Why the move to bring local govt under MPs’ control?

On 21 April, at a session of the National Parliament, State Minister for Local Government Shah Alam gave a “good news” to the members of parliament. It was that the government would arrange a “resting place” for each of them in their respective constituencies.

Not only members of the ruling party but also opposition members welcomed the decision. Some MPs even demanded arrangements for vehicles along with it.

On the same day, the Local Government Division issued a circular on this matter. The circular stated, “In order to conduct inspection activities of various development works in upazilas, a well-furnished ‘inspection room’ (including a washroom) must be set up on the second floor of the old complex building of the Upazila Parishads.”

It further said, “In the project proposal (DPP) for the construction of new Upazila Parishad complex buildings, instructions are hereby given to include a designated room on the second floor of the complex building for conducting inspection activities, including design and planning.”

This is a dangerous decision, as we fear it will destroy our local government system. Through this, the entire local government structure may come under the control of the MPs.

The possibility of holding Upazila Parishad elections may become very slim. There is even a risk that the Upazila Parishad system may be abolished, as happened in 1991. Above all, it may pave the way for the creation of an “MP raj” (MP rule) at the local level, as in the past.

This decision of the government is a blatant interference in our Constitution. Article 56(1) of the Constitution of Bangladesh states, “There shall be a Parliament for Bangladesh to be known as the National Parliament and, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the legislative powers of the Republic shall be vested in Parliament.”

In other words, the main responsibilities of the MPs, or the “House of the People,” are to make, amend, and repeal laws, ensure government accountability through parliamentary standing committees, approve the budget, and play a role in policy-making.

Therefore, their workplace is the world-famous architectural monument designed by Louis I. Kahn—the National Parliament Building. For this reason, office and residential facilities have also been provided for them in the NAM flats.

In addition, the decision is a clear violation of Article 59(1) of the Constitution, which states, “Local government in every administrative unit of the Republic shall be entrusted to bodies composed of persons elected in accordance with law.”

This means that local government is a parallel and autonomous system alongside the central government. Accordingly, elected Zilla Parishads (district councils) at the district level, upazila councils at the upazila level, and union councils at the union level are supposed to conduct administrative functions. Similarly, elected representatives in city corporations and municipalities are to run local governance.

The decision is also contrary to a High Court verdict. Many may not know that during the coalition government, a post called “District Minister” was created through a government notification.

Following this, then MP Anwar Hossain Manju filed a writ petition in the High Court, claiming that due to the District Minister system, he was unable to contribute to local development in his constituency.

In the case Anwar Hossain Manju vs Bangladesh [(16 BLT (HCD) (2008)], the High Court declared the notification unconstitutional and ruled that the involvement of ministers, whips, and MPs in local development is unconstitutional.

Finally, the government’s decision is also contradictory to BNP’s widely discussed 31-point programme and its election manifesto for the 13th parliamentary election.

Point No. 20 of the 31-point programme states, “Local government is the heart of democracy and development... With the aim of extensive decentralisation of power, local government institutions will be made more independent, strong, and empowered.

These institutions will be brought under accountability in such a way that they can play an effective role in providing services such as education and health and in development activities. Local administration or any other public representative shall not interfere in independent local government.”

It further states that administrative appointments will not be made in local government institutions unless the position becomes vacant due to death or court order. It also says that elected local government representatives will not be suspended, removed, or dismissed through executive order unless convicted by a court. Similarly, in its election manifesto, the ruling party also pledged to make local government the centre of development and democracy.

The government’s decision is also a “colourable” measure. What cannot be done directly is sometimes done indirectly, which leads to what is known as the doctrine of colourability. Under existing law, MPs have been made advisers to Upazila Parishads, while Upazila Nirbahi Officers have been appointed as chief executives. The appointment of MPs as advisers has already created a problem of colourability. Providing them with office facilities within the Upazila Parishad will make the situation even more serious.

Under the current system, conflicts arise between Upazila Chairmen and UNOs. One reason for this is that the executive officers consider the elected Upazila Chairmen to be subordinate to them and expect to be addressed as “sir.” In this context, to highlight the issue, a section of executive officers had even taken an initiative to declare the late Dr. Muzaffar Ahmed, Dr. Tofail Ahmed, and myself persona non grata in the upazilas.

This arrangement also creates conflicts between Upazila Chairmen and Members of Parliament.

By providing MPs with a place to sit in the Upazila Parishad, tensions between Upazila Chairmen and MPs will escalate significantly. If MPs are given a permanent office at the local level, they will tend to dominate all decision-making. Naturally, if someone is given a corner of a seat, they tend to occupy the entire seat—this is the nature of power. Where power exists, it tends to be concentrated and often abused.

Moreover, the government’s decision will blur the distinction between the government and the party, the negative consequences of which were evident during the Sheikh Hasina administration. If MPs operate from the upazila level, party workers will become highly active within the Upazila Parishad, turning it into a hub of party influence. As a result, with the direct and indirect backing of MPs, all upazila activities may fall under party control, which will not be beneficial for anyone.

Finally, it is deeply disappointing that both ruling and opposition MPs have supported this government decision out of self-interest. We had expected much better from a Parliament formed through the exercise of voting rights earned at the cost of many lives. Therefore, we earnestly request our honourable representatives to consider the public interest, evaluate both this and other government decisions critically, and take steps to make the people’s government truly effective and strong at the grassroots level.

* Badiul Alam Majumdar is secretary of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (SHUJAN)

* The views expressed here are the author’s own.

* This article, originally published in Prothom Alo print and online editions, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam