Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
(From previous issue)
It may be argued that the city mayor can hardly redeem the promises of change. We cannot expect much from the elected mayor. This is because this city body is not sufficiently empowered to fulfill mss expectations for a change. Its financial strength is limited with a poor taxation base. The image of city government is not reflected in position of City Corporation. So, the promise of doing the things with a long list of priorities is mere political gimmick to conjure up votes. From common feelings and general mass reactions against fuzzy urban governance it seems that they consider pledges, harangue, tall talks about change as catch phrases and common tactics employed in political game. A well informed voter commented ‘voting forced upon the silent masses helps the dominant groups to acquire legitimacy for wrong doing and wanton corruption. The post election scenario is one of frustration, increasing apathy and disenchantment’. During Union and upazila parishads elections a barrage of priorities was highlighted. Among the issues highlighted included price hike, terrorism, negligence of the port city holding tax, licensed rate for cycle rickshaw, water logging, landslide and environmental degradation. Yet little has been achieved. Rural local chapter can hardly be changed economically as important projects run by politico-bureaucratic triangles serve to protect coterie interest all to the disenchantment of the voters.
In rural areas and peri-urban communities structural relationship is by and large characterized by institutional conditions of living. The community of people is thus institutionally organized specified by role relationship and value orientation. Public life is shaped by on going structures and sub structures that contribute to institutionalization of the community with pre existing customs, operative values and well-defined roles and obligations. Policy failure is not a matter of inefficient public policy but clear-cut fuzzy governance. The governing class running the show through various intervening interest groups blissfully overlooks progressive impoverishment in the countryside marked by a ‘veritable cauldron of economic crises. The downslide of the poor and fixed income group has become one of the significant marks of the fall on the destiny of the peasant society.
This state of affairs has become accelerated by the dysfunction of politico-bureaucratic leadership at the local level. Local government including field administration and local self-governing body has been serving the ‘center power axis’ consisting of political leaders, bureaucracy and metropolitan tycoons. Trapped by the illusion of autonomy the continuing malfunctioning of local governance tells heavily on community life terribly immerizing the peasant and low income group. The wave of politicization has its impact on the criminalization of local politics. This sort of political bankruptcy adversely affects the peripheries. The terribly bad shaped democratic institutions plagued by internal strife, impotence and split enables the bureaucracy to gain stranglehold over local institutions. Relative autonomy is used only to resolve internal contradictions and manage manifold crises in intriguing issues of development to serve information needs about local situation. As a matter of fact the recent dynamics of rural development under bureaucratically shaped institutional arrangement hints much about erratic governance. While ‘bureau-pathology’, ‘organized anarchy’ and ‘formalism’ at the field are a constant source of discomfort to the ordinary masses the local conglomerates feel at home on the vantage point of access relationship.
(Concluded)
(From previous issue)
It may be argued that the city mayor can hardly redeem the promises of change. We cannot expect much from the elected mayor. This is because this city body is not sufficiently empowered to fulfill mss expectations for a change. Its financial strength is limited with a poor taxation base. The image of city government is not reflected in position of City Corporation. So, the promise of doing the things with a long list of priorities is mere political gimmick to conjure up votes. From common feelings and general mass reactions against fuzzy urban governance it seems that they consider pledges, harangue, tall talks about change as catch phrases and common tactics employed in political game. A well informed voter commented ‘voting forced upon the silent masses helps the dominant groups to acquire legitimacy for wrong doing and wanton corruption. The post election scenario is one of frustration, increasing apathy and disenchantment’. During Union and upazila parishads elections a barrage of priorities was highlighted. Among the issues highlighted included price hike, terrorism, negligence of the port city holding tax, licensed rate for cycle rickshaw, water logging, landslide and environmental degradation. Yet little has been achieved. Rural local chapter can hardly be changed economically as important projects run by politico-bureaucratic triangles serve to protect coterie interest all to the disenchantment of the voters.
In rural areas and peri-urban communities structural relationship is by and large characterized by institutional conditions of living. The community of people is thus institutionally organized specified by role relationship and value orientation. Public life is shaped by on going structures and sub structures that contribute to institutionalization of the community with pre existing customs, operative values and well-defined roles and obligations. Policy failure is not a matter of inefficient public policy but clear-cut fuzzy governance. The governing class running the show through various intervening interest groups blissfully overlooks progressive impoverishment in the countryside marked by a ‘veritable cauldron of economic crises. The downslide of the poor and fixed income group has become one of the significant marks of the fall on the destiny of the peasant society.
This state of affairs has become accelerated by the dysfunction of politico-bureaucratic leadership at the local level. Local government including field administration and local self-governing body has been serving the ‘center power axis’ consisting of political leaders, bureaucracy and metropolitan tycoons. Trapped by the illusion of autonomy the continuing malfunctioning of local governance tells heavily on community life terribly immerizing the peasant and low income group. The wave of politicization has its impact on the criminalization of local politics. This sort of political bankruptcy adversely affects the peripheries. The terribly bad shaped democratic institutions plagued by internal strife, impotence and split enables the bureaucracy to gain stranglehold over local institutions. Relative autonomy is used only to resolve internal contradictions and manage manifold crises in intriguing issues of development to serve information needs about local situation. As a matter of fact the recent dynamics of rural development under bureaucratically shaped institutional arrangement hints much about erratic governance. While ‘bureau-pathology’, ‘organized anarchy’ and ‘formalism’ at the field are a constant source of discomfort to the ordinary masses the local conglomerates feel at home on the vantage point of access relationship.
(Concluded)
