Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) analysis has revealed that 30.41 percent of the elected chairmen are multi-millionaires. Immovable assets of 51 candidates’ inflated by more than Tk 1 crore in five years while the same happened with another 41 candidates in ten years.
The question that pops up naturally is how did the local public representatives of a poor country become so rich?
According to the analysis, Jhalakathi sadar upazila parishad chairman Arifur Rahman’s wealth has increased by 11,666 percent.
Around 67 percent of the victorious candidates in the twelfth parliament elections are businessmen, while the figure stands at 69 percent among the winning candidates of upazila elections.
That means the elected upazila chairmen and vice chairmen are ahead of parliament members.
TIB stated that they have analysed the affidavits of 1,864 chairman candidates, 2,095 vice chairman candidates and 1,513 female vice chairman candidates of the upazila elections.
It is hard to believe all the data and information the candidates have mentioned in their affidavits are 100 percent true.
Our political culture is that a lot of people show less wealth and income on record to pay less income tax.
Inconsistencies can be found between the amount of wealth mentioned in affidavits and tax returns of almost 84 percent candidates.
It was right to say that the activities of the public representatives should be centered on public interest. But that doesn’t happen in reality.
Nowadays, if the power-centric public representatives get a chance to be in power they also get an unchecked scope to accumulate wealth.
We have been noticing with concern that as the local government structure gets weaker, the wealth amassed by the elected public representatives gets bigger.
This indicates that the profits of the local government are going straight to certain individuals and some groups. The people are gaining almost nothing.
The balance of power in the upazilas was in the local government institutions when there used to be inclusive elections with the participation of all parties, which has also been missing for the last one decade.
The local government institutions, formed through one-sided elections, are running in an arbitrary manner.
Meanwhile, the line between the ruling party and the local government institutions is being erased.
This is highly dangerous not only to the local government but also for the overall administrative system.