Adnan Morshed
A (problematic) tale of two Dhakas
Imagine this scenario with two Dhaka City Corporations: The two elected mayors of North and South Dhaka are from the incumbent government and the opposition party, respectively. One is empowered with all of the development resources, while the other languishes with very few administrative tools to be effective. One audaciously flexes political and financial muscles, while the other whines about not having any power. The electoral politics that will steer this asymmetric arrangement will most likely create a schizophrenic city in many respects, politically, economically, socially, and urbanistically. The historic dual character of Dhaka — puran Dhaka and Dhaka — will degenerate into a permanently fragile and divisive urban system.
Even if both of the mayors are affiliated with the same political party, the likely scenario would be that the city’s management and growth strategies would be driven by two different, if not antagonistic, visions. We already know that the lack of coordination among the 40-plus city agencies that provide civic amenities in Dhaka has been a nagging problem in the city’s governance. With two City Corporations and the differing bureaucratic cultures that they would foster, lack of coordination could only deteriorate further.
Amending the Local Government Act 2009, the Bangladesh government has decided to split Dhaka into two administrative zones: DCC North and DCC South. The Dhaka metropolitan area has 92 wards. North will get 36 wards, while South will comprise 56. Under this arrangement, Uttara, Gulshan, Badda, Mohakhali, East Rampura, Tejgaon, Mohammadpur, Mirpur, Pallabi, and Kafrul are in the North, while Dhanmondi, Ramna, Motijheel, Sabujbagh, Demra, Khilgaon, Sutrapur, Kotwali, and Lalbagh are in the South.
A government spokesperson explained what prompted this sudden slicing of the capital: “It has not been possible for only one City Corporation to provide the desired services to 1.2 crore people.” In other words, one mayor is just too inadequate to govern a megalopolis like Dhaka. With two mayors, efficiency in administration will multiply.
Stunningly, this crucial decision was taken at a weekly cabinet meeting. (Some sources claim that the idea was conceived last year.) Without any broad public participation and policy debate on its long-term effects, the proposition appears to be an unfortunate example of a top-down governance model.
The decision to split the capital into two governing zones is not going to benefit Dhaka. The rationale was that with less city area to serve, each DCC’s governance would improve, and better civic participation could be ensured. However, this rationale will be detrimental to a city that should be cohesive — not only in the urban services it provides, but also in the management of its urban character, natural resources, and future growth.
Administrative fragmentation of Dhaka runs counter to the common urban policies of good cities. A good city is not just about providing services. As history shows, great metropolises often materialise through the holistic vision of a dynamic and empowered urban administrator. A liveable city that provides efficient urban services, quality educational institutions and hospitals, affordable housing, a healthy environment, and adequate recreational areas is less about dividing or sharing governance responsibilities and more about developing a comprehensive urban strategy and then implementing it. Such a comprehensive strategy is most likely to come from the vision, passion, and skills of one administrator.
Consider Enrique Penalosa, mayor of Bogota, Colombia, who, in the late 1990s, masterminded the city’s transformation from a crime-ridden city into a liveable, mass-transit-based metropolis. And, of course, there was Jaime Lerner, the legendary mayor of the southern Brazilian city of Curitiba, who, in the late 1980s, implemented a host of urban reforms that made Curitiba a shining example of sustainable urbanism. Great ideas hardly come from having more government organisations.
Consider this innovation by Lerner. Municipal waste removal trucks could not enter the narrow, crooked streets of Curitiba’s poorer sections. Hence, kitchen wastes would pile up on the street, compromising public health. Lerner introduced a programme in which residents of these impoverished areas would trade trash bags for bus passes. As a result, slums got cleaner, and the bus rapid-transit system served more people, making it cost effective.
Mumbai and New York City are no less complex and daunting than Dhaka is. Or, think about Tokyo, Beijing, Sao Paulo, Delhi, London, and Istanbul. All of these giant cities have one administrator, the mayor who is empowered through due electoral process to sit at the apex of a governance pyramid and spearhead a holistic model of urban management and planned growth. The mayor is given all of the tools and manpower to mobilise an efficient administrative machine.
New York City represents a good prototype of urban governance and is considered one of most sustainable cities in the world. But it has only one Michael Bloomberg to keep it that way. Kanwar Sain runs the show in Delhi, which recently inaugurated a world-class underground train system. Beijing, with its stupendous ambition to be a global city, is governed by one mayor, Guo Jinlong.
Instead of creating two City Corporations that are likely to augment the country’s iconic political divisiveness, the government should invest in empowering and enlarging the administrative capacity of the mayoral office. Provide the mayor with more tools and manpower and bring RAJUK under the jurisdiction of the City Corporation. Reform the electoral process to attract the best and most capable candidates with an urban vision and a knack for innovation.
The defeatist argument that Dhaka has become too big to manage will yield flawed urbanisation policies for Bangladesh, a country projected to become an urban majority by 2030. The government must develop strategies to stop the monstrous growth of the city in all directions, devouring floodplains, rivers, and agricultural lands. The country’s constitution even mandates the provision of a legal boundary for the capital.
Bangladesh is a land-scarce country. Every square inch of its landmass must be valued. In a country where urbanisation is inevitable, like in other developing countries of the world, instituting flawed urban policies would be a roadblock to the country’s economic, social, and political progress. The sooner the culture of proposing knee-jerk policies with short-term goals is replaced with a habit of seeing the larger picture, the better it would be for the country.
———————————-
Adnan Morshed, architect, urbanist, and associate professor at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.
Thanks for the article which is timely, prudent and fact based. I hope this type of article as well as the general consciousness of the people will bring in some sense to the mindset of the government.
Unfortunately, the present government acts, governs and thinks as if “the country is for the AL, by the AL and of the AL”. Any deviation from this is considered to be anti-state. The whole practice and procedure of government is geared for the party interest. This needs to change for the betterment of the country, for the people and also in turn for the parties itself.
The consequence of virtual one part, one leader and one family is not beneficial for anyone. Sooner the AL government realises and understands it, better for everybody. Good luck Bangladesh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Both the parties are acting like excited fools. True, the decision is 50 percent political and 50 percent professional. Given that let us try to touch on the non-political issues. Mr. Adnan Morshed: Why and how you term Dhaka city of the current dimension as “small” You are also politically motivated. Have you imagined the difference between embedded professional/management efficiency in USA (for NY), Japan (for Tokyo), and Brazil (for Sao Paolo)? Another question is: Then why not we have only ONE WARD throughout Dhaka city? Why 60+ districts across the country?
Besides professionals/specialists like you, we also need management specialists and others for planning and implementing urban development.
Talking about bottom-up approach to planning? Where in the governmental rules and regulations have you found that in deciding over division of the city’s administration, the government has violated any provision? Cannot you see that you are at liberty to voice out your feelings and enjoy the openness of communication on the media and that is the case of others on this forum? Thanks for sharing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for writing and raising concerns about this ridiculous, politically motivated, and totally undemocratic decision. We need to abandon all apathy and fatalism and mount a serious campaign against it. This is not acceptable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
By splitting the city we will create some unwanted problems. The office of the mayor is located at the site of defunct Fulbaria Railway Station while his residence is in Gulshan. Thus he will leave in Dhaka(N) while he works in Dhaka(S). Alternately, we may have several deputy mayors but a ‘city governor’ is very essential to whom the national government shall delegate appropriate authority. When we discuss about mayor of Dhaka and compare him with other mayors of cities around the world, we forget that he is the successor of a pre-partition district town municipality who was happy to work under a district officer. Dhaka is now a conglomerate of erstwhile district town of Dhaka as well as port city Narayanganj and two forest settlements like Tongi and Joydebpur which have surpassed Tejgaon Industrial area in industry. Places like Savar and Kaliakair were jungles teamed with tigers even in 1961 and are now crowded with export-oriented industries. PM as de facto ‘city governor’ won’t serve the desired purpose. If present mega city Dhaka can be converted into a global city, it will be beneficial to the national economy. A city governor will be instrumental in developing the city infrastructures, in creating good public universities and planning a mixed city areas where residences, offices, markets, hospitals remain close to each other and public transport with ‘Mass Rapid Transit’ are provided. Thus dependence on private car is reduced and people are encouraged to walk more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am really surprised actually. Do we really live in a democratic country? The govt. and the people with authority always do exactly what they want to, not what others want them to do. Let there be a vote — online or whatever ways possible – on whether we want a divided Dhaka.
Because in the end it is the people who will be the ultimate sufferers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government is coming up with all the rubbish ideas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is no harm in splitting Dhaka into two cities, viz., New Dhaka and Old Dhaka. There is at least one benefit in it. Traditionally, Dhaka is considered to be the abode of old Dhaka inhabitants. So you will find that unless a man is born here he is not fit to be the mayor. Now we need an educated mayor who understands the writings of Saskia Sassen. We aspire to see Dhaka as a Global City, we would like to see walking engineers in the city per description of Saskia Sassen. So splitting Dhaka is good. We will have two mayors: one for new Dhaka and one like Sadeq Hossain or Mohammed Hanif for old Dhaka.
But the problem of Dhaka is administration or management. So we also need a city governor with the full status of a minister and right under the cabinet ministry. He will look upon all other ministers as his colleagues and not as a boss. His area of jurisdiction will be the present metropolitan city under RAJUK (1500 sq m) plus some of the adjoining districts or parts there off. This may be termed as the Dhaka Capital Region. Initially let the government choose him as a government functionary and eventually he will be elected. Otherwise the government will further delay this already inordinately delayed but most essential city government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for raising and analysing this topical issue.
It clearly shows our weakness and being clueless how to govern a relatively small city compared to so many metropolis in the world, with so much to take care of.
Divide and rule is also a viable possibility as commented by Sajjad.
With no open discussion and no comments taken from the public the decision is taken prematurely. It is not quite as simple as thought.
Please do not divide Dhaka into two! Elect/Select a COMPETENT, educated mayor for proper, effective solutions for the capital. Please check other cities the competencies and commitment required of the mayor, then decide who will be the mayor of our capital city.
Responsible, educated, well travelled, committed and with town-planning training one has to be in this position. Not an XYZ, only with political leanings! It has been a shame we have this INACTIVE mayor for so long!
Let there be a referendum, involving the dwellers and the concerned. If it is a political decision, then we the Dhakaites will be disappointed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Adnan Morshed, steady…. this is too clever and logical by half! Surely, these facts are staring them in their faces.
But it’s not the city and its inhabitants (that are important) but the power and the control are the issues!
Sarcasm … may be! Reality for sure!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The splitting of DCC with just a weekly notice without discussing with any govt./private organisation shows the lack of democratic attitude of our Govt.
Nowhere in the world, are strategic decisions made in such a short span of time. We’ve to work hard on improving our democratic mentality on every level of govt. institutions and stop acting in an autocratic way. Government is the representative of the people but that doesn’t mean the govt can do whatever they want.
And again it’s not a democratic practice at all. I, 100% agree with the writer and he has beautifully shown the total scenario and how inconvenient it will be if Dhaka is split up into North & South Zone. However, gaining 3/4th majority in the elections doesn’t give the ruling party the power to do whatever they like. And in the end it’ll very likely appear as a financially non-viable decision too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Creating two city corporations in Dhaka is nothing but politically motivated. People’s demand of creating city government like New York has been ignored over and over.
Celal
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
O Dhaka! O Dhaka! Not a good idea to split the city of Dhaka. It was initiated to pit up political duel!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, why all these arguments? Why can’t we come out clear with the fact that the PM is very worried of not winning a mayor within her party, hence this move to split up Dhaka in two?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0