DH ILLUSTRATION
Thirty-two years ago, the 73rd amendment to the Constitution, called the Panchayati Raj Bill came into force on April 24. Two months later, on June 1, the 74th amendment, called the Nagar Palika Bill, came into force. Together, these two landmark bills were to ensure true democratic decentralisation. People would have the power to elect their representatives at the third tier of government – panchayats and municipal corporations. The decentralisation was to happen by devolution of powers, i.e. transfer of funds, functions, and functionaries. For all citizens, the immediate and most relevant interface with the government is the local government, whose job is to provide water and sanitation, roads and traffic management, garbage disposal, running of government schools, health clinics, and services like birth and death certificates and land transfers. There is a well-defined list of functions described in the eleventh and twelfth schedules to the constitution, which came as part of the amendments. The panchayats were to be devolved with 29 functions and the municipal councils with 18 functions. These functions need the appointment of proper functionaries which, in turn, require funds.
Even after three decades, the status of decentralisation of genuine power and functions is distressingly low. The writ of the state government is large on the running of municipalities and panchayats. Most significantly, the two important institutions of the State Election Commission (SEC) and State Finance Commission (SFC) in many states are ineffectual. The recommendations of the SFC about the transfer of funds are more in the breach, and there is no penalty. The elections to local bodies are delayed, and sometimes even the appointment of the SEC is done with lethargy. For instance, there are nearly 5,000 urban local bodies across India covering 40% of the population. As per an audit of the performance of the 74th amendment by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in November 2024, in nearly 60% of urban local bodies, elections have been delayed.
In a recent Public Interest Litigation filed in the Supreme Court by ISHAD, a citizens’ organisation, about 85,000 of the 1.5 lakh local bodies across 17 states have not held elections. This is too widespread and looks like a deliberate pattern. As per a study by Janagraha, elections to the city council were delayed In Bengaluru by 62 months, in Chennai by 84 months and in Kolkata by 15 months. On top of this, even after elections, there is egregious delay in formation of elected councils, mayors, or chairpersons of standing committees. On average, there was a delay of 11 months across major cities. During these long periods, the governance is in the hands of the state government, and local governments are powerless and people are representative-less.
In Maharashtra, all major civic bodies have been without representatives for more than three years. This is ostensibly due to the case in the Supreme Court regarding OBC reservations. However, the legal logjam has meant that the true democratic functioning of local government is denied to the people of Maharashtra. Similar is the fate of the people in other states facing delays in local elections.
The inordinate delay in conducting local body elections is anti-constitutional. It is a severe blot on our democracy. It leads to several undesirable developments, even called a “disease of dysfunctional democracy” as articulated recently by Bhim Raskar, a civil society leader from Maharashtra. Firstly, it encourages “administrator raj” rather than people’s rule. As such, the marginalised sections feel intimidated in approaching the administration for their grievances and would rather approach a local representative. But thanks to delayed elections, we have a representative-less functioning so-called democracy.
Secondly, governments run by administrators appointed by the state government machinery are more likely to be captured by the gentry. So, they tend to be less responsive to grassroot concerns. Thirdly, the local bodies tend to degenerate into “service centres” or “sewa kendras” delivering various schemes and missions that originated in the state capital or Delhi. Thus, the element of local decision-making is robbed. This phenomenon is seen even when elections are held on time.
Another important casualty is the role of social audits. The impact of a scheme is verified only with people’s participation and independent evaluation. In the absence of local governments that can appoint such independent audits, the administration machinery ignores the aspect of measuring implementation scorecards.
Development in disarray
The lack of locally elected representatives also means that civil society and non-government organisations are kept away by the administration-run local government. Such NGOs are not always nosy busybodies but are often partners to locally elected governments, in improving governance, making it more accountable and effective. But administrators and bureaucrats usually have a distrust of such civil society organisations and would rather keep them away.
How can you have representative-less local self-governments? That is a contradiction in terms. The empowering of people at the grassroots level requires regular and timely elections to all local bodies, fulfilling all conditions as stated in the landmark constitutional amendments, including one-third reservation for women.
Not only is the delay in elections experienced across many states a serious disease, but there are also other troubling trends. Such as encouraging unopposed elected bodies with cash awards from the state government. As if getting a panchayat in place is like bagging a commercial deal. Among other well-known disorders in local body elections is that of the female elected representative simply being a rubber stamp and proxy for male power wielders. Thus, it is clear that we have a long way to go to implement in letter and spirit, genuine decentralisation and the strengthening of local democracy. This, at the very least, is holding elections in a time-bound manner. Running thousands of local governments by remote control, and by unelected administrators is anti-people and anti-constitution.
(The writer is an economist; Syndicate: The Billion Press)