Have bifurcated city corporations made Dhaka worse?
The dengue outbreak serves as a prime example, highlighting how the two halves of Dhaka are adopting different approaches with limited success, while mosquitoes pay no heed to political boundaries
The ongoing dengue outbreak in Dhaka serves as a stark illustration of how its 20 million residents feel abandoned at every step by their governing bodies, grappling with inadequate or even non-existent essential services.
This crisis has become a matter of life and death for many. But let's ponder a fundamental question: can we realistically expect even basic urban services in a city like Dhaka, where two mayors cannot even agree on a strategy to combat mosquito-borne diseases, let alone other compounding issues?
Undoubtedly, a resounding "no" echoes from many quarters. Dhaka city epitomises one of the most dysfunctional urban governance systems. Astonishingly, there have been scant efforts to rectify the fractures in Bangladesh's urban governance, particularly in Dhaka.
Instead, governance in Dhaka has been used as a political tool, manipulated at the expense of hard-earned taxpayer money.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The consequence? A counterproductive outcome that ranks Dhaka among the world's least livable cities, comparable to war-torn places like Damascus and Tripoli. This ignominy is a painful reality for a nation on the verge of shedding its least developed country (LDC) status.
Recognising the urgency of modernising governance, the first elected mayor of Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) aimed for unified governance to ensure coordinated service delivery. However, 25 years later, the reality has considerably regressed from this vision.
Instead of unity, Dhaka has fractured into two separate corporations, motivated mainly to gain political currencies, ostensibly for better management, but at the expense of its taxpayers.
This decision drastically curtailed the mayor's jurisdiction, leaving half the city's population beyond their oversight, despite being inseparable stakeholders.
The result? Two divergent entities steering the city in often conflicting and disjointed developmental directions. This division will only exacerbate disparities between citizens belonging to the two corporations of the same city.
The dengue outbreak serves as a prime example, highlighting how the two halves of Dhaka are adopting different approaches with limited success, while mosquitoes pay no heed to political boundaries.
Even before this division, DCC grappled with a well-documented issue – a lack of collaboration among service providers who independently made decisions.
Dhaka's citizens are served by over 50 organisations, operating with minimal control from the city corporations. These organisations are often led by unelected bureaucrats or government appointees act as single entities for the entirety of Dhaka city.
If the rationale for splitting Dhaka city was better urban management, why hasn't this approach been extended to these independent service providers to enhance coordination? The mismatch between elected and non-elected, divided and unified bodies risks pushing the current disjointed process into further dysfunction, evident in many instances.
In fact, the city corporations have no influence over the majority of basic services like water, roads, gas, disaster management, and water management. Despite the limited authority, city corporations bear the blame for underperformance and citizen disappointment.
In Bangladesh, the fixation on infrastructure as the primary development philosophy is deeply ingrained, and Dhaka is no exception. Tragically, the urgent need for unified, participatory governance in Dhaka is overshadowed by the fragmented focus on infrastructure by all the involved agencies, a narrative directed by the central government. This fixation exacerbates an already dire situation in many instances such as traffic management, water management, flood control and others.
Undoubtedly, the solution is complex, but recalibrating the governance system stands as the imperative first step.
Establishing a unified and legally empowered urban governance system encompassing all of Dhaka City is paramount to crafting a unified vision for the entire metropolis.
This unified Dhaka City Corporation would not only consolidate all service-providing agencies but also serve as a facilitator for participatory decision-making, engaging all relevant stakeholders, including independent service providers and citizens.
Further decentralisation within this unified city corporation would extend services directly to the citizens' doorstep, thus embodying the implementation of this unified vision.
Secondly, building trust between service providers and recipients is equally pivotal. Mending the fractured relationship between these parties is essential to eliminate bottlenecks in citizen involvement within the governance systems.
Moreover, fostering citizen participation in decision-making must go beyond mere symbolic representation, ensuring meaningful and substantive engagement.
Thirdly, infrastructure development should look beyond meeting the immediate needs and should align with a clear, long-term vision that aligns with Dhaka's sustainability goals.
Lastly, and most significantly, the central government must embrace a facilitating role in this transition rather than an authoritative overseer of Dhaka's management.
While these recommendations may seem ambitious, especially in light of the current political climate, addressing governance issues should take precedence as the primary objective for ensuring a livable Dhaka. The choice is clear, and without taking this decisive step, Dhaka's prospects will continue to deteriorate.
Dr Nazmul Huq is an urban planner working as a sustainability researcher at the University of Applied Science, Cologne, Germany. He is also a consultant at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in its Loss and Damage programme. He previously led the Urban Resilience Team at the ICLEI World Secretariat in Bonn, Germany.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard
