Photo : TDM
A country mainly consists of central and local governments, where the central one makes decisions, and the local one implements those as a decentralised unit. Among five such units, Zila Parishad (ZP) is the country’s most crucial local government unit for developing local governance and democracy. It has a puzzling history with ups and downs in different periods; before 2016, there was no election to run the Parishad according to the laws fixed by the country. However, after so many years, the present government conducted two elections in 2016 and 2022 respectively and made the Parishad constitutionally correct.
Along with the other units of local government, the Parishad is responsible for performing some essential compulsory and optional functions described in the Zila Parishad Act of 2000, i.e. assessment of development works, looking after the Upazila Parishad (UPZ) schemes and their audits, maintenance of standard library, dak-bungalows and rest houses, public roads, culverts, bridges, building boundary walls of different educational institutions and so on.
However, the main point of this discussion is whether or not the ZP is known to the common people. Do they know about the Parishad? Do they have access to the Parishad to avail of the services? The reality is that the majority of the common people do not know the Parishad that they have an opportunity to receive public services from the Parishad. According to Islam (2021) in his writing “Strengthening Zila parishads can accelerate rural prosperity,” published in The Daily Star on 14 November 2021, there is a severe lack of common people participation, and 90% of standing committees of ZP are dysfunctional meaning that there is a gap between common people and the ZP. I have conducted a study on Zila parishad in 2018 and found that almost 90% of the people do not know that we have a separate unit named ZP in the local government system like UP and UPZ, which is supposed to work for the local development. The local people are accessing UP and UPZ for their different needs and demands but barely use the ZP. The Parishad is not even careful about the participation of common people as they are situated at the center of a district.
The most important question is why the ZP is suffering from a dearth of popularity since it is the Bangladesh’s top unit of rural local government. There are several significant issues affecting the popularity; firstly, the election system: popularity comes with interaction, as the ZP act of 2000 does not allow the common people to vote to elect the representatives as the election system is an indirect called Electoral College system. Therefore, the gap starts from the election that the candidates can be far from the common people as they are not the voters. At the same time, this might make the representatives of ZP less accountable to the common people. Although direct voting urges the interaction and bargaining between candidates and the voters which opens the door of participation and makes the representatives familiar to the common people. Secondly, the overlapping tasks: the responsibilities assigned to the ZP are almost the same as the other two units; as a result, people get the necessary services from the other two. In this case, the ZP is lagging, and the other two are at the upper hand and ready to provide the services quickly and responsively. Thirdly, the location of ZP: though the Zila parishad is a rural local government unit, it is situated at the center of a district far from the mass people. The other two units, i.e. UP and UPZ, are very close to the common people, making it easier for them to access.
Along with this issue, at the district level, there are urban local government units like Pourasava, which is functional and very active, which reduces the importance of ZP. So, common people who live in the district access the Pourasava that indirectly makes ZP less participatory. Fourthly, the dysfunctional standing committees; there is an option of involving common people in the standing committees and standing committees are supposed to oversee the needs and demands of the common people and maintain a continuous interaction, which would have created a bridge between the ZP and common people but unfortunately most of the ZP does not have any standing committee; instead, the chair takes all the decisions by himself own. Fifthly, the absence of need-based budgeting: the interaction with the common people would have happened if the ZP had arranged the open and need-based budgeting system.
The system means an open forum would be arranged, and the representative would want to know the needs and demands of the common people; based on their needs, the ZP yearly budget would be prepared, but there is no such arrangement. All the issues made the ZP less popular, ultimately questioning its effectiveness in ensuring local development.
As it is mentioned, the ZP is one of the crucial units of local government in Bangladesh; by incorporating all essential measures, the parishad could contribute massively to local prosperity and development. What are the corrective measures that would minimize the gap and make the ZP effective and popular to the common people so that the broader opportunity of the ZP will open to contribute to the country? A direct election could be introduced instead of the Electoral College; continuous interaction should be maintained; standing committees and their functions would be revived and active; an open budgeting system can be arranged; collaborative activities could be done with UP and UPZ; the chairman and members should go to their constituencies frequently; social campaign on what are the services the ZP provides could be arranged. All the suggestions that have been made will surely enhance the popularity of the ZP, and people will feel comfortable coming to the ZP for the necessary services, making the ZP effective. Thus, the ZP will undoubtedly play the catalyst role in local prosperity and development.
The Writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Public Administration, BUP
TDM/SD
