At a pre-budget meeting with more than a dozen chairmen of the parliamentary standing committees at the State Guest House Padma in the capital on May 7, Finance Minister AMA Muhith rejected their demand for a block allocation of Tk50m for development works in each of the constituencies of the MPs, saying that the government was considering spending the money for health, education, and LGED (local government engineering department) sectors through local government bodies.
Referring to his talks with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, Finance Minister Muhith also said that such mechanism would strengthen the local government system. But hardly a week had passed when the finance minister had to change his stance against block allocation to the MPs. At another pre-budget meeting with the parliamentary standing committees on May 15, the finance minister said that allocation for the constituencies would continue.
The finance minister has given two reasons for changing his position. One of the reasons is that the LGRD minister has convinced him about the necessity of constructing rural roads. The other reason is that there are widespread allegations of corruption against the LGED and the local MPs should be involved with the LGED activities for the development works in their constituencies to check corruption.
It is a fact that block allocation was made for the constituencies during the period of the immediate past AL-led government. But it was then criticised by the civil society members and many others. The finance minister’s initial stance this year against block allocation to the MPs was appreciated by the civil society members. But his U-turn favouring block allocation to the MPs has given rise to some important questions.
Firstly, Bangladesh follows a centralised planning system. We have a planning commission for preparation of national plans – annual, rolling, five year, perspective – for the economic and social development of the country. The government undertakes development projects for implementation through annual development programme (ADP) mechanism with both domestic resources and foreign assistance. The Planning Commission prepares ADP in consultation with the relevant ministries and their agencies. A project has to pass through feasibility test, technical analysis, economic analysis, financial analysis, social analysis, environmental analysis, etc for inclusion in the ADP. In the instant case, it may not be possible to follow the established procedure for approval and implementation of projects undertaken by the MPs in their constituencies.
Secondly, it appears that the block allocation to the MPs will be spent for improvement of rural road networks. While the importance of development of rural roads cannot be undermined, at the same time we have to assess the priority needs of different constituencies. The priority of demands varies from constituency to constituency.
For instance, there are some constituencies where road communication is more or less satisfactory, but they lack electricity for income generating activities. There are others whose primary concern is protection from river erosion and floods. There are still others where primary health care and education are in deplorable conditions and they need the highest allocation. So block allocation of funds to the MPs for undertaking construction of rural roads in their constituencies may miss the basic concept of utilisation of scarce resources to meet the most important needs.
Thirdly, in the absence of any MP from the BNP-led alliance, the present parliament has no opposition in the true sense of the term. Four-fifths of the MPs are from AL. The MPs have openly said that if block allocation is not given, they will not be able to face their electorates in future. The fund will, therefore, be used to meet political commitment. Since the fund will be allocated to the MPs, the implementing agency will have to work according to the wishes of the MPs. So there will be lack of proper planning for undertaking work. The quality of work may also suffer.
Fourthly, the constitution of Bangladesh and the rules of procedure (ROP) of parliament made thereunder have delineated the functions and responsibilities of the MPs. Making of law, investigating or inquiring into the activities or administration of the ministries as members of the parliamentary standing committees on various ministries, and speaking in parliament on matters of public interest are some of the most important functions of the MPs. To discharge the assigned functions, the MPs have to keep themselves busy in the House and within its precincts whether the House is in session or not.
Involvement of the MPs in local development works is at variance with the functions and responsibilities assigned to them by the constitution and the ROP. The framers of the constitution and the ROP were conscious enough to specify the functions and responsibilities of the lawmakers.
Therefore, the functions of the MPs must conform to the functions and responsibilities entrusted to them by the constitution and the ROP. If the MPs are required to be involved in local developmental activities, necessary amendments will have to be made first in the constitution and the ROP.
Fifthly, the involvement of the MPs in local development work has already invited severe criticisms from the civil society members and others. It is being said that people have, in fact, elected 300 executives in place of 300 legislators in the general elections. As an advisor to the upazila parishad, an MP has the last say in all developmental matters within his constituency. This is against the fundamental spirit of strengthening the local government bodies.
The finance minister should give a second thought to his changed stance. In order to strengthen the local government bodies, the said fund should be channeled through them and they should be responsible for implementing the works. This will be in consonance with the provision of the Upazila Parishad (Sub-district Council) Act, 1998 (amended up to 2011).
