Decentralization Process in the Pakistan Period (1947-1970)

After more than 100 years of direct authoritarian rule, the British colonial government finally left this sub-continent in 1947, creating two independent countries, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan was divided into two parts: East Pakistan - the present Bangladesh, and West Pakistan - the present Pakistan. Bangladesh had been ruled by the Pakistani government for 23 years. The experience of decentralization during the Pakistan period was unpleasant. Until 1958, the then Pakistani government had not taken any major initiatives to reorganize the local bodies of Pakistan, except for a few changes in their composition (Ahmed 1990). To rule the local bodies they simply followed the later part of the British system, until 1958, when the military took over. Soon after, the military government came to power and General Ayub Khan inaugurated a decentralized system of local government known as the ‘Basic Democracy’ (BD) Order in 1959 (Jahan 1972).

4.2.1 Basic Democracy

The Basic Democracy of Ayub Khan introduced a four-tier local government system, which consisted of the Union Council, the Thana Council, the District Council and the Divisional Council (Huque 1988, Wahhab 1996). The Union Council was the basic unit; it covered a number of villages and was run by a body of 10 members. Two-thirds of the total members were elected directly, and the rest were nominated by the government. The Union Council Chairman was not directly elected, but the members among themselves elected one as the Chairman (Huque 1988). Although the Union Council had been given a wide range of activities, most of them were optional, and due to lack of financial support they were unable to implement them (ibid 1988).

The next tier was the Thana Council, which was an innovation, because prior to this there was no unit at the Thana level. In this aspect, the credit should be given to the then military government for having such a great idea to establish an independent institution at the local level (Rahman and Sarker 1997, Rahman 2000). However, the Thana Council consisted of both the people’s representatives and official members. The Sub-Divisional Officer was the Chairman of the Thana Council. The Chairmen of the Union Councils at the Thana level were the representative members of the Thana Council, and Thana level officials were its official members, respectively. The Thana Council provided a massive development programme, which was known as the rural works programme at the local level (Rahman 2000). The aim of the rural works programme was to involve the local people in the development activities and create employment opportunities for the local people. The Thana Council was functionally diversified but administratively consolidated. Thana administrators came to serve as the critical linchpin in the national administrative structure. Politically, this served to strengthen government operations and extend its influence and authority (Rahman and Sarker 1997).

The third tier was the District Council, which, during the British period, was known as the District Board. The District Council Chairman was the Deputy Commissioner (Wahhab 1996). Half of the members of the Council were officials and half were non-officials, the latter being chosen from among an electoral college consisting of all Union Council Chairmen within the District (Siddiquee 1997). Interestingly, the leadership of the District Council was kept safely in the hands of the bureaucracy, a tradition that still continues in Bangladesh today (Ibid 1997). It was, in fact, a bureaucratic institution vested with more power and authority.

96

The last tier was the Divisional Council at the divisional level. Like the Thana Council, it was another innovation of the military ruler. The Divisional Council consisted of official and non-official members, headed by the Divisional Commissioner. Unfortunately, this tier was never made operational.

Thus, the people did not directly elect all bodies from the Thana Council upward.

Although the primary aim of BD was to organize people to deal with problems in their own areas and inculcate in them a spirit of self-help (Rahman 2000), it was practically never achieved. Like the colonial regime, this BD served the interest of the military ruler. These bodies were used to prolong the military rule and create a loyal local elite group who would serve the interest of the central administration. The BD provided opportunities for the rural elite created by the colonial ruler to be involved at the lower echelons in the decision-making process of local issues (Sarker 2006, 1997). On the other hand, by creating these bodies, the central bureaucracy had been extended to the grassroots level to legitimate a military regime.

The whole system was designed in a manner so that the government-controlled bureaucracy held power. Besides, they were made financially corrupt, as they were distributed funds for small constructions in rural areas under the rural works programme that were not auditable (Huque 1988:40, Jahan 1972). According to Tepper (1976),

Basic Democracies shifted power to rural elite, away from urban centres. The most unique non-evolutionary aspect of Basic Democracies was the use of local council to alter the basic formulae by which the state was governed. Ayub Khan used the Basic Democrats as an electoral college to choose the head of state the national and provincial assemblies. This had the effect of politically decapitating the urban centres and institutionalising rural notables as important actors in the national arena. (in Rahman and Sarker 1997)

From the above, it can be said that the experience of the development of Local Self-Government during the Pakistan period was not pleasant either. The policy of BD itself was good and its motives were clear and transparent; establishing a representative, participatory local government system. But the hidden motive of the military ruler was abusing this system to prolong his power. Therefore, it can be said that despite long expectations, the BD did not reflect the demand of the people, and the local government system of Pakistan period

remained unchanged, undemocratic, non-participatory and bureaucratic-oriented (Asaduzzaman 1985).