Editorial
Pirated lands of Begunbari canal
In fishing it is always advisable, and is indeed the rule, to use nets with larger holes so that the smaller fishes and the fry can find their escape route and only the big fishes are left to be caught. This rule is often violated, much to the destruction of the country’s resources, and illegal use of what is popularly called ‘current net’ of smaller interstices by errant fisherpersons is common. In the drive against illegal occupiers of lands, the authorities seem to be casting the forbidden ‘current net’ so that the smaller offenders had no escape. Thousands of small and frail structures, shops and impromptu stalls that lined the roads have been demolished and hawkers, roadside vendors and small self-employed traders who subsisted on them have thus been reduced to starvation. On the other hand, the stately multi-storeyed mansions constructed on pirated lands have been left standing with undimmed glory. These buildings may be the city’s architectural marvels but they are also the marvels of injustice and discrimination. The multi-storey Rangs building is not only a case of encroachment of land; it has been raised on a land that was designated for construction of an arterial road joining Bijoy Sarani and facilitating road communication.
Yesterday’s New Age published a lead story on illegal occupation of Begunbari canal by influential quarters defying wetland laws. Vast areas of the wetlands and lowlands in the city and suburbs have already been grabbed by the so-called developers and those left are precariously waiting for another round of predatory bid. Our report mentioned that the 15-storey BGMEA Bhaban and some other buildings which are owned by influential quarters are reportedly built on wetlands without approval, yet they have remained untouched by the ongoing demolition drive. The report also says that a stretch of the Begunbari canal has already been filled for the construction of the BTMA building and an acre of land to the east of Sonargaon Hotel has been handed over to the Federation of Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industry. A BUET expert who headed a study group on Begunbari canal has been quoted as saying that these constructions are not compatible with the recommendations they had made in their study report for Rajuk.
The environmental cost of these encroachments or occupation through illegal deals will be appalling. Begunbari canal is a water retention area that drains out sewage and water of a vast area of the city. If this kind of environmental imbalance created through land piracy is not corrected, it will invite grave dangers. The city may choke to death. It seems if encroachment is done on a big scale by a big party, immunity from action is guaranteed. These buildings were not raised overnight; those who approved or winked at their construction must not go unpunished.
Fertiliser crisis simmers on
On February 25, farmers at Gaurnadi went out on demonstrations and blocked the Barisal-Dhaka Highway for almost an hour in protest against inadequate supply of fertiliser for IRRI-boro cultivation. Government officials persuaded them into discontinuing their programme with the promise that immediate steps would be taken for increased supply of fertiliser. Five days later, on March 2, the farmers were out on the streets again, blocking the highway for nearly half an hour, with the same demand. Obviously, the promise made to them had not been kept. However, the government officials did not exercise any restraint in dealing with the agitators; they let loose truncheon-wielding policemen to ‘clear the highway.’ The farmers went home empty-handed, some of them with injuries to nurse. The only solace for them seems to be the statement by an official of the upazila administration that the higher authorities would be requested to send ‘adequate supply of fertiliser.’
The Gaurnadi incident has uncanny similarity with the spate of unrests across the northern region of the country that plagued the fag end of the tenure of the immediate-past government of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led alliance. Although the shortage of fertiliser that farmers of the northern districts had to deal with was of a greater intensity, the problem was essentially the same. They, too, were first given hollow assurances and then roughed up by the law enforcers whenever they took to the streets with the demand for adequate supply of fertilisers. Also, the authorised dealers came up with the same excuse, i.e. they did not have enough fertiliser in stock. Meanwhile, the government of the day had insisted that there was no fertiliser crisis anywhere in the country, as government officials at Gaurnadi is claiming now. The obvious question is: if the stock of fertiliser is adequate to meet the demand, why are the farmers not getting it when they need it most? The answer could be that a significant portion of fertiliser goes unaccounted for somewhere along the distribution chain.
One would have thought that the farmers’ unrest in the northern districts had made the relevant government agencies wiser and that they would not allow recurrence of the problem. As it seems, the agencies have not learnt any lesson and the distribution mechanism for fertiliser remains as vulnerable as ever. The interim government should look into the matter immediately and redress the problem. The farmers’ agitation may have been contained relatively easily; however, if the shortage of fertiliser continues the way it has so far, it could very well snowball into unrest of a greater magnitude.
SUNDAY COLUMN
Election! Election!
Hasnat Abdul Hye
The decision of the present caretaker government to hold upazila elections is a step in the right direction. It should be seen as part of the bigger enterprise to institutionalise democracy that works and is accountable to the people. But in order to have a strong and effective upazila system, the right type of people (honest, dedicated, etc) should be allowed to contest. It is hoped that screening of candidates for upazila and union parishad elections should be based on the same criteria as is envisaged for candidates for elections to Jatiya Sangsad
THE caretaker government has decided to hold election for upazila in the near future, which may be soon. The announcement has been welcomed by civil society but the response from politicians is lukewarm. The latter, belonging to almost all parties, are putting pressure on the caretaker government to hold elections to Jatiya Sangsad at the earliest. The caretaker government has, as of now, expressed its inability to fix a particular timeframe for holding general elections. It has embarked on a reforms programme that is felt necessary to prepare the ground for general elections. The politicians do not disagree with the reforms measures in public but they want to hasten the election procedure. There is a contradiction involved here.
The caretaker government cannot at present decide on the timing of the general elections because it does not know how long the reforms measures that it has embarked on will take to be completed. Under emergency law it is not required to hold elections, though preparations can go on. These comprise, on the one hand, reforms in the election procedure and updating the electoral roll, and, on the other, creation of level playing field to facilitate the elections to be fair, free and impartial. It can be said that both aspects of the preparation are now afoot. It is possible for the Election Commission to give a tentative idea about the time when they will have completed their preparation, including updating the electoral roll and related tasks. But they depend on the executive branch, the caretaker government at present, for holding elections as the latter provides the administrative backup, including maintenance of law and order. If the caretaker government cannot say now when it will be able to complete the reforms for creating congenial environment to enable the Election Commission to hold free and fair elections, it cannot be faulted. Announcement of a timeframe for general elections will depend on the volume and scope of the task. The reform measure is not a mandate given to it under the constitution, but it has the legitimacy for this from popular support.
According to the constitution, the emergency is valid for four months after which it has to be approved in the legislature. So it may seem that the present caretaker government has a tenure of four months from the date of announcing emergency. But if there is no legislature it can continue until one is elected. It is not exactly a catch-22 situation. The caretaker government is not delaying the election merely to be in power because that will not be defensible. It is in power with the implicit responsibility of creating the healthy environment for holding elections. There is nothing abstract or ambiguous about the creation of a healthy environment for electing people’s representatives. It boils down to crackdown on black money and muscle power. The caretaker government has got down to this business in earnest to prove its commitment. One cannot doubt the sincerity and seriousness of the caretaker government in these respects on the basis of the actions being taken. The question is how long will it take? The caretaker government should not be in a hurry simply because the politicians have become restive. But it should not prolong this interval either because politics should ultimately be in command. Governance is normal when democratically elected representatives, accountable to the people, are in charge of the government and the opposition. Democracy requires this and since the country has not turned its back on democracy people’s representatives should play their role in governing the country. The caretaker government is aware of this and that is why they are working to attain this goal. The caretaker government is justifiably trying to ensure that it would be genuine democracy that will be brought back and for which elections will be held as a means. After sometime, which should not be an indefinite period, it should be possible to mention a timeframe when it will be ready to support the Election Commission in holding the general elections. It always helps to have a timeframe because this creates urgency and removes confusion or misgivings.
The announcement to hold upazila elections should not be seen as a red-herring. It is part of the reforms programme to promote good governance. Decentralisation has long been considered essential for good governance. Upazila system, based on decentralised administration under the guidance and control of elected representatives at grassroots level, is a step towards improving governance. It enables the national (central) government to delegate functions and activities to local government and thereby become leaner and fitter. It can concentrate on ‘core’ activities for which it enjoys comparative advantage because of the nature of the tasks and development activities. Through re-engineering its role, the central government can become more efficient in terms of time spent for a task and be cost-effective, unbundling the plethora of activities. The local government, in its turn, has edge over the central government in certain areas because of the scale of operation, need for local knowledge and possibilities of greater participation by the stake-holders. Besides, accountability and transparency, two hallmarks of good governance, can be ensured better at local level because of the proximity of the decision-makers with the electorate. The case for a strong local government in promoting good governance cannot be overemphasised.
The constitution provides for local government at each tier of administration. This implies having local government at divisional, district and upazila levels. Union parishad is left out of this system because it is not an administrative unit. But ironically, union parishad has been the oldest and more stable of local government in Bangladesh. To leave it out of the constitutional ambit is an anomaly. It is also questionable how viable will be a local government at the divisional level, covering the whole division where zila (district), upazila and union parishads exist. There will be overlapping of jurisdiction and sharing of limited resources that can be mobilised locally. Divisional council under President Ayub Khan of Pakistan remained paper organisations, serving no useful purpose. Rather, it was a waste of resources and time. No wonder, it died a natural death. But if the Constitutional requirement has to be met, Bangladesh needs to have divisional or Bibhagiya Parishad. The dilemma should have been resolved by constitutional experts and politicians long ago.
Zila parishad is an old local government body and has a rich tradition of governance at local level. But at present it is in a moribund condition. Not only it is not an elected body, many of its functions have also been taken over by upazila, union parishad and pourasabha (municipality) at the district headquarters. When district board, the precursor of zila parishad, was in its heyday there were few government departments at district level. District board became the multi-purpose local body to carry on almost all regulatory, promotional and developmental activities. With the de-concentration of government administration at district level, zila parishad outlived its usefulness and need. It is continuing simply because of precedent and inertia. If there is a move to strengthen it, the local government at the lower level viz. upazila will suffer in terms of reduced role and limited revenue income. If it is removed as a local government, no harm will be done; rather, the cause of local government will be strengthened, because it will become viable.
Viability of local government depends on its revenue income. It is not enough to have a large number of heads under which a local government body can collect tax, levy toll, cess and charge fees. The tax base has also to be broad enough to earn a sizable revenue income. If the tax base at local level is divided into many by the number of local government bodies, each will have a meagre revenue income and thus become dependent on government for aid. Such a local government system is not only not viable in the sense that it is not self-sustaining but also not self-governing because they are subjected to government control.
Keeping viability and self-governance in view it seems that other than pourasabhas and city corporations only two local government bodies at sub-national level can be self-sustaining. These are upazila and union parishads. Decentralisation can take place at the upazila level across the board as all the government departments are present there. Functions from national level can be delegated to these departments at Upazila and they can be placed under the elected upazila parishad and thereby achieve decentralisation with devolution. The district level departments can provide technical support to their upazila offices and undertake only such activities as cannot be handled at upazila level because of the scale or the technical nature of the work. It is not a hypothetical proposition; it was introduced in mid-1980s and worked reasonably well. If allowed to continue, it would have flourished into a strong and viable system by now. Myopia and jealousy of some members of parliament thwarted its development. A chance to promote good governance was lost by default.
There was one mistake in strengthening upazila and decentralising administration at that level. It was made the focal unit of the local government system and given more financial powers to earn revenue income. Some of those powers were taken away from union parishad, making them financially weaker. Union parishads became dependent on upazila for allocation of resources and came to be seen as subordinate to them. Perhaps this was done because there were not many government departments at union level to implement decentralisation there. It was a mistake because union parishads have proved their usefulness as a representative body at the village level and people associate themselves more with it than with upazila, giving more scope for participation. With gradual de-concentration of government departments at union level there can be decentralisation with devolution at that level also in future.
The decision of the present caretaker government to hold upazila elections is a step in the right direction. It should be seen as part of the bigger enterprise to institutionalise democracy that works and is accountable to the people. But in order to have a strong and effective upazila system, the right type of people (honest, dedicated, etc) should be allowed to contest. It is hoped that screening of candidates for upazila and union parishad elections should be based on the same criteria as is envisaged for candidates for elections to Jatiya Sangsad. Elections, to be free, fair, impartial and conducive to democracy, have to meet the same conditions whether it is for Jatiya Sangsad or local government bodies. To sum up, there is no shortcut to elections if it is meant to be free fair and conducive to democracy.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
