Impact of ‘The Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009’ on the Local Governance in Bangladesh: A Focus on People’s Participation and Accountability

Abstract

This is an impact study of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009. It is about the scope of people’s participation, and thereby accountability of public officials, i.e. Social Accountability Mechanisms (SAM) in local level planning at the Ward Shava (Ward Meeting hereinafter WS) and budgeting at the Unmukto Budget Shava (Open Budget Meeting, hereinafter OBM) processes. The state of the application of two other techniques of New Public Management (NPM), i.e. Right to Information (RTI) and Citizen’s Charter (CC), by the citizens in the planning and budgeting processes has also been explored. This study has employed both qualitative and quantitative data derived from both primary and secondary sources. The first observation is that, for the very first time, grassroots people are engaged in the local level (Union Parishad hereinafter UP) planning and budget preparation in Bangladesh, as a result of the enactment of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009 (“the Act, 2009”) . It is evident that the process of planning and budgeting through WS and OBM, as processes, are well-designed by the Act, 2009. The Act offers people the opportunity of direct engagement to identify problems, related to their livelihoods, at the Ward level. At each stage of the planning process, there are provisions for engaging ordinary citizens, as well as representatives of Civil Society Organizations (CSO). The obvious expectation of Parliament was that general people, with their associates, could demand answerability of the UP functionaries. This study also finds that the mandate of the process of dissemination of information, under the the provisions of the Right To Information Act 2009 (“RTI”) and Citizens’ Charters (“CC”), has empowered those UP Councillors who want to be responsive to the general people at the WS and OBM. However, the flow of information at the UPs, through their Union Information and Service Centers (UISC), website of Local Government Division (LGD), at the notice board and billboard of the UP office etc., has not created transparency, as most village residents do not access these sources. The second set of observations is related to the outcomes/ changes which have occurred with the implementation of the Local Government (Union Parishad) Act, 2009. It is evident that, when people are offered legitimized engagement in the planning and budgeting cycle, they have the ability to identify their areas of priority needs and to bargain with the UP functionaries. The fund utilization process has been monitored by the people at the OBM. Dissemination of other information, including a UP’s income, expenditure, project beneficiary list, project list, etc. has enhanced transparency. The trust of the voters in their elected UP officials, has also been enhanced, since many of the people who participated at both the WS and OBM have expressed their satisfaction with those processes. Personal motivation of the elected and government officials of UP to involve the public in the processes and involvement of NGOs have been seen as means for enhancing the capacity of the UP functionaries to implement these provisions. The third set of findings has depicted the challenges which have to be resolved to secure more participation by citizens and more responsiveness of the UP functionaries. Inconvenient times and places of meeting, religious codes and patriarchy, lack of education and awareness of the general people and mistrust of the UP functionaries due to institutionalization of corruption are some reasons that discourage people’s access to the WS and OBM. On the other hand, lack of resources, local power structure, lack of cooperation from government officials, lack of capacity of the UP functionaries and interference of national politicians in local matters are some challenges of SAM that reduce the UP functionaries’ responsiveness and answerability to the needs of their voters. However, non-compliance with the strategy of bottom- up planning, lack of a standardised charter of services for UPs or citizens’ engagement in developing CCs, lack of customer focus, lack of realization of user charges, lack of experts on the application of ICT at the UP are some challenges of implementation of the NPM techniques that are hindering effective service delivery and popular participation in planning and budgeting at the UP level Finally, some suggestions for UP, including capacity building of the UP functionaries to conduct social mapping for UP plan preparation, placement of government officials in UP offices, partnership with private, other public and NGO programs, e-Governance, utilisation of ICT, advertisement and mass awareness building programs etc. have been offered, for improved socio economic development of the local people.