Autonomy on paper, powerless in practice
Effective local governance and accountability remain difficult to achieve in Bangladesh as elected representatives continue to face constraints in exercising their constitutional authority, with financial resources, administrative powers and political influence largely concentrated in the hands of the central government.
From upazila parishads to union parishads, institutions expected to uphold grassroots democracy and address local needs often operate under the influence of lawmakers and government-appointed officials.
The resulting imbalance has weakened their decision-making capacity and raised questions about the government’s commitment to meaningful decentralisation.
Governance experts say the gap between constitutional provisions and administrative practices reflects a fundamental weakness in the country’s governance structure, where elected local institutions exist but lack the autonomy needed to function effectively.
Articles 59 and 60 of the Constitution provide for elected local government bodies and empower them to exercise administrative and financial functions, including taxation, budget preparation and fund management.
However, substantial central control over their finances and administration has left local representatives dependent on decisions taken outside their jurisdictions.
Professor Muhammad Sayadur Rahman of Jahangirnagar University’s Public Administration Department told The New Nation that although decentralisation was visible at the upazila level, structural barriers, particularly centralised financial control, continued to restrict its effectiveness.
“Local governments are often instructed to implement central authorities’ decisions. This process is undermining the spirit of decentralisation,” he said.
A 2025 study by the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), titled Finance for Local Government in Bangladesh: An Elusive Agenda, also highlighted the lack of administrative autonomy.
It noted that appointments of local government officials remained under the control of the central government or its subordinate agencies at the divisional and district levels.
Election expert Badiul Alam Majumder, who headed the election reform commission, told The New Nation last year that a committee formed in 2007 under then Deputy Speaker Shawkat Ali had proposed establishing a local government commission.
The proposed body would oversee financial matters and arrange regular consultations with local government representatives.
Before his death in October 2025, local government expert Tofail Ahmed also identified the absence of financial autonomy as a major weakness and called for greater decentralisation.
Experts say this concentration of authority has often turned local institutions into extensions of central political and administrative structures rather than independent democratic platforms serving grassroots communities.
2015 amendments
Changes to the Upazila Parishad Act, 1998, introduced in 2015 under the Awami League government, further increased the influence of national politics over local administration.
One amendment gave members of parliament advisory roles in upazila parishads, while another introduced party symbols in local government elections.
Although the parliamentary role was formally defined as advisory, critics say it created an informal hierarchy that allowed lawmakers to exert influence over elected upazila chairmen and local development decisions.
The position of the upazila nirbahi officer (UNO), appointed by the central government, has also remained contentious.
Under Section 33(1) and (2) of the Upazila Parishad Act, the UNO serves as the parishad’s secretary.
Critics argue that government officials can, in practice, exercise greater influence than elected representatives.
“This role effectively paralyses the local democratic process,” Rahman said.
A former union parishad chairman, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Stream that local development funds were previously channelled through local MPs, illustrating the extent of lawmakers’ influence over grassroots projects.
A 2024 UNDP roundtable also highlighted the imbalance, observing that MPs often exercised control over local government through their advisory roles, while elected chairmen lacked meaningful decision-making authority.
The introduction of party symbols further politicised local elections, shifting the focus from candidates’ local standing and records of public service to national party competition.
During the Awami League’s tenure, opposition candidates faced barriers to campaigning in local elections, according to media reports.
In Bagerhat, ruling-party-affiliated candidates were declared winners unopposed in 38 of the district’s 66 union parishads, reports at the time said.
Professor Gazi Jahid Hasan, a member of the central executive committee of Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik (Shujan), said amendments to several laws in 2015 reinforced centralised practices and weakened the ability of local representatives to discharge their responsibilities independently and impartially.
“Local government institutions in Bangladesh operate more as instruments of political control rather than as platforms for democratic representation,” he told Stream.
Political interference
The tensions between elected representatives and government-appointed officials have repeatedly triggered protests, reflecting the growing friction over authority at the grassroots level.
In June last year, protests broke out in Subarnachar upazila of Noakhali following allegations that UNO Rabeya Asfar Saima had made derogatory remarks about local residents and behaved dismissively towards political events.
Residents, BNP leaders and activists, and civil society groups demanded her removal, arguing that her conduct reflected unchecked administrative authority.
In February 2025, BNP activists and residents in Mongla upazila of Bagerhat also staged a rally demanding the removal of UNO Afia Sharmin. They accused her of holding secret meetings with senior Awami League figures.
The recurring disputes underline the need to clarify the respective roles of elected representatives and government officials, strengthen local financial authority and ensure accountability at every level of administration.
Without meaningful administrative and fiscal autonomy, experts warn, constitutional provisions for local government will remain largely ineffective, limiting the scope for democratic participation and good governance at the grassroots.
