[2016] People\'s Participation in Local Government

Figure 82: Mayor reported participation of various groups of people in activities of Paurashava (in %)
Figure 84: People's participation in activities of Union Parishad reported by Chairman and household (in %)

Figure 85: People's participation in activities of Paurashava reported by Mayor and household (in %)

Abul Barkat et al, Local Governance and Decentralization in Bangladesh: Politics and Economic, Dhaka: Pathak Shamabesh, 2015
pp.205-222
CHAPTER11
Shantanu Majumder

PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT


A polity cannot be called democratic without citizen's participation in government's activities. Participation of local people is an essential precondition for any local government set up to become effective and successful. The underlying reasons are manifold: through active participation of people can express their expectations meaningfully and bring desired change in the local government system. Participation helps citizens to learn how to make changes they desire. Also participation is supportive to understand individual needs and interests of community (Bridges, 1974). Moreover, it is argued that 'public involvement results in better decision' (Heberlein, 1976), and at the same time, grants legitimacy to government programmes and leadership. Again, participation enhances sense of citizenship among mass people which ultimately improve the standard of political culture in a state. From these standpoints, it is imperative to examine people's participation in local government institutions (LGIs) in Bangladesh. In this discussion, Union Parishad and Paurashava are taken into consideration for analysing the whole issue of people's participation in activities of LGIs as people has direct involvement in these two institutions in various ways.
This chapter provides a brief account of the status of people's participation in the affairs of local government from two different perspectives-namely, elected representatives and people. It has special focus on the current participation status of women and civil society. The subsequent section deals with the key challenges in ensuring downward accountability while the final section focuses on the issue of inclusion of people.
People's Participation: Elected Representative's Perspective
Elected representatives of LGIs in rural and urban areas clearly mentioned that proper attention had been given to inform people of various activities of the respective LGIs. Most of the Union Parishad Chairmen (91-93%)claimed that effective steps had been taken to ensure people's participation in Union Parishad activities and disseminate Union Parishad related information to people. The stepsinclude: announcement with microphone, involving Member, Secretary, and Chawkidar of Union Parishad along with Union Parishad Information Centre (UPIC). Steps also include: visiting village, announcement through mosques and other religious institutions, use of notice board, phone calls, leaflet/handbills, signboards and beating drum. Union Parishads also draw support from school teachers, NGO workers, local elites, neighbours and relatives of local people in disseminating information(Annex Tables 91 and 92). In this connection, opinion of almost all the Union Parishad Members is similar to that of the Union Parishad Chairmen. Regarding Paurashava, similarsteps have been taken to ensure people's participation. Much the same as Union Parishad, a majority of Paurashava Mayors (91-96%) confirmedsteps to ensure people's participation and dissemination of Paurashava related information to people (Annex Tables93 and 94). A very impressive picture on people's participation can be drawn from institutional perspective as evident from the reporting of the elected representatives. For both Union Parishad and Paurashava, the mostly used way of disseminating information and/or informing people to participate in particular activities is the announcement with microphone followed by notice board and involvement of Member and Councillors (Annex Tables 92 and 94).
Elected representatives were found satisfied about people's participation in various events like preparation of annual budget, Wardshava, beneficiary selection for SSNPs,celebration of national days and occasions, formation of different committees, and others(Annex Table 95).Ruralpeople have easy access to participate in Wardshavaand open budget session of Union Parishad.At the same time, urban people also have easy access to participate in Ward committee meeting and preparation of annual budget of Paurashava. An 89% Union Parishad Chairman and 85.4% Mayor validated that people widely participated in Wardshava/Ward committee meeting (Figure 80). A relatively large number of Mayors (89.6%) said that people had participation in annual budget preparation process.
As stated by the Chairman, local elites, women, youth, poor people and minority groups spontaneously participated in different activities of Union Parishad. However, Union Parishad Chairmen and Mayors claimed that the status of this participation is different for different strata of the society (Figure 81). There is a clear rich-poor division with respect to participation in different activities of LGIs. In addition, minority groups arehaving a lower participation as compared to other groups.
Most of the Union Parishad Chairmen (94%), for instance, mentioned that influential/rich people participated in open budget session while 73% Chairmen believed the same for poor people. A 67% Union Parishad Chairmen reported the same regarding participation of minority people. Women participate in open budget session, and it is confirmed by about 85% Union Parishad Chairmen. More than three-fourth of the Union Parishad Chairmen (76%) opined that young people also participated in open budget session (Figure 81). People's participation in Wardshava is relatively small compared to that of open budget session as described by the Union Parishad Chairman. Estimates reveal that a 77.6% of the poor and 65.2% of the minorities participates in Wardshava while in open budget session the percentage of their participation was 72.9% and 67.1% respectively. About people's participation in Wardshava, similar type of rich-poor and gender divide is visible. Participation of minority group again appears the lowest compared to other groups of people. Findings suggest that although poor people constitute the largest share of the population (for details see, Chapter 4) their representation in various activities of Union Parishad is not at that level.









People's participation in Paurashava activities is not much impressive for all the social strata of urban population: influential/rich, women, youth, poor and minority as per Mayor's reporting (Figure 82). Estimate shows that a goodnumber of poor and minority people participate in both Ward Committee meeting (poor: 87.5%; minority: 77.1%) and budget preparation (poor and minority groups 70.8% each).Both Mayors and Chairmen claimed that compared to women, youth, poor and minority groups relatively a higher percentage of influential/rich people participated in Wardshava/Ward Committee meeting and open budget session/budget preparation irrespective of Union Parishad and Paurashava.









The participation status shows almost similar picture in some other activities, for example, preparation of five year plan, project selection, project implementation and participation in the standing committee meetings (Annex Tables 96 and97).According to the elected representatives, people's participation from different strata of society in different activities of LGIs is more or less satisfactory. They devote their best effortsto highest level of commitment to ensure people's participation in the affairs of Union Parishad and Paurashava. The elected representatives, however, hold that people in general do not feel interested to participate in the activities of LGIs. More than half of the Union Parishad Chairmen (almost 56%) and Mayors (more than 58%) consider 'poor incentives' as a reason that discourages people to participate in various local government activities (Annex Table 98).

People's Participation: Voice of People
The claim of the elected representatives regarding people's impressive participation is contested in many ways by the common people who did not agree with what the elected representatives have said. People from rural and urban areas, in general,respond in a very different waythan the elected representatives.
Less Participation of Community People
A vast majority of elected representatives confirmedthat a number of ways were followed and initiatives were taken to ensure people's participation in local government activities. They also claimed a very high level of participation of local people in the process. However, the rural and urban households contradict most of the statements of the elected representatives (91-93%) that people are being informed about various events. Household survey shows that slightly over one-fifth households (22%) acknowledges the receipt of information regarding Wardshava of Union Parishad and Ward committee meetingof Paurashava (Figure 83). At the same time, only 18% rural and 23% urban households mentioned about receiving information related with open budget session and budget preparation respectively. All these account a relatively gloomy picture about people's participation in LGIs'activities.









However, a large number of households acknowledged receiving information about fixation and collection of taxes, fees, and tolls. Estimates highlight that more than half of the rural (53.5%) and more than two-third of urban households (68.7%) received information about fixation and collection of taxes, fees, and tolls.Receiving information regarding selection of SSNP beneficiaries is reported by more than one-third households in both rural and urban areas. In addition, estimates also shows that at least one-third households also receive information about government directives or announcements related to public welfare. It is also found that 11%-12% households get information about important decisions made at Union Parishad and Paurashava(Annex Table 99).
As per household survey estimates, a slightly over one-fourth of rural households (27.3%) and a slightly less than one-third urban households (31.7%), mentioned their participation in at least one activity of Union Parishad and Paurashava (for details see, Annex Tables 100 and 101). It exhibits anextremely poor status of people's participation. Moreover, it is quite different from and significantly less than the claim of the elected representatives on people's participation status. The gross discrepancies in reporting by elected representatives and households became moreevident from the viewpoint of some in particular aspects of participation. For instance, only 6.3% and about 7% households respectively participatesin Wardshava and open budget session(Figure 84). Almost similar situation is noticed in respect of urban households and Paurashava (Figure 85). The empirical evidence,albeit,presents a hard reality by focusing ahighly contradictory status, judgementally, it is more reasonable to accept household reported data in comparison with data provided by the elected representatives. As evident from the survey estimates, a large section of households does not participate in activities of Union Parishad and Paurashava, and therefore, it is imperative to inquire into the reasons behind such non-participation.
According to the elected representatives, lack of incentives is the main reason for such poor participation.During survey, households were asked about the reasons for their non-participation in various activities of Union Parishad and Paurashava. The mostly reported main reasons behind non-participation are outlined in Box 13. Majority of the people (rural 57% and urban 63%) do not feel it necessary to participate in activities of LGIs. They also find no reason to join local government activities.Information gap (not informed timely) has been identified as the second top reason behind non-participation of people (rural 44%; urban 39%) areas as well. People do not find local government to be an institution which can bring some benefit for them, and therefore, they do not take interest to participate. Notably, over one-third of the rural people (37%) mentioned lack of opportunity to derive personal benefit as reason for their non-participation while the same is mentioned by 23% urban people.



Box 13: Household reported mostly reasons for non-participation at Union Parishad and Paurashava
Rural Household
Urban Household
Do not feel necessary (57%)
Not informed timely (44%)
No personal benefit (37%)
Opinions are not heard with respect(7%)
Favouritism in decision making (1%)
Do not feel necessary (63%)
Not informed timely (39%)
No personal benefit (23%)
Opinions are not heard with respect (7%)
Favouritism in decision making (2%)
Some people (7%) also mentioned that elected representatives do not listen to their opinions with due respect which discourage them from participating in the process. Among other reasons, favouritism in decision making is also mentioned by 1%-2% households as a factordiscouraging from participation. It clearly indicates failure to ensure people's participation at LGIs from both demand and supply side. LGIs should be made capable to address these demand and supply side factors to ensure people's participation in activities of LGIs.
Officially, there are plenty of opportunities to participate, but in practice mass people find it not soeasy to get involved in local government activities. Favouritism, clanship type relationship, and partisanship dominate the functioning of local government that constantly hinders meaningful participation. Again, scope for religious and ethnic minority and deprived peopleto effective participate in the process is very limited. Minority peoplewho are a bit 'influential' are sometimes included in committees.
It seems that there is a gap between practical willingness and statements given and document shown by the elected representatives. This can be taken as somewhat a plausible explanation of the local people's assertion that they are not informed about different local government activities in their area. Overall, it is evident that LGIs are yet to engage the community people.
Women are Excluded
The elected representatives of Union Parishad and Paurashava, though, claim about a greater participation of women (more than 80%)in various activities of their institutions (Figures79 and 80), the key findings from group discussions do not conform to it. A vast majority of women in rural and urban areas, irrespective of socio-economic status have been experiencing exclusion and/or discrimination in almost all of the much talked activities of local government.At most of the time, women's participation in activities of LGIs has been considered as tokenism. Even in many cases, women's participation is elite captured. There is also evidence of male chauvinism.
Findings of group discussions with women reveal that regardless of socio-economic status and spatial variations, almost all the women, in effect, know nothing and rarely participate in Union Parishad activities.They arenever invited by the Union Parishad, have no idea regarding Union Parishad committees, and understandably, never been a member of any committee. Reportedly, only a few women in a rural area areattending Village Court and/or informal arbitration and open budget session. Interestingly, a few belongings this group attended Village Court or informal arbitration when they are a party themselves. Poor and destitute women find no scope for them to participate. Economic hardship is another reason that sometimes forces poor women to refrain from using available services. Every so often, members from this section, for example, avoid visiting Union Parishad office, as they do not have sufficient cash to bear travel costs.
The level of participation of women, in general, from rural areasacross the country is not optimistic at all. Most of them are unaware of Union Parishad activities; hardly participating in Wardshava, open budget session, or any other meetings, find a place in Union Parishadcommittees or use services like Village Court. A very few of them reportedthat they occasionally attended law and order committee meeting, VGD meeting or informal arbitration. Respondents in some places reportedabout getting irregular information but they did not participate; a few of them attended Village Court and/or informal arbitration occasionally. Moreover, they also mentioned that Union Parishad usually invited a particular group of affluent women just to ensure presence of women in the meeting. Such participation of women is evaluated as 'tokenism' where real voice of women is never raised and listened. Experience of urban womenis similar to their rural counterparts. Women in urban areas reported'no' participation and did not know whether other women participate or not. Paurashava 'never' inform them anything and they are 'never' placed in a committee. According to women respondents, men participate in all the activities.
Even an elected woman is not free from exclusion. A female Union Parishad Member in Sathkhira district mentioned that the male Union Parishad Members treatedher as a 'rival'. A female Vice-chairman from Thakurgaon district informed that male colleagues treat her as something 'different'. For some, a female representative sometimes has to act like a 'doll'. Male chauvinist mind-set is considered as one of the main reasons behind exclusion of women from public sphere. AUnion Parishad male Member in Sirjadikhan Upazila without providing any evidence said that in most cases women filed false cases in Village Court with a bad intention to 'give hard time' to men. He also claimed that poor and destitute women created difficulty in functioning of Village Court.
Partial Success in Civil Society Participation
Role of civil society at national and local level is highly important for effective functioning of democracy in a polity. Civil society negotiates bargains, and if necessary, creates pressure on authority in favour of citizens. It is also expected that civil society will cooperate with the authority to accomplish the mission of good governance and development. This study finds a partial success while examiningthe role of civil society in local government related affairs.
Both the rural and urban civil society informed that in comparison with other activities they participate more frequently in Wardshava/Ward committee meeting, open budget session, and project implementation committee meeting. They also irregularly participate in Village Court and/or informal arbitration, Standing Committee meeting, Scheme Supervision Committee (SSC) meeting, Union Development Coordination Committee meeting (UDCC) and some other activities. At the same time many of them never heard about or participate in any of the local government activities.Rural and urban civil society, in general,identifies elected representatives as 'not cordial', and who do not want to recognize the contribution of civil society. To overcome these problems and complexitiesseveral ways have been suggested which may strengthen participation of civil society. The most important recommendations mentioned by the civil society member are placed in Box 14.
Box 14: Rural and urban civil society reported ways to enhance civil society participation
A guideline to guarantee inclusion of civil society members in all the committees should be formulated.
Elected representatives should behave well with civil society representatives.
Sometimes elected representatives wrongly perceive a good suggestion. For this reason, change in mind-set, and education of elected representatives is needed.
Discussion with civil society members in selecting the beneficiaries of different projects.
Elected representatives should disseminate proper information to civil society on regular basis.

People's Participation in Village Court: A Crucial Agenda
Compared to almost all other activities Village Courtand informal arbitration seems to be able to draw the attention of people in rural areas. Village Court is an open forum of conflict resolution in rural areas. Village Court, at least officially, exists in most of the places. But, people in different places mentioned that Village Court in their areas is practically ineffective. However, the study reveals that about 18% household in rural areas mentioned of accessing Village Court.
However, there are exceptions. Union Parishad,for example, in Begumgonj Upazila and Kushtia Sadar Upazila regularly serve weekly notice mentioning the date of Village Court. A Union Parishad of MadhupurUpazila inTangail districtpursued extensive initiatives for successful working of Village Court. One school teacher narrated the process of village court as "an individual willing to seek Village Court service first contact an Union Parishad Member in his/her area. Upon consulting a Member, an application needs to be sent to the Union Parishad Chairman with recommendation from a Member. The Chairman,then, serves a notice pointing out the date and time of the Court. The notice also suggests collecting all the evidences and presents the witnessesbefore the Court. Along with Chairman and Members of Union Parishad, distinguished persons in the Ward also attend at the Court".
Mass people, civil society and the elected representatives, in general, reported undue interference of locally influential persons as one of the major problems in effective functioning of local government activities. But there are exceptions as well. In one Union of Chilmari Upazila, Village Court takes place in an open place and in presence of mass people, which proves useful to neutralize undue pressure created by local power elites. In a Union of Pabna Sadar Upazila, Village Court has been successful in returning lands to religious minorities grabbed by local influential groups.
Ideally, women can obtain justice from Village Court and informal arbitration system in rural areas. Respondents from all corners,however, repeatedly mentioned undue interference of elected representatives, locally influential persons and local politicians in functions of Village Court. Considering existing realities, measures that can be taken are mentioned in Box 15.
Box 15: Effective Village Court: A way forward reported by household
Local people widely suggest inclusion of 'own representatives' of poor and destitute women in Village Court at Union Parishad. It is hoped that 'own representatives' will deal with undue interference and act to safeguard the interest of vulnerable women.
Information gap is one of the main reasons behind malfunctioning. Providing information in a friendly manner on how system works can make a difference.
Though trivial, poor and destitute women struggle to manage cash to visit Union Parishad when they make up their mind to lodge complaint. A complaint box in every Ward can minimize this problem.
Service without fees is another option to encourage women from disadvantaged background to take benefit of Village Court.
Strong punitive measure is a must to prevent those who attempt to influence the process. This would encourage women to participate with confidence that justice will be ensured.
Downward Accountability: Key Challenges
It has already been well-established that strengthening participation in several activities, for example, Wardshava/Ward committee meeting, Standing Committee meeting, Village Court, Informal arbitration, and Dispute Resolution Board is necessary to widen the scope for effective functioning of local government system in Bangladesh. This section identifies several prerequisites to ensure participation taking into account power relations at local level and interactions among stakeholders.Elected representatives and people from different strata of society identify several prerequisites to ensure participation of local people in general. Among others, the most reported prerequisites are: organising regular meeting/session, ensuring maximum participation of mass people, financial support, handling local elites, inclusion of civil society, establishment of monitoring process, consultation with people, and accountability of elected representatives.
Regular meeting/session:A small section of people attend open budget sessions, Wardshava/Ward committee meeting and commemoration of national days. People's participation in few activities like attending meeting of standing committees and other committees, selection of various projects, project implementation and supervision, and budget preparation is found very poor(for details see, Annex Tables 100 and 101).This study observes that besides failure in information dissemination or lack of time of people and irregular meeting or sessions of different activities have been playing a significant role to refrain people from regular participation in local government activities. Elected representatives, in many places, do not hesitate to acknowledge that events related to several important local government activities do not take place regularly in their areas. Local people respond in same vein and demand regular meeting and sessions. In order to overcome the problem of less participation, arranging meeting or sessions of all the activities on a regular basis is a must.
Ensuring maximum participation of mass people: Whether the existing local government system can ensure maximum participation is a very significant indicator for its success or failure. Officially, in many places, level of participation is satisfactory, and even highly satisfactory. However, this study experiences a gap between official statements and field reality. It seems that participation in many cases is dissatisfactory and even sometimes highly dissatisfactory. It indicates that nepotism, political connections, influence of local elites regulate the scope of maximum participation. Local people emphasise a local government free from these obstacles.
Financial support: Though willing in many cases, people from economically disadvantaged background struggle to attend local government activities owing to their involvement with economic activities for livelihood. Besides, most of the males and almost all the females in this category are not in a position to spend money for transportation to attend the events far from their residence. Fund for refreshment and transportation have been widely suggested so that people can easily overcome the problem of less participation.
Handling local elites:Local people from influential families or background largely shape the working of local government. They tremendously influence activities like formation of committees or preparing lists of destitute people eligible to get financial support from local government. Sometimes elected representatives,beyond their will, become compelled to accommodate directly or indirectly with the local elites which visibly obstruct effective functioning of the process. However, in most cases, it seems that relationship between the elected representatives and local elites is based on mutual interests which ultimately regulate the level of mass people'sparticipation in local government activities.
Inclusion of civil society: Success of local government greatly depends on active participation of local civil society. The findings from this study illustrate the fact that the civil society keeps struggling across the country to avail them of the scope to activelyparticipate in local government activities. Elected representatives to a vast extent are unwilling to accommodate civil society at a desired level, may be, with a fear of losing control over the process. It also seems that elected representatives feel uncomfortable with the possibility of being accountable to civil society. This mind-set needs to be changed in order to guarantee local civil society participation for strengthening local government institutions.
Establishment of Monitoring Process:Elected representatives in many places directly orindirectly hinders or discourage people's participation, though, in most places participation level is officially high. Regular monitoring by a particular body can be effective in identifying the gap between official facts-figures and reality in fields.
Consultation with people: Mass people all over the country complain that elected representatives do not care for their opinion in running local government institutions. People find that their views are always disregarded and elected representatives initiate and accomplish projects without consulting them. This study finds huge urge from the people in favour of unanimous opinion in initiating any project where people's voices will be heard and respected.
Accountability of elected representatives:Lack of accountability of elected representatives in various committees is another issue that obstruct participation. In some places, respondents/participants report about schedule and place of meetings without consulting and taking into account the convenience of local people. Committee members in many cases avoid or do not feel obligation to properly inform about the activities of the committee to its stakeholders.
Inclusion of People: The Way Forward
Local government is pointless without effective participation of local people. The politico-economic analysis of local governance and decentralization in Bangladesh shows wide gap between assertion of the elected representatives and experience of local people. Moreover, it seems that a huge gap exists between desired level of participation and real participation of people in local government activities.
This section deals with finding the ways to increase people's participation. Findings from expert level meetings, consultation meetings and in-depth discussions have been analysed in this connection. Existing literature on this issue and insights gathered unofficially through field visits have also been used. The major recommendations pertaining to increase people's participation in local government activities are discussed below.
No Red-tapism: People in these days, even in the remotest areas are somehow or other busy with their livelihood. For them getting minimum benefits or services is a wastage of time and money as they need to work hard to improve their well-being. Providing benefits and services available without red-tapism can be considered as one of the top preconditions to increase participation.
All-out Efforts against Corruption: People all around the country are more or less convinced that corruption is all-pervasive in local government institutions. They firmly believe that local government authority (elected representatives and local level bureaucracy as well) does notproperly use funds allocated from centre (for details see, Chapters 8 and 14). Besides, people are to bribe officials of LGIs to get most of the services and facilities. No matter, whether real or perceived, practice of corruption abstain people from participation in local government activities. In this situation, a strong political decision needs to be taken against corruption not only for successful completion of projects and development activities but also to encourage people to participate in the process. Exemplary administrative and legal punitive measures against corruption are also indispensable in order to win public confidence in local government.
Proper Use of Conflict Resolution Facilities: Village Court, Dispute Resolution Board and informal arbitration attract mass attention greatly. However, influence of vested interest groups from different corners restricts scope of ensuring justice. People from modest background in many places are hesitant to use local government conflict resolution facilities as they are not confident about getting justice. Apart from confusion about getting justice, there is an allegation about misuse about these opportunities. Special efforts to build-up more confidence and strong measures against any abuse of conflict resolution facilities are needed to increase people's participation. Allocating more power to Village Court and Dispute Resolution Board will also be effective.
Regularity of Elected Representatives: Irregular presence of elected representatives in local government offices and his/her locality is another major cause of less enthusiasm among people regarding participation in the process. This study finds many Union and Upazila Parishad Chairmen, and Paurashava Mayors, who permanently reside out of their constituency. Most of them visit their localities occasionally. This means that local people do not find their local government representatives in hour of needs. Besides, absence of elected representatives, in many cases, indulges their cadres to unduly interfere in LGIs activities. It ultimately deters local masses from participation. Moreover, absence of elected representatives seriously discourages local people to participate in local government activities. Provisioning maintenance of office time can improve the situation. It is also, essential to make certain provision that would ensure staying of elected representatives in their own area permanently. In addition, regular attendance of concerned government officials who are member of various committees can be a catalyst in enhancing people's participation.
Non-partisan Activities: It is mostly expected that, the elected representatives would work in a non-partisan manner. Officially, local government elections are non-partisan in Bangladesh. But, in reality most of the candidates are directly or indirectly connected with political parties because political affiliation play pivotal role in winning elections. This trend continues even after elections which unavoidably affect people's participation. Opposition party supporters in the locality, in many cases, are excluded from local government initiatives and services. Whatever may be the extent, same is also true for elected representatives affiliated with opposition parties. Partisanship, in fact, impinges upon people's participation in local government.
In this regard, it is imperative to convince elected representatives to perform their tasks in a non-partisan manner. Arrangement of training programmes, seminar, workshop and several other related initiatives may impact upon the task of bringing about a positive change in partisan mind-set of elected representatives. Formation of an independent monitoring body (i.e., Local Government Commission) can be effective in ensuring non-partisan working of local government. Finally, upper echelon of ruling political party needs to be convinced about importance of effective functioning of non-partisan local government in order to strengthen democracy and ensure development with distributive justice.
Consultation with Local People: Class structure of local people shows that a large number of people belong to the poor category in a numerous ways (findings of Chapter 4) while socio-economic profile of the elected representatives of LGIs indicates a relatively affluent status (findings of Chapter 5). Since the majority of local people and the representatives of LGIs do not belong to the same socio-economic strata (poor vis-a-vis rich), it is imperative that a concerted effort is required to overcome this barrier which in turn ensures people's participation in activities of LGIs. In this connection, consultations will help to understand the real needs and concerns of local people in the most effective way. It also provides effective way out for implementation of development projects. Consultations facilitate people to play vital role in the process essential for success of local government, and at the same time growth of democracy.
Uthan Boithak (courtyard meeting):It can be an effective way to increase people's participation at Ward level. This meeting is a scope, particularly, for vast majority of women who are subjugated in the society in the name of custom, tradition, culture and religion. Many of them are barred even from going out of home, let alone attending local government meetings or activities in Union Parishad or Paurashava office. Arranging Uthan Boithak would provide scope for women to participate in local government activities.
Culture of Paying Tax: Tax paying culture is yet to flourish in Bangladesh. Rather, practice of tax evasion is all-encompassing, which not only affect economy but also develop a culture of corruption and patron-client relationship in state and society. Tax dodging prevents many people from participation due to a fear of being identified. However, many people evade tax because they are suspicious about proper use of public fund by authority. Whatever the reasons may be, efforts need to be given in developing a culture of taxpaying, and thus a culture of participation in local government activities.
Disclosure of Priorities and Benefits: An appropriate list of priorities and benefits is important to ensure participation. It can convince majority people that local government institutions can solve the problem of 'who gets what, why and how' in a transparent and democratic way. Publications on committee activities help to inform people about on-going activities which ultimately can attract attention of mass people and motivate them to participate.
Local Initiatives: Support from social activists and financial contribution from affluent section can bring major change in initiatives and activities within the framework of local government, and invariably that can inspire people to participate in activities of LGIs.

Figure 80: Chairman and Mayor reported type of events where people participate (in %)










Figure 81: Chairman reported participation of various groups of people in activities of Union Parishad (in %)





Figure 83: Household reported information received about LGI's activities (in %)