AYORS want more power" was an editorial title of an English daily. The subtitle to the editorial read: "Justified demand, needs urgent attention." The editorial drew attention to the fact that it was not for the first time that the mayors of all city corporations in Bangladesh asked for more powers to serve the city dwellers.

The editorial came in the wake of a meeting of mayors in the recent past attended by all the mayors, except the mayor of Chittagong, who was reportedly out of the country. In that meeting, the mayors firmed up their views and decided to place them before the Prime Minister for consideration and acceptance. The details of what exactly was the proposal worked out by the mayors are not known. What has come out in the print is that the mayors wanted an end to dual administration in the city corporation, besides abolition of the activities of development authorities and voluntary organisations. The rationale for such a move was "to provide better services to our citizens without interference from the above."

While the above view taken by the mayors provides but scanty information, it is necessary, nevertheless, to look at the issues. First, the question of dual administration. The obvious reference is to the Local Government Division (LGD) of the Ministry of Rural Development, Cooperatives and Local Government. This ministry has traditionally been headed by a senior minister, usually the general secretary of the party in power. When the mayors are elected from the same party, prima facie, there should not be any difficulty in understanding and accommodation

between the minister and the mayor. Strangely enough, the demand for more authority was voiced in the past when the two elected functionaries belonged to the same party. The case of mayor Hanif is an example. The same demands are also being voiced now when both the minister and the mayor belong to the same party.

The problem thus goes deeper than mere human or party relationship. It may well be an institutional problem and not just a question of interpersonal relationship. What

then would be the areas of institutional problems, which the mayor identified as interference. Does the ministry interfere too much into the affair of the city corporations?

There are only a few major areas where the city corporations are dependent on the government. First, the approval of the budget. Second, implementation of projects under the annual development programme (ADP). Third, reporting and review of progress of implementation of development projects. Fourth, submission of audited accounts. It is not known in what way the ministry interferes in these areas. As long as the city corporations are dependent on government grants, the above areas are legitimate functions for the government. However, the mayors would know better, and it is desirable that more details are examined professionally.

Abolition of activities of development authorities

This part of the demand obviously relates to lack of control on the part of the mayors over the activities of development authorities such as the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA), one in Dhaka and the other in Chittagong. Other cities are without any such entity at the moment. The second one is the

Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakkha (RAJUK) responsible for approval of building plans. There is also the Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board (BTTB). The Power Development Board (PDB) and the Dhaka Electricity Supply Authority (DESA) are there also.

Why do the mayors want to abolish the activities of the above institutions?

It is necessary to understand the rationale of the mayors' view in respect of the above issues. All of

the above institutions are established by relevant acts of parliament. Each is a distinct juridical entity having defined areas of activities. Why should the mayors wish to gain control over them? Are the city corporations equipped to deliver the services that these organisations are delivering?

issues of urban governance and quality

The mayors claimed that the reason why they wish to abolish the activities of the development institutions is to serve the city dwellers better than at present. As things stand now, there is widespread public perception of poor quality of services rendered both by the city corporations and the service delivery institutions referred to above. The immediate need is to achieve an acceptable quality of governance from all institutions rather than asking for more power by abolition of existing institutions. The answer lies not in abolition of centrally organised service delivery institution but by strengthening them, and this argument applies to city corporations also. They should, in the first place, improve the quality of governance.

Abolition of activities of voluntary organisations

This part of the demand voiced by the mayors also appeared in the press. It is more difficult to understand this issue than the other issues. The world wide trend in developing countries is to seek partnership arrangements. The view taken by the mayors appears to run counter to this trend. If the voluntary organisations are trying to deliver services to the city dwellers, specially for the urban poor in areas

like health, sanitation and education, there cannot be any earthly reason to stop their activities. In any event, if at all such a need is there, the demand should be articulated by the citizens or city-dwellers and not by the mayors acting in concert. On the face of it, the demand, if at all voiced by the mayors, deserves no attention because it would be counter-productive.

Some genuine concerns

The above analysis notwithstanding, there are some genuine concerns all of which center on total lack of coordination among the development or service delivery organizations referred to earlier. Absence of coordination hurts the citizens. This is most visible in the case of wanton road-digging exercises thoughtlessly undertaken by various organisations like WASA, PDB or DESA/DESCO and BTTB. However, permission has to be obtained from the city corporation first. Why cannot a city corporation coordinate the whole thing in a manner that causes least hardship to the city-dwellers? This question needs to be addressed first. It is said that in the past, many coordinating committees were set up but the situation does not seem to have improved at all. There are other issues as well for protection of corporation lands

and/or enforcement of special laws for which city corporations are responsible but has to depend on relevant government functionaries such as the police and the magistracy over which they do not have any control.

The best practice model

The editorial, while asking for constituting an independent commission to look into the issues raised by the mayors, also recommended that the best practice model should be followed. Is there any best practice

model in South Asia?

The Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC)

KMC was abolished in August 2001. Prior to abolition, it functioned alongside other independent bodies like the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and other government owned public utility bodies. KDA also was abolished. Both the organisations were merged with what is called city government that is responsible for managing the civic affairs of the city. The city government consists of 18 town committees and 178 union councils. However, the government has retained full control. Each tier, union council, the town committee and the city government is headed by a functionary called Nazim. The town and union level Nazims have been made responsible for development works in respective areas and Karachi (City) Nazim has been restrained from launching any development projects but at the same time has been asked to keep a vigil on them and their projects. Most of the taxes collected go to government treasury so that the Nazims do not have enough funds to undertake development works. Many fear that "the new system will collapse if the government does not take immediate steps

to restore confidence of Nazims and councilor as there are scores of problems yet to be redressed." This, therefore, cannot be the best practice model.

indian examples

Delhi has four bodies looking after municipal functions. These bodies are Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council, Delhi Cantonment Board, and Delhi Development Authority. According to one source, this has resulted in failure to address issues of urban governance. The central government's influence on the day to day affairs of the city, through legislation and the administrative set up has been criticised by many in India. The situation is more or less similar to that Bangladesh.

Kolkata Corporation

The current debate in Kolkata appears to be not so much about interference from the above (state government) but about its own underperformance. Kolkata Corporation has launched a foreign aided project called Capacity Building Programme (CBP) in 2002. The major objective is to enhance the standards of services to the city. It also aims at improving governance, organizational development and social inclusion. CBP seeks to address concerns that include lack of transparency in regulations and operating policies, urban poverty, human resource development and training, lack of inter-institutional coordination, weak decentralization and a need for reorganisation and capacity building of elected representatives.

Should mayors claim for more power?

There is definitely a need for probing the state of urban governance in the cities as indeed the other municipal areas. However, the first step in this direction should be a soul-searching for the mayors to set their own houses in order and start more or less on the lines that Kolkata Corporation has followed. We should try and build up our own best practice model.

AMM Shawkat Ali, PhD, is a former Secretary, Ministry ofAgriculture.