Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:47:26 -0700
From: fmayraj@yahoo.com
Subject: Dhaka split: at least tell us why!
To: farida_majid@hotmail.com
Dhaka split: JS splits DCC in 4 minutes
Signature campaign urged to stop Dhaka split
By the way, someone from Bangladesh asked about the wisdom of doing this, I will share with you what I said:
My first message said:
"You mentioned in your message that there is "a growing debate on if Dhaka City Government is practical to achieve?" I assume this means people are saying that is not the case? I also assume you mean whether elected city government is practical?
I hate to say this is something that those who are against it, said in Pakistan as well. Even though Karachi's elections produced two dynamic mayors from 2 different parties. Please see the World Mayor site for what people have said. The 2d mayor also got international acclaim. But when the PPP came to power they snuffed out the local system. This was because it would not get elected in Karachi so preferred to rule Karachi through administrators. Needless to say the city has suffered for this and so also has the province (since Karachi finances the province as the ag sector is not taxed).
India has elected urban and rural local representatives. So I think the debate in Dhaka reflects also that people are not aware of what has happened in other countries.
Well run local government can not only improve the lives of the people residing in individual localities but it can transform the economy. Unfortunately South Asian political leaders do not understand this.
I will say that a big problem also is that the structure of the local system is flawed in South Asia. This has also gotten in the way of productive governance. The root problem is what was and wasn't implemented by the British. Neither India, Pakistan nor Bangladesh have in their Independence era had leaders who have figured out how to get their countries past this handicap.
Turkey has the best structured cities in Asia outside of South East Asia. There is not only elected local government there;but the structure is more modern. Turkey, of course, benefited through its connection with EU.
I think Dhaka's debate needs to get broader and also better informed."
Then I followed with more detail:
"I should mention that in my personal opinion, the new division of the city doesn't appear to be thought through and there is no indication there was any research and analysis done.
Not because the city doesn't need to be decentralized, it certainly does. But, the way it has been decentralized is flawed.
The best structure of a city in South Asia was the urban model for Karachi under which there was stellar performance by 2 mayors.
Please see my article about Karachi.
In India, both the NCR and Kolkata system are flawed. The NCR is one of a number I term suffering from 'capital city syndrome'. All these cities are decentralized and in different ways;yet all are flawed. They are flawed to such a degree they are dysfunctional. A city structure can be flawed and still be productive as London example reveals-even though its flaws make it functionally weaker than other decentralized cities in Europe.
Dhaka should properly be a 3 tier decentralized system with a system that also embraces the suburbs (rather than the MPC mechanism of India it is better if it was part of top tier government's jurisdiction-as in case of China. This is because capacity issues make coordination between different sectors problematic. I often refer to Ramesh Ramanathan's classic article when I make this point- please see: http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/jan/gov-manycooks.htm ).
Since the 1950s, and even more so since the 1980s, there has been tremendous evolution in urban governance so there are a variety of models. Basically there are 2 types: French based forms and South East Asian forms of which the Chinese systems are the most amplified variations. Unlike the South Asians, the Chinese understood the value of local government. And certainly when they started they didn't have the benefits the South Asians in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have had as being a pioneering region of integrated local governance since the 1800s.
In that period, the British who were looking to modernize their own system implemented a modest version of the 3 tier French system. France has been the source of integrated governance, including decentralized city systems in the West since 1789. Over the years its system has evolved and more countries have been adopting the French approach as it improves governance in the era of large urban populations. The principal difference between the French and South East Asian forms is the latter is more structured (i.e.: more integrated) and it covers larger geographical territory. The Chinese also have given the decentralized parts more economic powers. The British adaption of the French approach changed the weighting of the system. It is hierarchical in the British version;whereas it is hour glass shaped in the French original form. Basically the weighting of the rural version and the city systems are different. In France,, decentralized cities have a hierarchical weighting. The smallest city with a decentralized system is Lyon (pop 400,000 +) which has 9 arondissements and a number of quartiers (neighborhood councils).
Because the British implemented a modest rural form ( the British never implemented an urban system) and didn't upgrade it in the Indian colony, in post Independence era South Asian governments have had problems devising upgraded systems. Also, South Asian governments do not realize that paucity of revenues from rural sector means there is a practical limit on how many layers there can be. This is all the more true since unlike China there is no local self financing mechanism like the township and village enterprises.
I hope this explains what I mentioned in my first message to you about structure. Structure is very important."
__._,_.___
