The Election Commission has decided for the first time to hold polls to upazila parishads (sub-district councils) in phases. Media reports suggest that the EC will hold polls to more than 480 upazila parishads (UP) across the country in six phases. The EC has so far announced the schedule for the first and second phases.
Chief Election Commissioner Kazi Rakibuddin Ahmad has explained the reason for holding polls to UPs in phases. He has said that the current UPs have different expiry dates and so, they will have to hold the elections in phases.
Section 7 of the amended Upazila Parishad Act 1998 says the five-year tenure of a UP begins from the day the first meeting of the UP is held after the election. Although the last UP election was held on January 22, 2009, first meetings were held on different dates. That is why they have different expiry dates.
The upazila system has a chequered history. Created in the early 80s during the rule of HM Ershad, the UP had their first election in 1985. Headed by a directly elected chairman, a UP soon became the focal point of a local administration.
With various government offices, courts, and other establishments, the upazila headquarters also became the hub of economic activities. The second election to the UPs was held in 1990. Out of political animosity, the BNP government that came to power in 1991 with the reintroduction of parliamentary democracy abolished the UPs. It is not that the upazila system was flawless, but the system was abolished before its teething troubles were over.
The functions and responsibilities of a UP include maintenance of law and order, communicational and infrastructural development, development of agriculture, fisheries, livestock and irrigation, rural development and cooperatives, education, upgradation and expansion of health and family planning activities, monitoring and controlling market prices, and matters relating to finance, budget, planning and local revenue collection.
Past experience shows that UPs have not been able to discharge their responsibilities successfully due to a number of factors, the most important of which is the MPs’ interference and control over the activities of the UPs. The conflict between upazila chairmen and local MPs was noticed to some extent even during the time of Ershad.
The abolition of the UPs by the BNP government, in particular the exit of the directly elected chairmen, paved the way for the entry of the MPs to the stage. Section 25 of the act made the MPs advisers to UPs and made it obligatory for them to accept the advice of the MPs.
The Upazila Parishad Ordinance 2008 abolished the advisory role of the MPs. In April 2009, the AL-led grand alliance government reintroduced the Upazila Parishad Act 1998 by superseding the Upazila Parishad Ordinance 2008.
Some amendments to the 1998 act were also made. The amendment to section 25 of the act not only reintroduced the advisory role of the local MP, but made it obligatory for a UP to keep the local MP informed of each and every correspondence it made with the government.
As a result, the UPs have come under the full control of the MPs. An MP must have the last say in all matters, developmental or otherwise.
Constitutional experts have said that granting power to MPs to control the activities of the UPs goes against Article 59 of the constitution. It says that local government in every administrative unit of the republic shall be entrusted to bodies composed of persons elected in accordance with law, and it will perform such functions as shall be prescribed by law.
Besides the undue influence of the MPs, bureaucratic control is equally responsible for making UPs ineffective. Available reports suggest that the relationship between the chairmen and upazila nirbahi officers (UNOs) is far from satisfactory. The Upazila Parishad Association has called on the government to free UPs from interference of MPs and UNOs to make them effective.
All this suggests that the ensuring elections will not be enough to make the UPs effective. The need of the hour is to fully empower the UPs, so that they can determine their own course of action. The advisory role of the MPs must come to an end. The local bureaucracy should be made fully answerable to the UPs. Emphasis has to be made on the maximum mobilisation of funds from local sources. The UP laws have to be appropriately amended to meet these requirements.
