Ministers’ responsibility for coordination in districts, or a new authority?

The government has once again divided responsibility for the country’s 64 districts among ministers, state ministers, and Whips of the Jatiya Sangsad (national parliament).

According to the government, those designated will supervise and co-ordinate law and order, crime and narcotics control, corruption prevention, good governance, transparency, accountability, and official development and public welfare activities.

However, in the past, similar arrangements drew allegations of undermining the authority of local members of parliament (MPs) and creating dual authority over the administration.

This time, the phrasing outlining these duties is somewhat different. The appointees have not been granted direct executive powers. Instead, they have been tasked with supervision and co-ordination without curtailing the statutory powers of local government institutions and other constitutional and statutory bodies.

Yet the question remains: will this remain limited to mere oversight or co-ordination, or will it translate into political control and the exercise of power?

Furthermore, in districts where the ruling party has no MP, what will their relationship be with opposition members? THere are also questions over whether the local administration will face impediments in discharging its duties.

Last Thursday, the Cabinet Division distributed responsibility for the 64 districts among 30 ministers, state ministers, and three parliamentary Whips. Some have been assigned one district, while others have been given responsibility for two to three.

The official notification stated that during the previous fascist regime, although development allocations existed on paper, widespread corruption led to systemic looting. A portion of the looted funds was laundered abroad, while the remainder was used in ways detrimental to public and state security, including narcotics and social degradation.

In this context, the notification said, these responsibilities have been assigned to ensure law and order, curb corruption and drug abuse, and guarantee good governance at the district level.

The notification regarding district duties notes that this decision was taken in accordance with Article 55(2) of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Rules of Business.

Article 55(2) of the Constitution states: "The executive authority of the Republic shall, in accordance with this Constitution, be exercised by or on the authority of the Prime Minister." That is to say, the primary political authority over the executive or administrative power of the State resides with the Prime Minister. Under his authority, ministers, ministries, and public authorities exercise these powers.

According to the notification, the designated individuals will offer necessary counsel to district government offices to maintain law and order, control drug abuse and illicit trafficking, prevent smuggling, and curb legacy crime.

They also will oversee various development and public welfare activities, including the implementation of the government’s electoral manifesto, poverty alleviation, employment generation, and social security. If necessary, they may also attend district-level meetings to provide advice.

The question remains: how much power will a minister exercise upon receiving responsibility for a district, and to what extent will they observe the limits of oversight?

Political analysts believe there are considerations beyond legal and political questions. For instance, several ministries are currently dealing with crisis situations. Ministers heading these ministries may find their core ministerial work disrupted while attending to district duties.

Hamidur Rahman Azad, Assistant Secretary General of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, told Prothom Alo, "Past experience is far from positive. This could turn into a mechanism to hold local elected representatives hostage. Under the guise of development oversight, opportunities will arise to encroach upon the rights of others. This will create friction not only with opposition representatives but with those of the ruling party as well."

The practice of assigning specific districts to ministers, state ministers, and Whips has precedence. The Sheikh Hasina-led government introduced a similar arrangement between 1996 and 2001. Subsequently, the BNP government implemented a comparable measure in 2001.

However, in 2001, the BNP-led Four-Party Alliance government did not assign any districts to the two ministers from Jamaat-e-Islami. All 64 districts were allocated among BNP ministers and state ministers.

At that time, most ministers were assigned their home districts. M. Saifur Rahman, the then Finance and Planning Minister, was given responsibility for Sylhet and Moulvibazar. His home was in Moulvibazar, and he served as the MP for Sylhet-1.

Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, the then BNP Secretary General and Local Government Minister, was assigned his home district of Narsingdi. In districts with multiple ministers or state ministers, some were given charge of neighbouring districts.

In the current allocation, cabinet members have not been assigned their home districts; instead, some have received one or more neighbouring districts.

In 2003, Anwar Hossain Manju, Chairman of the Jatiya Party (JP) and MP for Pirojpur, challenged this mechanism in the High Court. In 2006, the High Court declared the arrangement illegal and unconstitutional.

During the court hearings, arguments were raised regarding the potential conflict between a minister's political and administrative authority and the jurisdiction of locally elected MPs. It was argued that interference from the designated minister prevented local administrations from working independently and restricted the ability of local MPs to contribute to development efforts.

Beyond ministers and state ministers, secretaries have also historically been given district-level responsibilities. In April 2021, to coordinate Covid-19 response and relief efforts for affected populations, 64 senior secretaries, secretaries, and officers of equivalent rank were assigned one district each. Several MPs from the then-ruling Awami League and opposition Jatiya Party opposed the move in Parliament.

Hence, the crucial question remains how the government intends to avoid the very risks previously viewed as undermining local MPs and creating dual authority over the administration.

In districts with one or more ministers, state ministers, and MPs, defining the exact boundaries of power between them and the newly assigned minister will also be critical.

An analysis of the 13th Parliamentary Election results shows that the BNP failed to win a single seat across eight districts: Kurigram, Nilphamari, Gaibandha, Rangpur, Chapainawabganj, Meherpur, Satkhira, and Chuadanga. Together, these districts account for 30 seats.

In six of these districts, candidates from Jamaat-e-Islami secured victory in every seat. In Kurigram and Rangpur, Jamaat’s ally, the National Citizen Party (NCP), won one seat each, while Jamaat secured all remaining seats.

In Parliament, ruling and opposition parties are exchanging heated exchanges over various issues. On several fronts, opposition parties are also taking to the field with street programmes, including long marches. In such a context, assigning BNP ministers, state ministers, and Whips to Jamaat and opposition-dominated districts raises concerns over whether new conflicts will emerge.

Recently in Kushtia, clashes erupted between Jamaat MP Amir Hamza and activists from Gono Odhikar Parishad, an ally of the BNP, leading to filing cases and counter-cases. State Minister for Power, Aninda Islam Amit, has been assigned responsibility for Meherpur, Kushtia, and Jhenaidah districts. Notably, both parliamentary seats in Meherpur are held by Jamaat.

Social Welfare Minister AZM Zahid Hossain has been assigned Lalmonirhat, Panchagarh, and Nilphamari districts. Cultural Affairs Minister Nitai Roy Chowdhury has been given charge of Chuadanga. All MPs in Nilphamari and Chuadanga belong to Jamaat. How they will receive these two BNP ministers remains to be seen.

Law Minister Asaduzzaman has been given responsibility for Satkhira, Khulna, and Bagerhat. State Minister for Public Administration Abdul Bari has been assigned Bogura and Chapainawabganj. State Minister for Local Government Mir Shahe Alam is in charge of Rangpur, Gaibandha, and Kurigram. Jamaat-e-Islami holds a strong organisational presence in these districts.

Badiul Alam Majumdar, Secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (SHUJAN), who writes on constitutional matters, told Prothom Alo regarding the government’s move: “Whatever title is used, assigned ministers and state ministers will attempt to act as the overlords of those districts.”

According to him, where there are ministers or MPs more influential than them, conflict will inevitably arise.

This was entirely unnecessary, he argued.

Pointing out that no benefits were reaped from this practice in the past, nor does it have any legal foundation, he further said, “Instead, local government institutions should be strengthened. Rather than doing so, the government is paralysing local government by appointing administrators.”