Local govt reforms are unlikely to see the light of day once again

Local government plays a crucial role in ensuring democracy, decentralisation and efficient public service delivery. It serves as the bridge between citizens and the state, addressing community needs more effectively than a centralised system. 

However, in Bangladesh, local governance has long been undermined by bureaucratic control, political interference and a lack of financial autonomy.

Recent debates over local government reform have resurfaced following the 2025 Deputy Commissioners' (DC) conference, the publication of the Public Administration Reform Commission's report, and ongoing discussions about holding local government elections before the national polls. The proposed reforms aim to make local government institutions more democratic and accountable.

At the heart of the discussion are two competing forces: a push for decentralisation to empower local representatives and a bureaucratic counterforce striving to maintain administrative dominance. While the reform commission proposes structural and electoral changes to enhance local governance, the DCs' recommendations, if implemented, would further erode the autonomy of elected representatives. 

This tension raises a critical question: Can Bangladesh truly strengthen its local government, or will reform efforts once again be stifled by entrenched interests?

Reorganising the local government structure

One of the key recommendations is the reorganisation of local government structures. The Commission report suggests transitioning from the current presidential-style system, introduced in the 1960s, to a parliamentary model. Additionally, it proposes consolidating the five existing local government laws into two unified laws: one for rural institutions (union, upazila, and zila parishads) and another for urban institutions (municipalities and city corporations). This consolidation aims to address structural inconsistencies and streamline governance.

Another major focus of the report is election reforms. The commission recommends holding elections for all five local government institutions under a streamlined, cost-effective and time-efficient process. To address current inconsistencies and political conflicts, the report suggests introducing direct elections for ward members in unions, upazilas and districts. This change is intended to ensure greater accountability and representation at the grassroots level.

Mayors of city corporations and municipalities and chairmen of upazilas and union councils would not be directly elected by the people. Instead, only members or councillors should be directly elected. Then, the elected councillors and members would vote among themselves to elect a mayor or chairman. 

But this will reduce popular representation in local governance, thinks Professor Dr Sadik Hasan of the Department of Public Administration, Dhaka University. 

"If such proposals are implemented, the voting rights of the people will fall into the hands of a few self-interested groups. Representatives of local government will then have the opportunity to be elected not by the votes of the people but through lobbying and manipulation, which is contrary to the fundamental spirit of democracy. This will allow some thieves and fraudsters to become mayors and chairmen. The ruling political party will be able to buy them off." 

In terms of organisational structure, the commission recommends dividing local government institutions into legislative and executive branches, similar to the national parliamentary system. This change would ensure that local councillors and members are the primary decision-makers in their respective areas, fostering more effective and accountable governance.

To reduce partisan influence, the report suggests prohibiting the use of political party symbols in local government elections. This measure aims to ensure that elections are focused on local issues and candidates' merits rather than party politics.

More power to DCs

"There will be significant violence and chaos during local government elections. I am sure that some of the Awami League cadres may resurface. If the government messes up the local elections, there will be a significant backlash during the national election, , which will not be possible for the interim government, in my opinion."

Dr Asif M Shahan, Associate professor, Department of Development Studies, Dhaka University

Meanwhile, the DCs at the Conference have proposed to establish Anti-Corruption Commission offices in every district, along with the recruitment of adequate manpower. Additionally, their proposals include DCs giving the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of district police, having their representative in the constable recruitment committee, forming a special force for security purposes under the DC, providing DCs and upazila nirbahi officers (UNOs) access to the crime database and NID database server, granting authority to appoint and transfer upazila parishad employees, and allocating government residences in upazilas to the upazila chairman. They have also proposed giving the authority of appointing and transferring upazila parishad employees to the DCs. If implemented, these steps will significantly reduce the power of elected local representatives. 

Dr Asif M Shahan, associate professor at the Department of Development Studies, Dhaka University, said, "Usually, at times of regime change, bureaucracy becomes vulnerable. Then they cannot resist reform attempts. However, this time, the interim government is heavily dependent on the bureaucracy to operate. Now, they are pushing back. So, I think there is little chance for the reform proposals to be implemented." 

The greater dependence on bureaucracy will undermine decentralisation attempts, Dr Sadik Hasan thinks. "The bureaucracy has always wanted greater judiciary power. They want to go back and ensure that their power over the local administration is stronger since they think that they are the best of the best. This is not a new idea.   

"In 1982, General Ershad added the provision to allow upazila chairmen to submit the ACRs of the UNOs, against which the bureaucrats started a protest. Their argument was that the chairmen are not always educated enough," he added. 

A neglected institution

Historically, the erosion of local government can be traced back to the Fourth Constitutional Amendment in 1975, which abolished local government structures altogether. Though successive military regimes and democratic governments reintroduced local governance institutions, they did so in a manner that prioritised political loyalty over functionality. Under civilian rule, ruling parties have used local elections to consolidate power, ensuring that local representatives serve party interests rather than the communities they represent.

"Historically, no real attempt has been made to strengthen local governments. Only Ershad took some steps, and those were politically motivated. He wasn't doing it to fulfil his political ambitions," Dr Sadik Hasan said.  

As a result, rather than functioning as responsive entities catering to local development needs, they have largely become dependent on the national government for resources, decision-making and legitimacy while being bogged down in the bureaucratic quagmire. 

A major setback for local governance was the introduction of party-based elections in 2016. Previously, local government elections were held on a nonpartisan basis, allowing neutral and locally popular candidates to contest and win. 

However, with party-based elections, nomination processes became riddled with corruption, patron-client relationships deepened, and local government officials became beholden to their parties rather than the electorate. 

The result was a loss of political diversity at the local level and an increase in electoral violence, further discouraging grassroots participation in governance. So, the reform commission's proposal to abolish party-based local elections will be helpful. 

The bureaucratic dominance over local government further weakens its effectiveness. Administrators such as DCs and UNOs continue to exercise significant control over local governance, overshadowing elected representatives. This has created a parallel governance structure in which central bureaucrats, rather than elected officials, determine key development priorities and budget allocations. 

The Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), originally intended to provide technical assistance, has evolved into a centralised authority that directly undertakes development projects, bypassing local government institutions entirely.

Bureaucratic control has also ensured that local government remains underfunded and disempowered. Local officials often find themselves at the mercy of bureaucratic decision-making, as government grants and project approvals are subject to delays and political considerations. This system discourages independent initiatives at the local level, as elected representatives must rely on bureaucrats to secure funding and administrative approvals. 

Financial dependence is another significant challenge. Local government institutions are expected to provide key services, including waste management, infrastructure development, and local economic planning. 

However, they lack adequate financial autonomy. Their revenue sources — such as holding taxes and trade licences — generate only minimal funds, and they rely heavily on government grants, which are often delayed or politically conditioned. The absence of a robust local revenue system means that local governments cannot undertake independent development initiatives and must instead wait for allocations from the central government.

The influence of members of parliament (MPs) further complicates the local governance landscape. MPs have been assigned an advisory role in upazila parishads, but in practice, this has allowed them to interfere in local governance matters, often overriding elected local officials. This blurring of lines between local and national governance has stifled local decision-making and reinforced the dominance of national political figures over grassroots institutions.

"There was a time when local elections were considerably fair. But due to the meddling of the MPs, the fairness has been tarnished," Sadik Hasan said. 

Despite these challenges, reforms have been repeatedly proposed but seldom implemented. And the recent proposals may follow suit, as Dr Asif Shahan mentioned. 

"If the local governments do not get the required autonomy, they cannot free themselves from the bureaucracy. The interim government is focused on the national election now. They will not try to push the bureaucracy too much. So, little change may come, even though some reform proposals are rather effective." 

Local elections before national elections?

Many leaders, including Local Government, Rural Development, and Cooperatives Adviser Asif Mahmud Shojib Bhuyain, believe local government elections should be held before the national polls. His idea is backed by the Students Against Discrimination and Jamaat-e-Islami, while BNP and it's like-minded parties are against the idea. 

Dr Asif Shahan thinks that holding local government elections in the currently unstable country will not be prudent. 

"There will be significant violence and chaos during local government elections. I am sure that some of the Awami League cadres may resurface. If the government messes up the local elections, there will be a significant backlash during the national election, , which will not be possible for the interim government, in my opinion."