Dr. M. Abul Kashem Mozumder and Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque
Research work on decentralization advocates local-self government and popular participation. The studies conducted by Conyers (1981), Rondinelli (1983), Routray (1987), Sidentoph (1988), Schoroeder (1985), Blair(1985), Hill (1987), Esman and Uphoff (1984)(all cited in Mashreque 2002), Ruland and Sujo (1988) attempt to relate cross-cultural experiences of rural development and decentralization as a social movement(cited in Mashreque 2002).
TTDC is a new concept of development administration at the local point TTDC stands out to be a symbolic reference for decentralized development administration at the local level. It is an important component of Comilla model.
TTDC was “designed as a model of decentralised and coordinated rural administration for the sake of development aiming at effective coordination between nation-building departments and organisations of the rural people (local councils, cooperatives, etc). The people and the government are partners of development. TTDC provides the institutional mechanism to promote this partnership. Replication of TTDC in phases throughout the country was accepted as a programme by the government in 1963, and was gradually replicated in all the thanas. It was used as a base for introducing a decentralized administration system under the thana parishad in 1982.”(Banglapedia 2003)
Esman (1966), Fainsod (1963), Riggs (1965) (cited in Mashreque 2002) discussed the process of administration of development and development of administration which involves a ‘new value orientation’ and ‘institutional set up’ for nation building. These theoretical studies may help us to find out a common pattern of socio economic, political and administrative development in transitional societies. Development as defined by these studies refers to ‘administrative capabilities’ and operational efficiencies of the government agencies in the determination of the ‘goals of nation building’ and ‘socio economic development’. Huq (1978) explained this animated concept to depict the dynamics of changing societies. SK Jha (1988) depicted changing pattern rural administration in Rural India
Rondinelli (1983 cited in Mashreque 2002), offered a cross-cultural study of decentralization taking eight countries as test cases. These countries are India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Nepal, Malaysia, Srilanka, and Pakistan.. Based on cross-cultural studies Rondinelli (1983 cited in Mashreque 2002) comments:” The initiative for decentralization in these countries came from the central government and not from demands for participation or devolution of authority from below. However state initiative in this respect was a belated realization. Bangladesh is no exception. Although new global trends in the empowerment of local government(LG) somewhat influenced thinking on reformation line at the local point new LG system was anchored in Thana Training and Development Center (TTDC) concept.
Thana Training and Development Center (TTDC) is a concept replete with development administration at the local point TTDC stands out to be a symbolic reference for decentralized development administration at the local level. It is an important component of Comilla model. The Thana Training and Development Centre was “designed as a model of decentralized and coordinated rural administration for the sake of development. (TTDC) aims at effective coordination between nation-building departments and organizations of the rural people (local councils, cooperatives, etc). The people and the government are partners of development. (TTDC) provides the institutional mechanism for this partnership. Replication of (TTDC) in phases throughout the country provided a basis for participatory local governance for rural development. In 1982 Committee on Administrative Reform and Reorganization (CARR) recommended for the creation of strong and autonomous local-self government based on devolutionary dimension of decentralization.
Participation is the revealing aspect of development administration. Almost everyone view participation as participation in community organization, participation in the project cycle, participation in local organization, participation local government institutions (Shamsul Haque, 2002 cited in Nasrullah et,al 2006 cited in Mashreque 2016)
Participation in the project cycle, most particularly within the implementing institution itself, involves popular participation in planning, implementation, output, and evolution stages of the project cycle. It may even entail participation in administration itself as reoriented bureaucracy assigns high priority to opening itself to increased participation.
Participation in the local organizations involves participation in the whole range of local institutions such as Local Governments, Co-operatives, Social Organizations and Public Bodies with a special concern for the consequences of success, for examples, Associated Development Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB), Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC).
Participation in local government institutions (LG) is meant to promote genuine socio economic change through such institutions. There is a long history of such participation in the sub-continent with a rather not very encouraging success.
Professor Haque (2002 cited inNasrullah 2006) alludes to the autonomy of the local institutions for development and governance. They include:
Autonomy of local units of government and independence from direct and day-to-day control of government and other hierarchical local government bodies.
Legally recognized geographical boundaries of such local governments.
Corporate status of local government and power to secure resources for performing their functions.
Institutional character of local government units and control of local people over then
Reciprocal, mutually beneficial and coordinate relationship between central and local governments.
There is considerable factual evidence from different parts of the Bangladesh society that the benefits of development are concentrated in a segment of rural population and are not shared by all. If participation in development is measured in terms of distribution of benefits the peasant masses remain non-participation and do not receive the benefits they accept. As Myron Weiner (1972) notes: “Most of the benefits from government policies do not reach the poor (peasants) … the policies pursed have nowhere led to greater economic equality and a lessening of concentration of economic power.” Capitalistic concentration has been increasing under capital-intensive development program. “This sort of development by its nature eliminates those who lack or fail to mobilize the minimum resource base” (Chaturvedi and Mitra, 1982). “This pattern is related to the distribution of wealth, power and status in the socio-cultural environment” (Jetley, 1977).
Peasant participation in development to which most attention is directed in recent years is the distributive aspect of rural politics. The locus of decision-making in the peasant community economy is a small coterie of elites consolidating power and wealth in their own hands. The current increasing phenomena of inequality, poverty and pauperization of the peasant in the rural areas of developing nations in general and Bangladesh in particular indicate that existing socio economic and political institutions controlled by the elite structure (ruling structure) are not capable of ensuring equitable or at least fair distribution of benefits of development.
These institutions coupled with diverse rural development projects serve the interests of the elite group. The masses of peasants continue to be deprived of their due share in political and economic power.
The organization forms assumed by the ‘institutional arrangement’ can be critical of facilitating or constructing bonafide peasants participation in development and creation of power, position and privileges. The ‘institutional arrangement’ itself is adapted to the prevailing structure of rural economy and society. As Saul says (cited in Bratton 1980:6) “Institutions cannot be viewed or addressed independently of their structure that maintains them and influences their activities.”
Participation not only indicates participation in the development activities of the community itself but also in areas of activity that the people share with other communities. Given the interdependence of the peasant communities under the impact of modernization, the importance of organization in increasing people’s involvement and initiative is admittedly great. The operating organizations in and outside the village include informal political body (traditionally sanctioned) cooperatives, recreational club, youth club, women association, union parishad (grassroots government), various committees, rural courts etc. Many of these organizations involve the participation of people belonging to a number of villages as members. In some organization membership is restricted and in some it is wide ranging. Membership in various committees is closed and limited to the higher echelon of the society. Apart from the upward movement along organizational linkage people participate in various rural development projects as beneficiaries. Some model farmers in South Asian villages have received useful orientation from the rural development institutions as trainees. They are partaking in the activities of the projects as mobilizes and change agents. This level of peasant’s involvement as beneficiaries and trainees in recent years is a manifestation to the tremendous increase of social mobility (Mashreque, 2002).
It should not surprise if the rural development programs have a tilt in favor of the ruling class on whose support they are dependent for their proper implementation. The generic feature of the rural development experimentation is the fact that development activities are biased towards the ruling class whose cooperation is considered a sin-quo-non-for fulfilling the twin objectives of growth and societal integration. As a result the issue of rural poverty, inequality, and exploitation remain sidetracked in reality. In the study areas patronize resources in the rural institutions dominated by the ruling elites are responsible for lopsided participation in development, elite conflict and the lack of growth. Likewise they tend to generate wrath suspicion and discontent among the dispossessed. There has been overlapping of the elites in all decision-making institutions (village council, cooperative, union parishad, and various development committees). They decide upon diverse development issues and grievances maintaining liaison with the development officials who are giving extension and promotional services. In the process of manipulation the proportion of rural elites making use of extension services and obtaining access to other resources of patronize keeps on remaining high. As the distribution of resources meant for development projects is routed through the elites, the cases of corruption and misdistribution are obvious (Mashreque, 2002).
Governance by implications involves input from service oriented promotional activities within the organizational context. It demands an orderly institutional arrangement with built in mechanism providing genesis for social mobilization.
Local governance is a part of overall governance (Hye 1998:15). The local government system in Bangladesh operates at three levels: metropolitan, urban and rural-local. The potentials of local governance can be realized when local participation assumes importance in (a) planning and implementation of projects (b) supervision of educational institutions, hospitals and other government financed units (c) mobilization of support for new initiatives like campaign against dowry, child labour etc. (d) enforcement of laws regarding gender discrimination, violence against women, environmental protection (e) mobilization of resources in the form of taxes, fees, tolls etc. (f) holding LG institutions accountable to the community (g) sensitizing the community making it vigilant and active ensuring transparency and responsiveness of LG institutions (Ibid:15).
‘The prospect of governance led local government reveals a strong desire for synchronization of various policies and programs with the coordinated efforts of the stakeholders. It necessitates truly autonomous local governance sufficiently decentralized for conducting a vast area of development activities. It needs to be operative with its own organization resources, funds, field units and various partners of development working in the rural community.
Accountability, transparency, equity, participation and empowerment are essential for strengthening local government (LG) institutions. LG institutions can function efficiently and effectively if the provisions of the constitution and rules of the Acts are duly followed and respected.
Research work on decentralization advocates local-self government and popular participation. The studies conducted by Conyers (1981), Rondinelli (1983), Routray (1987), Sidentoph (1988), Schoroeder (1985), Blair(1985), Hill (1987), Esman and Uphoff (1984)(all cited in Mashreque 2002), Ruland and Sujo (1988) attempt to relate cross-cultural experiences of rural development and decentralization as a social movement(cited in Mashreque 2002).
TTDC is a new concept of development administration at the local point TTDC stands out to be a symbolic reference for decentralized development administration at the local level. It is an important component of Comilla model.
TTDC was “designed as a model of decentralised and coordinated rural administration for the sake of development aiming at effective coordination between nation-building departments and organisations of the rural people (local councils, cooperatives, etc). The people and the government are partners of development. TTDC provides the institutional mechanism to promote this partnership. Replication of TTDC in phases throughout the country was accepted as a programme by the government in 1963, and was gradually replicated in all the thanas. It was used as a base for introducing a decentralized administration system under the thana parishad in 1982.”(Banglapedia 2003)
Esman (1966), Fainsod (1963), Riggs (1965) (cited in Mashreque 2002) discussed the process of administration of development and development of administration which involves a ‘new value orientation’ and ‘institutional set up’ for nation building. These theoretical studies may help us to find out a common pattern of socio economic, political and administrative development in transitional societies. Development as defined by these studies refers to ‘administrative capabilities’ and operational efficiencies of the government agencies in the determination of the ‘goals of nation building’ and ‘socio economic development’. Huq (1978) explained this animated concept to depict the dynamics of changing societies. SK Jha (1988) depicted changing pattern rural administration in Rural India
Rondinelli (1983 cited in Mashreque 2002), offered a cross-cultural study of decentralization taking eight countries as test cases. These countries are India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Nepal, Malaysia, Srilanka, and Pakistan.. Based on cross-cultural studies Rondinelli (1983 cited in Mashreque 2002) comments:” The initiative for decentralization in these countries came from the central government and not from demands for participation or devolution of authority from below. However state initiative in this respect was a belated realization. Bangladesh is no exception. Although new global trends in the empowerment of local government(LG) somewhat influenced thinking on reformation line at the local point new LG system was anchored in Thana Training and Development Center (TTDC) concept.
Thana Training and Development Center (TTDC) is a concept replete with development administration at the local point TTDC stands out to be a symbolic reference for decentralized development administration at the local level. It is an important component of Comilla model. The Thana Training and Development Centre was “designed as a model of decentralized and coordinated rural administration for the sake of development. (TTDC) aims at effective coordination between nation-building departments and organizations of the rural people (local councils, cooperatives, etc). The people and the government are partners of development. (TTDC) provides the institutional mechanism for this partnership. Replication of (TTDC) in phases throughout the country provided a basis for participatory local governance for rural development. In 1982 Committee on Administrative Reform and Reorganization (CARR) recommended for the creation of strong and autonomous local-self government based on devolutionary dimension of decentralization.
Participation is the revealing aspect of development administration. Almost everyone view participation as participation in community organization, participation in the project cycle, participation in local organization, participation local government institutions (Shamsul Haque, 2002 cited in Nasrullah et,al 2006 cited in Mashreque 2016)
Participation in the project cycle, most particularly within the implementing institution itself, involves popular participation in planning, implementation, output, and evolution stages of the project cycle. It may even entail participation in administration itself as reoriented bureaucracy assigns high priority to opening itself to increased participation.
Participation in the local organizations involves participation in the whole range of local institutions such as Local Governments, Co-operatives, Social Organizations and Public Bodies with a special concern for the consequences of success, for examples, Associated Development Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB), Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC).
Participation in local government institutions (LG) is meant to promote genuine socio economic change through such institutions. There is a long history of such participation in the sub-continent with a rather not very encouraging success.
Professor Haque (2002 cited inNasrullah 2006) alludes to the autonomy of the local institutions for development and governance. They include:
Autonomy of local units of government and independence from direct and day-to-day control of government and other hierarchical local government bodies.
Legally recognized geographical boundaries of such local governments.
Corporate status of local government and power to secure resources for performing their functions.
Institutional character of local government units and control of local people over then
Reciprocal, mutually beneficial and coordinate relationship between central and local governments.
There is considerable factual evidence from different parts of the Bangladesh society that the benefits of development are concentrated in a segment of rural population and are not shared by all. If participation in development is measured in terms of distribution of benefits the peasant masses remain non-participation and do not receive the benefits they accept. As Myron Weiner (1972) notes: “Most of the benefits from government policies do not reach the poor (peasants) … the policies pursed have nowhere led to greater economic equality and a lessening of concentration of economic power.” Capitalistic concentration has been increasing under capital-intensive development program. “This sort of development by its nature eliminates those who lack or fail to mobilize the minimum resource base” (Chaturvedi and Mitra, 1982). “This pattern is related to the distribution of wealth, power and status in the socio-cultural environment” (Jetley, 1977).
Peasant participation in development to which most attention is directed in recent years is the distributive aspect of rural politics. The locus of decision-making in the peasant community economy is a small coterie of elites consolidating power and wealth in their own hands. The current increasing phenomena of inequality, poverty and pauperization of the peasant in the rural areas of developing nations in general and Bangladesh in particular indicate that existing socio economic and political institutions controlled by the elite structure (ruling structure) are not capable of ensuring equitable or at least fair distribution of benefits of development.
These institutions coupled with diverse rural development projects serve the interests of the elite group. The masses of peasants continue to be deprived of their due share in political and economic power.
The organization forms assumed by the ‘institutional arrangement’ can be critical of facilitating or constructing bonafide peasants participation in development and creation of power, position and privileges. The ‘institutional arrangement’ itself is adapted to the prevailing structure of rural economy and society. As Saul says (cited in Bratton 1980:6) “Institutions cannot be viewed or addressed independently of their structure that maintains them and influences their activities.”
Participation not only indicates participation in the development activities of the community itself but also in areas of activity that the people share with other communities. Given the interdependence of the peasant communities under the impact of modernization, the importance of organization in increasing people’s involvement and initiative is admittedly great. The operating organizations in and outside the village include informal political body (traditionally sanctioned) cooperatives, recreational club, youth club, women association, union parishad (grassroots government), various committees, rural courts etc. Many of these organizations involve the participation of people belonging to a number of villages as members. In some organization membership is restricted and in some it is wide ranging. Membership in various committees is closed and limited to the higher echelon of the society. Apart from the upward movement along organizational linkage people participate in various rural development projects as beneficiaries. Some model farmers in South Asian villages have received useful orientation from the rural development institutions as trainees. They are partaking in the activities of the projects as mobilizes and change agents. This level of peasant’s involvement as beneficiaries and trainees in recent years is a manifestation to the tremendous increase of social mobility (Mashreque, 2002).
It should not surprise if the rural development programs have a tilt in favor of the ruling class on whose support they are dependent for their proper implementation. The generic feature of the rural development experimentation is the fact that development activities are biased towards the ruling class whose cooperation is considered a sin-quo-non-for fulfilling the twin objectives of growth and societal integration. As a result the issue of rural poverty, inequality, and exploitation remain sidetracked in reality. In the study areas patronize resources in the rural institutions dominated by the ruling elites are responsible for lopsided participation in development, elite conflict and the lack of growth. Likewise they tend to generate wrath suspicion and discontent among the dispossessed. There has been overlapping of the elites in all decision-making institutions (village council, cooperative, union parishad, and various development committees). They decide upon diverse development issues and grievances maintaining liaison with the development officials who are giving extension and promotional services. In the process of manipulation the proportion of rural elites making use of extension services and obtaining access to other resources of patronize keeps on remaining high. As the distribution of resources meant for development projects is routed through the elites, the cases of corruption and misdistribution are obvious (Mashreque, 2002).
Governance by implications involves input from service oriented promotional activities within the organizational context. It demands an orderly institutional arrangement with built in mechanism providing genesis for social mobilization.
Local governance is a part of overall governance (Hye 1998:15). The local government system in Bangladesh operates at three levels: metropolitan, urban and rural-local. The potentials of local governance can be realized when local participation assumes importance in (a) planning and implementation of projects (b) supervision of educational institutions, hospitals and other government financed units (c) mobilization of support for new initiatives like campaign against dowry, child labour etc. (d) enforcement of laws regarding gender discrimination, violence against women, environmental protection (e) mobilization of resources in the form of taxes, fees, tolls etc. (f) holding LG institutions accountable to the community (g) sensitizing the community making it vigilant and active ensuring transparency and responsiveness of LG institutions (Ibid:15).
‘The prospect of governance led local government reveals a strong desire for synchronization of various policies and programs with the coordinated efforts of the stakeholders. It necessitates truly autonomous local governance sufficiently decentralized for conducting a vast area of development activities. It needs to be operative with its own organization resources, funds, field units and various partners of development working in the rural community.
Accountability, transparency, equity, participation and empowerment are essential for strengthening local government (LG) institutions. LG institutions can function efficiently and effectively if the provisions of the constitution and rules of the Acts are duly followed and respected.
(Dr. M. Abul Kashem Mozumder is Pro-VC , BUP and Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque is ex-professor, Chittagong University)
