THE budget, as pointed out by many commentators, has both positive and negative aspects. However, one of the disappointing aspects of it is the significant decreases in the allocations for local government bodies, especially for Union Parishads (UPs) and Paurashavas, in spite of the substantial increases in the overall budget. Consequently, the question that is now is in the minds of many: what do these decreases mean?

Experts differ on the appropriate tiers of local government in our country. However, there is no controversy with respect to one tier -the UP for the rural setting and the Paurashava for the urban area. The major political parties are unanimously for it. Our honourable MPs have no objection against it. Members of the civil society are strongly for strengthening the UPs and the Paurashavas by giving them more resources, functions and responsibilities. Nevertheless, the honourable Finance Minister, to the dismay of many, proposed drastic cuts in the allocations for these bodies.

The revised Annual Development Plan (ADP) for the current fiscal year is Tk. 17,100 crore, of which the allocations as lump sum grants for 'Upazila Development

Assistance' (which is distributed as ADP grants to UPs) and 'Paurashava Development Assistance' are Tk. 200 crore and Tk. 120 crore, accounting for 1.17 per cent and 0.70 per cent, respectively, of the total. In the new budget for 200304, these allocations are reduced to Tk. 170 crore and Tk. 100 crore, respectively, although the total ADP is increased to Tk. 20,300 crore. In terms of percentages, Upazila Development Assistance and Paurashava Development Assistance consequently have gone down to 0.86 per cent and 0.49 per cent, respectively, of the proposed ADP. It may be pointed out that the allocations for the six City Corporations are also reduced from Tk. 120 crore (0.85%) in the current revised ADP to Tk. 100 crore (0.49%) in the proposed ADP for 2003-04. Similarly, the grants for Zila Parishads, although non-existent as elected bodies at this time, are reduced from Tk. 85 crore (0.50%) to Tk. 70 crore (0.34%). Thus, the allocations for all local government bodies --Zila Parishads, Upazila Parishads, Union Parishads and City Corporations -- have gone down significantly in the proposed ADP for the fiscal year in question.

It may be noted that in addition to the above reductions, the government has taken two decisions in recent years which put to risk the

very financial viability of local bodies, especially the UPs. For example, in 1997 the authority to lease water bodies of 20 acres or less was taken away from the UPs and given to the Ministry of Youth and Sports. Similarly, the authority to lease local markets was transferred from the UPs to Upazila Nirbahi Officers last year. These decisions could potentially cripple the UP bodies, although our constitutional commitment (Article 60) is "to confer powers on the local government bodies ... including power to impose taxes for local purposes, to prepare their budgets and to maintain funds."

It is hard to fathom the justifications for weakening the financial viability of the UPs -- the oldest and the only ongoing local government bodies of rural Bangladesh -- by both taking away the taxing authority and reducing their budgetary allocations. The UP election was held early this year, in which nearly 55,000 elected local representatives, including about 13,000 women in reserve seats were elected by the people at the grassroots. The election for the Paurashavas is expected to be held at the end of the year, which will also elect several thousand more local leaders. These leaders would be utilized, many hoped, for mobilising local people and resources for solving locally

many of the problems confronting our society relating to hunger, poverty and governance.

Many also thought that local government bodies would be used in the future to get more resources to the people at the grassroots. National resources are currently spent in a highly centralised manner and little of those resources actually reach the common people. Our research shows that the national government spends roughly between Tk.5-10 lac per year through a UP body. We have also found that the government directly spends about a crore taka each year in a Union. Nearly 60 per cent of such spending is used for salaries and benefits of functionaries including teachers; 30 per cent on building infrastructure, much of which are of very poor quality and which people can do without; 5 percent as handouts; and the remaining 5 percent on the so-called human development activities such as health, education and so on. Unfortunately, very little of these resources reach the people in poverty, which is reflected, in a glaring manner, in the growing disparities of income and opportunities in our society.

We can find a rather naked display of the resource deprivation of the ordinary people if we look at their entitlements in the national

budget. The budget for 2003-04 is about Tk. 52,000 crore, which comes to about Tk. 4,000 on a per capita basis. Thus, the share of a Union, with a population of 25,000, in the national budget is about Tk. 10 crore. If the government directly spends only about a crore in a typical Union, then the question that bogs the minds of many is: what happens to the other Tk. 9 crore? The amount is obviously spent -- in a centralised manner by the administrative and political bureaucrats and in the name of the people. Unfortunately only the crumbs of this huge sum reach the people in villages, and much of it is wasted and misappropriated, earning us the dubious distinction of being the most corrupt nation in the world.

Given this, it was hoped that the government would use the large number of newly elected local leaders and their institutions as conduits for transferring resources to the people in poverty. Such transfers would no doubt contribute significantly to our progress as a nation. For example, if the government would allocate Tk. 1 crore to each Union every year and require by law that the UP body prepares local plan through effective participation of the people and holds periodic open budget meetings to account for all the spending, then many of the challenges faced by the

common people could be solved in the next five years. Experiences show that closer are the power, authority and resources to the people, greater degree of transparency and accountability are established in their utilisation and more benefits do they accrue to the people.

Despite these strong arguments in favour of giving more resources to local government bodies, why has the government -- it is reasonable to ask -- decided to lower their allocations in the budget? Does it reflect its lack of seriousness toward strengthening local government?

One should not be surprised if there is indeed a lack of seriousness, for many of the official decisions of the past decade went against the interests of local bodies. Cancellation of the Upazila system; forming of the 'Thana/Upazila Development Coordination Committees' with MPs as advisors; giving the government officials the power to suspend and remove elected representatives and directly supervise and control their activities defying the constitutional provision of autonomous local bodies; designating the MPs as advisors in the 1998 Upazila Parishad Act and making their advice mandatory; ignoring the 1992 decision of the Supreme Court to "update" the local government laws in view of the Twelfth

Amendment of the Constitution and not holding elections of local bodies; using the allocations for local government as patronage for party functionaries -- are some of the examples of governmental decisions against local government. These decisions have progressively weakened the local bodies, if they are in existence at all, over the years. The incoming Gram Sarkar, according to many observers, is likely to worsen the situation, threatening the very existence of the UPs.

The reduction of budgets for UPs, Paurashavas and City Corporations clearly indicate that the government is putting less importance on these bodies. However, do the reduction of grants for Upazila and Zila Parishads imply that the government is not thinking of holding elections for these bodies in the near future? If so, it will mean a clear defiance of the unanimous decision of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. In the case involving the cancellation of the Upazila Parishad, the Supreme Court in 1992 directed the government to remove non-elected persons in local bodies by holding elections within six months. Unfortunately, this decision has not been implemented in the last 12 years.

If elections of Upazila and Zila Parishads are not held, it would also mean that the ruling party would violate its own election commit-

ment. Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), in its election manifesto before the last Parliamentary election, stated: "Active initiatives would be taken to form Upazila Parishads and Zila Parishads and make them the centre of all development activities in order to achieve administrative decentralisation." Begum Khaleda Zia made a similar commitment when we, along with a group of UP Chairmen, met with her prior to the election.

It may be noted that Bangladesh Awami League, in its election manifesto, made a similar commitment. It stated: "If Awami League forms the government, it would hold elections of all local bodies including the Upazila and Zila Parishads and hand over to them the necessary powers and responsibilities in the light of the laws already passed and the recommendations of the Local Government Commission." Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also in her 1995 book entitled Poverty Eradication: Some Thoughts committed to make local government the "driving force of all development activities." Unfortunately little was done to strengthen local government while she was in power.

Dr. Badiul Alam Majumdar is Country Director of The Hunger Project-Bangladesh.