Case Study One: Construction of Birunia Union Council Complex

Project Profile:

This case study has been carried out on a local development project of the Rural Development Programme (RDP)-21 of the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED) in the Birunia Union Council (BUC) under the Bhaluka Upazila in the Mymensingh District. The name of the project was ‘Construction of Birunia Union Council Complex’. This project has been selected because it was politically important and locally sensitive. The project started on 02-12-99 and was completed on 30-04-2002. The total cost of the project was 3,042,039 BD Taka (34,568 €) and 70%

of its total cost was financed by the Japan Bank of International Cooperation (JBIC). The name of the construction firm was Progoti Trading and Commerce.

6.3.1.1 Findings: Politics of People’s Participation and the Minister’s Intervention

For this case study, about 44 persons from the study area (local people, UP and Upazila officials) were interviewed. The key respondents, particularly villagers, were asked questions regarding two major issues, which were: (a) their participation in the decision-making and planning process; and (b) their participation in the implementation level of the project. In addition, they were also asked questions regarding other related issues like corruption, misappropriation of resources, political influence, bureaucratic intervention, et cetera, in the local level development programmes, particularly for this development project.

The then Parliament Member of this Upazila is a resident of this UP. His party, Awami League (AL), was in power, and he was also the State Minister of Health and Family Planning of the AL Government. As a Minister of the ruling party he managed three projects of RDP-21, for the construction of three UP complexes in his constituency. The construction of the Birunia Union Council complex was one of them. Although the local people were initially very happy, the real politics started when the question was raised where the UP complex

134

should be constructed. It has been discovered from the RDP-21 project proposal that the UP complex should be constructed on its own location. The location can also be changed if its old place does not permit the needed space for its construction. Surprisingly, the Minister alone took the initiative to transfer the UP complex from its own location (Birunua) to another (Muhammadpur village), which was near his residence (within 200m). The UP officials along with the local people organized big rallies protesting the decision of shifting the complex.

Moreover, the local people, local political leaders and UP officials met the Minister of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives, and submitted written complain against the decision. Consequently, the construction work of the UP complex was delayed for more than three months. However, the MP was rigid on his stance and finally executed his own decision ignoring the voices, demands and protests of the local people.

According to the project proposal, the LGED central authority should take the opinion of the local people if the complex location needs to be changed. During the case study, the Upazila LGED officials were asked whether they had followed the RDP-21 proposal regarding the shifting of the Union Council Complex from Birunia to Mohammadpur Village. They all answered that it was a special case and they received an office order from the concerned Ministry to construct the Union Council Complex in the village of Mohammadpur instead of Birunia, though they refused to show the office order. During the case study, the researcher made many attempts to meet the MP and interview him, but they were unsuccessful. However, once the researcher had the opportunity to talk with him over the telephone, but he was least interested in this issue and said that it had been done for the greater interest of the local people.

It is apparent that this was a clear violation of the legal provision. The local people of the project area were asked about the shifting the UP Complex. A total 26 people were interviewed from the Mohammadpur Village. In their opinion, it is found that none of them gave their positive comments regarding the shifting of the UP complex from its old place.

Most of participants claimed that Birunia was a better place than Mohammadpur, because it is a very old local commercial and popular marketplace to the local people. During the field study it is discovered that the people of this Union do not like to visit the new complex but rather they would like to visit Birunia, the old place where, if they needed to, they could meet the UP officials.

The UP Officials were also asked regarding the shifting of the UP complex. They answered similarly like the local people. In addition, the UP Officials claimed that the new complex of the UP does not have any practical utility since people do not like to go there.

Therefore, they often meet the people in the Birunia Bazaar to discuss various local issues and problems. However, occasionally, once or twice a month, officials visit the new complex, especially during the training programmes or meetings with higher authorities. The researcher visited the new UP complex several times during the case study period, but did not find any of the UP officials in their offices. As a result, like the local people, the researcher also met them in Birunia Bazaar (Market), or sometimes at their homes for his research purpose.

During the case study period, another allegation regarding the ‘tender process’ was found from the field. The respondents were asked whether or not the tender committee distributed this project through a legal process? Almost all of the respondents, especially the UP Officials, claimed that the tender committee could hardly select tenders without being influenced by the MP and other local political leaders. Particularly for this project, they expressed that the MP directly dictated to the tender committee whose tender should be selected. This project was distributed to the company whose owner was the district level party leader of the Awami League and had a good relationship with the MP. The LGED officials of the study unit were also asked regarding the allegation of the tender process, and they answered stereotypically that they had followed proper guidelines to select the tender.

A painful picture was discovered during the interviewing of the key informants regarding the payment of the labourers. The Ex-Chairman of the UP disclosed that the construction company hired almost all the labourers from outside of the project area, paid lower wages. Although there is a legal provision that obligates the construction company to hire local labourers to implement the project, the construction company was not interested in recruiting local labourers. The Upazila LGED officials expressed similar opinions and acknowledged that they were informed the matter but admitted their helplessness. According to them, they were only responsible for monitoring the technical part of the project. The UP Officials also expressed similar opinions regarding this malpractice, but they were unable to take any action against the construction company, since its owner had good relationship with the MP.

Moreover, the respondents (villagers) were also asked regarding their scope of participation in the planning and implementation levels at the local development programme.

136

It is found from their common views that the local people have very limited scope to take part in the planning and implementation process of local development programmes. They expressed that they could only know about a development programme that is going to take place somewhere in the village or in their areas. They are never invited to discuss about the development project, its utility and selection of the project location, either by the UP officials or by the government officials. It is understood that the project officials or the UP Officials are not actually interested in disclosing the project details to the local people, because such forms of formal discussion with the local people might be a hurdle for them in taking control over the project and its resources. The respondents expressed that the government officials and people’s representatives only discuss the project with the local elite with whom they have personal, social and more importantly, political attachments. Therefore, due to lack of people’s support, their opinions and participation, these projects cause discontent, condemnation, mistrust and unhappiness during their implementation. The respondents exemplified the politics in the construction of the Birunia Union Council complex as the best example of malpractice in relation to political power.

6.3.2 Case Study Two: Construction of Birunia Ghat (Landing stage) at the Bank of