Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
Nothing is likely to maintain the process of institutionalizing local self-government at the grassroots other than comprehensive decentralization. Institutionalizing democratic decentralization has already received intellectual concern. So national government sets the programme of decentralization of local institution as an important agenda of development administration
The concept of decentralization includes a variety of dimensions. The study of decentralization may enable us to know whether ‘projects or programs should support reorganization of financial, administrative, or service delivery systems. Decentralization – the transfer of authority and responsibility for public functions from the central government to subordinate or quasi-independent government organizations and/or the private sector – is a complex multifaceted concept. Different types of decentralization should be distinguished because they have different characteristics, policy implications, and conditions for success’ Four forms of decentralization constitute what may be subsumed to be comprehensive decentralization. Grassroot government based on self-governance is clearly manifest in the four forms (www.worldbank 1999) stated below:
Deconcentration – which is often considered to be the weakest form of decentralization and is used most frequently in unitary states – redistributes decision making authority and financial and management responsibilities among different levels of the central government. It can merely shift responsibilities from central government officials in the capital city to those working in regions, provinces or districts, or it can create strong field administration or local administrative capacity under the supervision of central government ministries.
Delegation – is a more extensive form of decentralization. Through delegation central governments transfer responsibility for decision-making and administration of public functions to semi-autonomous organizations not wholly controlled by the central government, but ultimately accountable to it. Governments delegate responsibilities when they create public enterprises or corporations, housing authorities, transportation authorities, special service districts, semi-autonomous school districts, regional development corporations, or special project implementation units. Usually, these organizations have a great deal of discretion in decision-making. They may be exempt from constraints on regular civil service personnel and may be able to charge users directly for services.
A third type of administrative decentralization is devolution. When governments devolve functions, they transfer authority for decision-making, finance, and management to quasi-autonomous units of local government with corporate status. Devolution usually transfers responsibilities for services to municipalities that elect their own mayors and councils, raise their own revenues, and have independent authority to make investment decisions. In a devolved system, local governments have clear and legally recognized geographical boundaries over which they exercise authority and within which they perform public functions. It is this type of administrative decentralization that underlies most political decentralization.
The fourth type is privatization. Privatization can range in scope from leaving the provision of goods and services entirely to the free operation of the market to “public-private partnerships” in which government and the private sector cooperate to provide services or infrastructure. Privatization can include: 1) allowing private enterprises to perform functions that had previously been monopolized by government; 2) contracting out the provision or management of public services or facilities to commercial enterprises indeed, there is a wide range of possible ways in which function can be organized and many examples of within public sector and public-private institutional forms, 3) financing public sector programs through the capital market (with adequate regulation or measures to prevent situations where the central government bears the risk for this borrowing) and allowing private organizations to participate; and 4) transferring responsibility for providing services from the public to the private sector through the divestiture of state-owned enterprises.
We are more or less conversant with the process of decentralization of local government in Bangladesh. One may contend that autonomous institutions play an important role in shaping rural development. Different sectors in urban sectors display different models of governance and local political choice matters
In recent years sustainable development at the grass root has become the overarching concern of the government and civil societies. Only Participation anchored in local self-government can promote consensus building, identify key agents of sustainable development, and organize human potential and capacities. The state is the main actor creating an enabling environment for sustainable rural development through its key institution like union parishad.
Rural development ceases to be sustainable without reference to the involvement of major stakeholders and beneficiaries in policy formulation and policy implementation process. In recent years the national and donor agencies, too, have been at the forefront of the growing international consensus that participatory approach and sustainable development are indivisible. The belief is that developing capacity building or learning by doing through participation can be and should be the primary way to eliminate poverty.
It is increasingly realized that only participatory approach underpins understanding of the people as beneficiaries understanding their predicaments. It gratifies villager’s needs for self-development. Also it paves for social mobilization and wider network of communication involving the cross section of the rural populace. The policy goal, as it is clearly visible in recent policy dialogue, put the last first through participation in in decision making at the micro level through elected representatives.
It does appear that the study of union parishad is really a fascinating area of research on local governance per se. The study enables us to surmize the dynamics of local self government well in tandem with the policy of comprehensive decentralization for participatory development. As a matter of fact union parishad (UP) stands at the door step for interaction and involvement in development dialogue so far as the villagers are concerned.
For local-self government to develop at the grassroots the first and foremost consideration is comprehensive decentralization. Union Parishad must be an autonomous entity with strong taxation base having at its disposal officials and staff and a mini parliament with development committees. All decisions that concern interests and grievances of the villagers must be taken at this level without any onward transmission for approval by higher bureaucracy. Decentralized union parishad will be able to dispense all necessary services to the villagers operating with citizen charter and automation. At times privatization will allow NGOs and parastatal organizations to promote rural development of course in collaboration with union parishad.
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque, Professor of Public Administration, Chittagong University)
