WITH the approval of Gram Sarkar (Rescission) Ordinance, 2008, about 40,000 Gram Sarkars officially existing so long as the lowest tier of the local government stand abolished. In fact, when the Gram Sarkar Bill, 2003 was placed before the parliament on February 26, 2003, about 11 MPs participating in the debate demanded eliciting of public opinion on the Bill prior to its approval as an Act. There was also demand for a referendum on the formation of such a vital tier of the local government, limiting the authority of the Union Parishad.
Even in May, 1980, when Swanirvar Gram Sarkar came into being, Capt. Abdul Halim, the then minister in charge of local government, and the people, by and large, were sceptical about the motive behind such a move to reform the grassroots level representation.
The functions of Swanirvar Gram Sarkar, as prescribed, were food production, formation of village based cooperatives, mass literacy, family planning, and maintenance of law and order.
These were found acceptable but overlapped with the union parishad, and the confusing charter of rights and obligations generated resentments among the union parishad members.
Thus, Swanirvar Gram Sarkar could not last long. Even the Gram Parishad constituted in September 1997, could not see the light of the days due to many shortcomings detected earlier.
Participatory governance at the grassroots level is usually considered a means of strengthening the local government with delegation of authority to plan decisions for effective management of public functions. But it is necessary to take extra precautions prior to its implementation.
When the Bengal Village Choukidari Act, 1870 and the Local Self Govt. Act of 1885 were promulgated, the British government examined the implications for a long time although there was nobody to protest and find the lapses.
On many occasions, a simple issue can generate hot debates and discontent that might distort the very spirit of the purpose. A debate is now going on about the timing of local government elections.
At a round table conference held few days back, local government representatives could not agree with politicians on the time of holding local government elections. Politicians expressed their views in favour of holding the local government elections after the parliament election, which local government representatives did not agree with. There was, of course, consensus on the strengthening of the local government system for sustainable development.
Some politicians might be wondering whether parliamentary election will at all be held, since the Election Commission is lagging four months behind the schedule as announced in the roadmap.
Besides, a question has been raised about the authority of the Election Commission to hold the local government elections, since Article 119(1) of Chapter 7 of the Constitution does not permit the EC to organise such elections.
The Election Commission, under this Article, is empowered to hold the election of president, members of the parliament, demarcation of areas, and preparation of voter list.
Some of the local representatives have drawn the attention to Article 119(2) of the Constitution, which says the Election Commission can exercise the authority to do the same.
Those who were in favour of holding local government election before the parliament election put forward the argument that election of non-political, honest, competent, educated, and dedicated social representatives would be possible provided local government elections were held earlier.
Besides, the probability of false voting, the tendency of debarring the voters, and creating confusion about the result declared will be reduced.
Those who opposed the idea of earlier election of local bodies expressed the view that the election of union parishads or upazila parishads, if organised after the parliament election, would create opportunities of effective cooperation between parliament members and local level representatives, and reduce the costs.
According to them, the national government, after assuming power, would try to supersede many chairmen and members not found suitable to them and, thus, create total confusion. Another important point raised by them is that many people will not feel comfortable to participate in the election during the time of emergency.
It is common to have difference of opinions on such a vital national issue. But it is necessary to see whether the election of local bodies -- 4498 union parishads, 480 upazilla parishads, 390 municipal societies, and 6 city corporations -- could be held in one day, or with the parliament election. No, not at all. Definitely, the elections have to be held in phases for days together, which might take more than a month. So the process should begin early.
Local level bodies' elections are not new in Bangladesh. After independence, parliament elections were held 8 times, president elections were also held 8 times, and referendums took place three times -- on May 3, 1977, March 21, 1985, September 15, 1991.
Union Parishads elections were held 7 times, city corporation election 5 times, municipal elections 7 times and upazilla parishad elections 2 times. The people, by and large, are accustomed to such elections, and they take them in a festive mood. We are unfortunate if we repeatedly fail to uphold our tradition, culture and heritage of being a civilised nation.
The Election Commission might take steps to hold the election of union parishads, upazilla parishads, municipal and city corporations, before the parliament election; keeping in mind the benefits the nation shall derive from such initiative.
The process could be started in the month of September and be completed before November. Elections of local bodies and the national assembly at the same time shall create confusion and disorganise the whole process, telling upon the image of the government and the Commission itself.
With the abolition of the Gram Sarkar, we expect a lot of reforms in the local government system will take place. The process of strengthening the local government institutions and empowerment of local bodies should be completed as quickly as possible, in accordance with the recommendations of the committee constituted for the purpose.
Once things get rolling toward devolution of authority to the local bodies and ensuring free and fair election, public confidence will be established on the commitment of the government to the transition to a meaningful democracy.

Dhiraj Kumar Nath is a former Secretary to the government.