle of subsidiarity, whose core idea is simple: problems should be solved where they arise. A closer look reveals that most issues people face in daily life — education, healthcare, sanitation, public safety and similar concerns — are inherently local in nature. Consequently, the most appropriate and effective solutions can often be achieved locally through governments operating closest to the people.
According to the subsidiarity principle, problems that cannot be resolved by grassroots institutions such as union parishads should be addressed by the next tier, such as upazila parishads, while more complex issues should move further upward to district councils or higher local authorities. If governance is organised according to subsidiarity principle, the role of the central government becomes more limited, focusing primarily on matters such as national security, foreign trade, foreign relations, legislation, and overarching policy and administrative affairs — issues that are not local by nature.
Implementing a governance system based on subsidiarity principle requires genuine decentralisation, under which substantial authority, responsibilities and financial resources are transferred to local governments. Achieving this would require a fundamental restructuring of the existing bureaucratic system — a process likely to face significant resistance.
The theoretical foundation of local government is the principle of subsidiarity, whose core idea is simple: problems should be solved where they arise. A closer look reveals that most issues people face in daily life — education, healthcare, sanitation, public safety and similar concerns — are inherently local in nature.
The greatest resistance, however, would probably emerge over the transfer of financial resources from the central treasury to local government institutions. Many politicians and officials in positions of power tend to assume that all state resources belong to the central government and that only the centre should decide how they are spent. In reality, however, all state resources belong to the people and should be utilised through institutions capable of ensuring the greatest public benefit.
It is widely recognised that public services and development initiatives produce the best outcomes when planned and implemented through governments operating at the people’s doorstep. Such an arrangement strengthens transparency and accountability.
For example, citizens can directly question union parishad chairmen and members regarding how funds are spent — something far more difficult when dealing with distant bureaucrats or senior political figures.
I recall attending an open budget session organised by The Hunger Project at union level several years ago, where a woman directly asked the chairman, “Mr Chairman, you repaired the road leading to your house — why is the road leading to mine still in ruins?” This type of direct accountability becomes possible through local governance.
Moreover, under the existing Union Parishad Act, transparency and accountability can also be strengthened through ward meetings. At the same time, open ward sessions can prepare beneficiary lists for government schemes, even identifying those genuinely entitled to family cards, thereby reducing opportunities for middlemen to demand money in exchange for access to public benefits.
Another compelling argument for strengthening local government is that it forms the foundation of democracy itself. Democracy means governance by the people through their elected representatives. Therefore, unless representative governance is established at every level, democracy cannot truly function. Local governance creates grassroots democracy, and only when democracy takes root at the grassroots level can the broader democratic system become fully effective.
In other words, grassroots democracy serves as the foundation upon which the wider democratic structure stands. If the foundation is weak, the entire democratic system inevitably becomes fragile.
Finally, if we genuinely wish to make our democratic system effective, elections at all levels of local government must be organised without delay. Doing so would also be consistent with the widely discussed 31-point reform agenda and election manifesto of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).
To achieve this, it is essential to refine all local government laws by considering both the recommendations of the Shaukat Ali Committee, of which the present writer was a member, and the report of the Tofail Ahmed Commission formed during the immediate past interim government. A modernised legal framework must first be established, and only then should elections be held on that basis.
* Badiul Alam Majumdar is secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (SHUJON).
* The views expressed are the author’s own.