Implement Bradford committee recommendations to dispose audit complaints
The local government ministry of the country has long been falling behind regarding the disposal of audit complaints. The fundamental principles of the republic and of our constitution stipulate that, at every level of the administration, elected members of the parliament would carry out their respective duties.
Bangladesh traditionally is a bureaucratic state. The well-known impact of the colonial and subservient periods is still prevalent in the country. The article on local government that had been revoked for a decade reappeared in the constitution in 1991. Since then we expected that power would be divided among union, upazila and districts and will eventually become the centre of development. But after almost three decades the local government ministry trails behind all the other ministries in disposing of audit complaints.
The ministry has around 100,000 audit complaints worth 160 billion taka yet to solve. It will take a century if it maintains the current speed.
Experts find that the biggest impediment for governments lies with the elected MPs in this regard. They find the MPs unwilling to dispose of the complaints. Perhaps the MPs consider it was nothing serious if money was wasted or rules were flouted. They are the people's representatives dedicated to public welfare, so it did not trouble them much. This implies they are always interested in the votes, but unwilling to stick by the rules of transparency and accountability. This attitude is hard to alter under a bureaucratic system and calls for a systematic political pressure. The parliament can contribute to ensure this compulsion.
Public accounts committee and comptroller and auditor general of Bangladesh (C&AG) are two crucial institutions of the parliamentary system of Bangladesh. The existence and role of the public accounts committee is as old as the House of Commons. It was just appropriate to prioritise the committee in the 1972 constitution, but it’s wrong that the politicians, especially the ones in power, do not give it the due importance. The ruling party members do not ever consider appointing a strong opponent party leader the president of the committee. Rather controversial leaders are being made the committee presidents. No discourse is even present in the country regarding the deteriorating autonomy and ineffectiveness of the C&AG office.
It's a matter of regret that the parliamentary system is not prioritised regarding accountability and corruption control in the administration. Such a culture has been nurtured where the parliamentary tools are no more significant. The parliamentarians have been playing down the very system of which they are a part. They prioritise the police or Anti-Corruption Commission by habit which generally, only, detain or interrogate the accused. But it requires strong political control to rein in the corruption and misuse of government funds.
The government had embraced a World Bank funded project in 2012-14. A panel formed under the project was led by former New Zealand finance minister Max Bradford and several local and foreign experts. It identified that the C&AG reports were presented before the parliament, but they were not discussed there. It was found that there was no law to ensure such discussion. The committee also recommended forming a committee to supervise the implementation of the public account committee recommendations. These issues should be solved as soon as possible.