Presented by Dr. AMM Shawkat Ali

Article 59 (2) stipulates that functions of local government may be prescribed by an Act of Parliament. However, it also specifically states three areas for inclusion in the Act. These are: administration and the work of public officers; the maintenance of public order; and the preparation and implementation of plans relating to public services and economic development.

In article 60, the need for a law on local government is again emphasized. It is also specially mentioned that a law is necessary to give full effect to the powers mentioned in article 59. Concurrently, the powers to impose taxes for local purposes and to prepare budget and to maintain funds are included in article 60.

The above mentioned articles of the Constitution thus give broad and specific indications of conferment of powers on local government. It is left to the Parliament to prescribe such functions in an Act because law-making lies within the domain of the Parliament. In this regard, in article 59 (2), the word ‘may’ is used. In article 60, the word used is ‘shall’.

In fact, in most preceding laws, the two functions such as maintenance of public order and preparation and implementation of plans for public services and economic development used to be included. Again, the other two powers in article 60, those of imposing taxes for local purposes, preparation of budget and maintenance of funds were also there in the preceding laws.

The first function that of administration and work of public officers mentioned in article 59 (2) is, however, a new addition. It was probably based on the ground that the elected representatives of local bodies must have the right to supervise the functions of administration and the work of public officers otherwise the substantive concept of democratic governance cannot be achieved in practice.

This raises the question to what extent has this constitutional provision been fulfilled. It may be said that except for the Upazila Parishad, this has remained largely unfulfilled. Even in the Upazila Parishad, it has led to conflict because of the dual nature of administration. This raises the question to what extent has this constitutional provision been fulfilled. It may be said that except for the Upazila Parishad, this has remained largely unfulfilled. Even in the Upazila Parishad, it has led to conflict because of the dual nature of administration.

This has happened for two reasons. First, up to the Union level, in some cases even below the Union the public officers are all central government officers who work under the direct supervision of departmental offices at District and Upazila levels.

This dual nature of administration was partially resolved in case of Upazila in two ways. First, by retention of specific areas of responsibility for the central government meaning that the remaining areas lie within the sphere of local bodies.

Second, by deputing to the Upazila level centrally appointed officers including authority for the Upazila Chairman to write their annual performance reports. These reports are supposed to be considered for future promotion of such officers. To what extent this is actually in practice is a matter of further investigation?

In case of other local bodies such as Zila and Union Parishads, such an arrangement is still to be put in place. For Zila Parishad, it may be said that it still remains an unelected body. Hence the question of deputation does not arise. Even for elected urban bodies like Paurashavas and City Corporations, such deputation systems do not exist.

The second function of maintenance of public order also needs some discussion. It respect of Union Parishad, it was initially developed as a village watch and ward system under the Chaukidari Act. Now it is called Village police. There is an Act on this. Thus the system first introduced in 1871, still exists today. For other local bodies at Upazila and District levels including urban local bodies, although maintenance of public order is mentioned, it does not exist.

The village police come under dual control. First, they have to report to the officer in charge of Thana or Police Stations. The practice of reporting is known as Chaukidari parade. The member are appointed by the DC through a Committee. Their pay and allowances are paid by the government because Union Parishads do not enough resources of their own. Second, the members of the village police also report to the Chairman of Union Parishad.

The practice is to have it done through Law and Order Committees consisting of relevant public officers including non-official members. For the District, it is led by the DC. At Upazila also there is a similar Committee led by the UNO. Thus under the prevailing practice, it is still retained by the government.

Thank You