Bureaucracy and The Myth of Community Development

Centralization is a synonym for bureaucratization. Dysfunction of local bureaucracy in community development is obviously one of the consequences of centralization of public administration. Community participation is largely impeded by the very orientation of local officials to central command extending far to local government and field administration. The whole process of development at the community level is, as such, reduced to non-participation as local government is appendam to centralized bureaucracy.

Community development approach is highly elicited with cadre officials holding sway all the way. This is a clear domination syndrome emanating from colonial and quasi-colonial legacies. The local government structure for community development continues to serve ‘centre power axis’. The overall scenario of implementation hints much about bureaucratic tangles and corruption.

Much of the blame for mis-governance has been put of bureaucratic foot dragging for which many a project/sub-project subject under community development funded by donors is being implemented in a manner that breeds much frustration and pessimism. A large number of projects/sub-projects are caught in tangles in the bureaucratic red tap (white tap also) and lethargic process of disposition.

The ordinary masses happen to be on-lookers experiencing long tradition of bureaucratic elitism. Ever since the advent of colonial bureaucracy the public servants have been enjoying the modems of special privilege. Prestige and influence accompanied cadre service. Even in independent Bangladesh there has been great power in directing a division of a ministerial secretariat or one of its attached departments, subordinate offices or autonomous bodies. Positions in field administration in the countryside are no less significant. Rather it rumples much of the resources that are being pumped into the community through project aid. The people of participation is limited functionally only to officials and community stakeholder as the main actors, in running ‘expensive government programmes’.

It is a plain truth that power is the exclusive preserve top-brass centralized bureaucracy which is highly politicized. In Bangladesh politicization of bureaucracy has been rampant. It is soaked with corruption to a scandalous proportion. Bangladesh stands topped in public sector when it comes to corruption. A review by the business funded lobby group Transparency International (TI) related its annual ranking of corruption. Resources generated, mobilized, managed and controlled by high-ups in administration has deeply institutionalized corruption in the civil service.

By now we are more than confirmed that fuzzy governance has taken heavy toll. Mass discontent is simmering into a violent outburst. The state of mass agitation against corruption and inefficient management of community affairs in recent years is sporadic. The situation, as such, exploits the myth of community development reducing it to force.