Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque :
At national and local levels institutionalization of democracy is the reveling aspect of political development. It is inseparable from democratic participation in an enabling political environment. Nothing, there, is likely to maintain the process of institutionalizing democracy as popular participation. 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
We are more or less conversant with the process of institutionalization of urban local government in Bangladesh. There are some common institutional names like City Corporation, paurasava, municipality and councils. In western democracy such as Great Britain there are institutional nomenclatures like borough, county government and councils. We have institutions at the urban level. But they do not have the semblance of status enjoyed by the county council. County urban government is a functional entity. Contrarily urban local i situations in Bangladesh are not urban governments. All our ex-mayors used to strongly plead and advocate the concept of city government in their speech and rhetoric. All the same they did seem to take any conspicuous initiative to prepare a concept note on the theme like city government. A local government expert thus commented: ‘the experiences they gained by managing their respective corporations might have induced them to embark upon a new and innovative idea to reform or reorganize the existing city corporations. The concern for reform and reorganization is genuine and deserves profound appreciation.’
The model of city government as existing in Great Britain more or less represents European system of urban local government. To quote a research study:
European cities have specific features on the basis of which they can be distinguished from their American or Asian counterparts. Since the second half of the 19th century “in the European cities an urban regime has been established in which the particular economic interests were forced to find compromises with social responsibilities and the interests of the city as a whole (they set good examples in health politics, in the slow improvement of housing, and in anti
-poverty initiatives, at least in caring for the poor).” The new type of public policies, first with regulating the private market, later, especially after the war, with direct interventions, usually started from the UK and gradually spread over to the continent. The specificities of European cities that were applied with large differences across the countries of the continent can
be summarized in the following way: In the last third of the19th century in more and more countries local governments acquired the rights for planning control over land use and new developments, gradually gaining influence over the spatial pattern of the cities.
Legal regulations for urban development in the 20th century. Local governments acquired land making it public property, first only sporadically, after the wars, however, on a mass scale, enabling cities to influence decisions on the use
-structure of the urban area. This intervention into the market became broader when public authorities themselves started to build housing for the poor and in doing so contributed directly to the compact development of cities Step by step public authorities took over the control of basic utility services, such as water and energy provision and transport systems. In many countries This municipal socialism worked effectively, brought gains for the public budget, and provided perfect infrastructure for the big cities.
City corporations in statistical metropolitan areas (SMAs) and in small towns are democratically elected bodies. They take on myriad of functions to cater to the needs of the city dwellers. Even then they cannot enjoy the quantum of autonomy with a seemingly weak taxation base and poor fund. A plenty of city development agencies, Chittagong City Development authority (CDA) and Rajuk, for example work in isolation from the city corporations.
The Major concern of the study of electoral politics has been the way the election issues affect voting patterns. One of the potent reasons for this concern is to call attention to the relative importance of the issue attitude.
The mayors and councilors might have placed a long list of priorities including IT village and digital Chittagong and city government, combating water logging, traffic jam and a host of welfare measure putting the poor first.
They can hardly redeem the promises of change. We cannot expect much from the them. 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. 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
We frequently talk of urban governance. ‘Governance processes are not value neutral but reflect and sustain political values beyond partisan conflict. Comparing managerial, corporatist, growth, and welfare governance models of urban governance’. One may contend that autonomous urban institutions play an important role in shaping urban governance. Different sectors in urban sectors display different models of governance and local political choice matters. Also, ‘cities within the same national context differ significantly with regard to the degree of inclusion of organized interests in urban governance, which, in turn, is reflected in urban policy outcomes.’ Urban governance remains a distant dream unless we try to explore the idea of autonomous urban institutions identifying stupendous problems of urban management. Urban governance contains social, political and managerial implications. What we suggest is the ‘development of autonomous local state. In UK ‘local states like city councils enjoy ample opportunity to mould the growth of a distinct local economy. The city councils compete with each other for attracting people and institutions to choose their residential, business and industrial locations.’
Local governments in Western Europe have become increasingly involved in network building with the local business community. The author suggests that governance processes are not value neutral but reflect and sustain political values beyond partisan conflict. Comparing managerial, corporatist, progrowth, and welfare governance models of urban governance, the author argues that nation-state factors play an important role in shaping urban governance. Different sectors in urban politics display different models of governance and local political choice matters. Also, cities within the same national context differ significantly with regard to the degree of inclusion of organized interests in urban governance, which, in turn, is reflected in urban policy outcomes.
(Dr. Md. Shairul Mashreque, Professor, Department of Public Administration, Chittagong University)
