Leadership can be defined as 'enabling a group to engage together in the process of developing, sharing, and moving into vision, and then living it out' (source: website). Some of the common ideas that are often included in leadership are exerting influence, motivating and inspiring, helping others realising their potential, leading by example, selflessness and making a difference etc. Strong, capable and fair leadership, be it in social or political arena, both at the national or local level remains one of the prerequisites of development in any society or nation. At the grassroots level, in particular, bold, innovative leadership can play a key role in local planning and development and contribute to uplifting of the neglected. In a highly centralised (politically and administratively) developing country like Bangladesh, leadership at the grassroots level obviously assumes an important role.

The local government in this part of the world has been a conduit of leadership development for a long time. During the colonial period the British used these institutions for their own agenda of tax collection, maintaining law and order etc. and appointed persons who would cater to their colonial schemes. After liberation, in Bangladesh, however, the local government bodies have been functioning in a democratic manner, with direct elections in the local government tiers. Union Parishads in rural and municipalities and city corporations in the urban areas remain the only functioning local government institutions.

The Union Parishad leaders (one chairman, nine members, and three reserved seat members) are mostly affiliated with political parties, even though the elections are not held on party basis. Studies have shown that local citizens elect their leaders as much for their leadership qualities as for their party affiliation. Unlike the legal provisions in MP elections, the local government law, Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983, Article 7, states that the candidates must be listed in their respective UPs' voter list to contest in the elections.

A study (Profile and Policy Preferences of Elected UP Leaders, Nov 2003, ARD-LGI) on UP leaders also show some positive trends in the UP leadership. Some of the findings include --

UP Chairs, in particular, show increased education, socioeconomic status, and political experience

Voters are rotating their representatives, especially General and Reserved seats

UP Chairs are obliged to consult regularly with the UP Council members

While UP Chairs have considerable links to political parties, they do not want partisan influence in local government. This independence is also evidenced by the finding that they do not consult often with MPs

Citizen's perception of leadership
Another survey (Citizen's Percep-tion of Local Government in Bangladesh, May 2003, ARD-LGI) on citizens' perception illustrates citizens' increasing reliance on local government leaderships. Almost 88 per cent of citizens personally know the UP chair. And in terms of their personal characteristics and knowledge of local problems, the citizens evaluate the UP chairs favourably. The citizens' confidence in local leadership is also manifested in that they want local leaders to have a major role in solving problems in services like education and health. But at the same time they recognise that UPs have very limited functions other than maintaining transport infrastructure, dispute resolution and VGD/VGF card distribution. Only 3.9 per cent of those interviewed responded that UPs have a role in local development planning.

Development and local government
In other countries, local government carries out most development activities and provides key services to citizens. In Bangladesh, however, the local government bodies have virtually no power to plan and execute development actions or to formulate their budgets independently. Consequently, local government leadership and representation only equates to getting elected, with no meaningful mechanisms of representation or functionality, thereafter.

The UP chair and members who are accountable to the electorate soon realise that they have virtually no power to serve the people and work for local development. The vital services like education, health, social welfare are centralised at the upazila level. The leaders have virtually no oversight role in these matters; rather the government officials at the upazila level control these services. The income generation sources have been taken away one by one, hampering local development plans. The budget allocation for UPs has been decreasing at an increasing rate. The Annual Development Program (ADP), which is the main source of finance of UP's development activities, is clearly inadequate. This allocation to UPs is less than 2 per cent of the annual budget. This block grant is channeled through the upazila and paid in installments, further hampering the development activities.

The maximum ceiling of Taka 50,000 in implementing a development project is also insufficient and this fund is not released unless bribes are paid. Other development activities are undertaken through 'Food for Work' projects and activities like building and repairing roads, culverts and other infrastructural projects are undertaken. Through 'Test Relief' programme repair works of mosques, schools, madrashahs, culverts, roads are done. The allocations for these programmes are also not enough. In this situation, what meaningful role can the leaders play for local development?

Article 51 of The Local Government (Union Parishads) Ordinance, 1983 states that 'a union parishad may and if so required by government shall prepare and implement development plans for such periods as may be specified'. It further adds 'Such plan shall be subject to the approval of Upazila Parishad (UDCC)'. Article 33: "Development Functions of Union Parishads" states that 'a Union shall be responsible for agricultural, industrial and community development in the union and may, for that purpose, perform such functions as may be prescribed' and 'may for the purposes of rural development, adopt such measures and perform such functions'. The role of Union Parishads in development planning is thus equivocal and subject to bureaucratic interventions. The interference of MPs in the UP affairs, particularly in development activities has further weakened UPs' independence. Patron-client relationships have led to unequal distribution of resources, wastage and corruption. The MPs have often dictated the development activities to be undertaken without consulting the local elected representatives or assessing actual needs.

Conclusion
The status and role of local government leaders have been hugely undermined by the lack of power and resources of local government bodies and their dependency on local bureaucracy. The Upazila system is also not significantly different from Union Parishad either; virtually no power for these institutions and marginal role for the elected leadership. Leadership, in the context of local government, entails much more than just getting elected during election time, it connotes ensuring democratic, transparent governance at the local level with active participation of the constituency. As leaders of the only legitimate tier of rural local government, the UP leaders should ideally have full control in planning, service delivery and development activities. Legal reforms with adequate and clearly defined roles of local government bodies should be advocated for in short and mid-term. Given the lack of political will of successive governments to empower the local government, the UP leadership, itself, has to define its common interests and express its demands. In other countries, this has been successfully accomplished by creation of a common platform, and developing strategies for policy reform.

Ahmed Khaled Rashid is Programme Specialist, ARD-LGI.