Mute Spectator : Grassroot Democracy
January 02, 2020
After eight long years, the time has
come for rural Tamilnadu to elect its local representatives. The area covered by
156 Panchayat Unions went to the polls to elect 260 ward members of district
panchayats, 2,546 members of panchayat unions and 37,830 members of panchayats and
it is incumbent upon us to talk and discuss more about decentralization and
localization of government. The importance is rooted on two grounds namely,
India claims it has a three tier government and more importantly, decentralization
is the practical end of self-governance.
India and Local Government
The story of
local government in Free India started with the old man Gandhiji’s love for
villages but other congress leaders shunned the idea for progressive cities and industrial complexes. The love story thus
had effectively no place in the otherwise bulky constitution.
Decentralization
though idealized, was put in the backseat given the continuous riots and
secession movements throughout the early years of the republic. The move towards
socialist thinking further pushed the prospect of localizing the government and
felt distribution of wealth more important than distribution of actual power.
Further
centralization during the Indira years even made state governments prone to the
whims of the center brewing instability. As a poster example of how ‘good’ government intention might lead to
bad unintended consequences, states grew more against each other which was
further amplified by problems in sharing and co-existing thereby putting narrow
parochial interests like identity above nation and public well-being.
Sons of Ideas
Tony joseph in
his recent book Early Indians discusses
about the four waves of migration into the sub-continent since mutation gave way
to the modern Homo sapiens in Africa. He goes on to explain how inter mixing of
population was rampant so much so that there are no pure breeds in the
sub-continent now- even the isolated tribes, for that matter are not pure.
These biological facts make the racial divide (Aryan & Dravidian)
irrelevant and thereby rendering indigenous identity out of touch with the
modern world.
Although
safeguarding ‘indigenous’ cultures is important, it is equally important to realize
that migration does not damage cultures but only enhances it. Migration of
people from one state to another is one of the basic rights enshrined in the
constitution and it has only been advantageous to both the migrating community
and the state which absorbs such migration. To take an example, the marwaris of Tamilnadu have substantial
part in growth of the economy providing credit and livelihoods to the ‘locals’.
Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts
Absolutely
Indian red-tapism
is the byproduct of the license-raj whose effect still lingers and retards the
country’s economy. The important aspect of the bureaucracy is its reluctance to
let go of power however small it might be. This lust for power is straight out
of the socialist model where proximity to the government is directly
proportional to the growth of the person (company).
This reluctance
in shedding of unnecessary power is aptly illustrated with an Indian example.
In the mid-1960s, a department under the government of Tamilnadu named CAA
demanded funds for functioning of the department. To know what CAA is, we need
to go back to the 1940s
During the Second
World War, trade between Britain and South America was curtailed. Winston
Churchill who was an ardent fan of the Cuban cigars found it very difficult to
let go off steam during those troubled times. To his delight, he had found an
alternative in Tamilnadu which he declared to be second best cigar in the
world. So the British setup a department whose sole function was to procure and
send cigars to Britain so that Churchill could smoke his cigar. It was named Churchill Cigar Assistant or CAA.
The war ended,
Britain exited for the first time and
India became a republic but still our bureaucrats could not let go of the funds
and power of an essentially useless department. That is the extent of our
bureaucracy’s lust for power.
Rationale behind Localization
The rationale
behind localization of government is obvious- Local problems can only be solved
locally. It is desirable and efficient in every which way. To illustrate this,
former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan in his book The Third Pillar cites an example from Italy.
Interesting historical study by Luigi
Zingales and others highlights the long-term benefits of localism. They
find that Italian cities that achieved self-government in the Middle Ages have
higher levels of social capital today—as measured by more nonprofit
organizations per capita, the presence of an organ bank (indicating a
willingness to donate) and fewer children caught cheating on national exams.
They conclude that self-governance instilled a culture that allowed citizens to
be confident in their ability to do what was needed and to reach goals.
Decentralizing powers to communities may thus reduce apathy and force their
members to assume responsibility for their destinies rather than blaming a distant
elitist administration.
Another important
reason for decentralizing the political power is to reduce corruption. Although
we have come a long way from the times of Rajiv Gandhi’s one rupee statement,
we still have a long long way to go. It does not help to reduce corruption by
creating another “new” department to
control corruption done by other departments. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas
might provide sellable short-time solutions but as time goes on, they
themselves become part of the rusting system giving in to their flawed
bureaucratic setup which it was set up to reform. Decentralization of funds and
power makes the public tax payers more vigil and it is also easier to judge the
efficiency of the government by what can be seen by the local voters in their local
neighborhood.
Lost & to be Found
Local bodies were
the locus of the erstwhile self-government movements. From Annie Besant to
Gandhi, all great leaders focused on the enhancement of autonomy for the local
governments. The developed cities of British India were developed due to robust
local governments. Mayors were the political heads of the cities, they were
part of the executive. Great names like Rajaji, Periyar EVR were all part and heads of local governments. There is
need today to reinvigorate our local bodies. The constitutional posts under the
local government should not be the bastions of political heirs and thugs who
held such posts to milk out money and throw rule of law on its head.
We seem to forget
that the most important part of a democracy is its people and nobody else. Even
though the 73rd and 74th amendment to the constitution
provided constitutional status the local bodies, the implementation of said act
seems to not be in touch with reality. It is also interesting to see states
which advocate fiercely for federalism and decentralization in regard with
states shy away from further decentralization and effectivization of the
political marketplace.
It should also be
said that there are still prevalence of backward thinking in the minds of
voters and apathy for local elections because there is not much drama like the
general and state elections. But such apprehensions shall be removed once they
start seeing real improvements.
Voters, thus, must realize the true potential of the local bodies and take part
in the most important of elections- local body elections, for furthering the
cause of democracy.
By
Benolin
Mute Spectator is the primary series of the blog where we express our
opinion on current affairs.
0 comments