Key to Bengaluru's future

With the decisive regime change in Karnataka, its capital city, Bengaluru, the technology hub of India, is in sharp focus. Particularly the serious concerns about the city being ranked among the least liveable and slowest-moving metropolises. At the same time, there are huge expectations for rapid improvements in all aspects of city life and the delivery of services to the citizens—clean and potable water, health and sanitation, affordable housing, reliable electricity, pothole-free roads, efficient public transport, smooth traffic, a clean environment, prevention of floods, and many more. All these come under one caption: good and competent governance. And that seems to be the Achilles heel!

Last year, when civic elections were nearing, the city’s Civil Society Forum submitted the Manifesto for the Development of Bengaluru to senior representatives of political parties. It was candid. Local self-government, with transparency, accountability, and people’s participation, as envisaged in the 74th Constitutional Amendment (CAA) for urban local bodies, stands vitiated in Bengaluru with the state government and MLAs usurping the role of the local government. People’s representatives and officials at the local level, abdicating their constitutional obligations, are engaged in massive corruption, resulting in large-scale encroachments on public lands, violations of zoning and building bye-laws, pollution of land, water, and air in the city, and a deterioration of the quality of life of the citizens. The basic entitlements of citizens to food, water, sanitation, housing, health, education, employment, and social security have been neglected...”

Also Read | Sluice gate installation stalls; BBMP's inaction draws criticism

This brings out one brazen fact: there is no participatory governance at present, and the entire system is being controlled by bureaucrats, MLAs, and ministers who are not elected for the purpose. This is because urban governance in Bengaluru does not have an inclusive urban philosophy and politics. What is happening is just urbanisation, making the city a “brick and mortar real estate” entity rather than a vibrant human settlement that functions as an ‘engine of economic growth.’ For this to happen, a philosophy of urbanism should be adopted, accompanied by urban politics and leadership capable of understanding this and taking it forward.

Jeb Brugmann (2009) defined “urbanism” as “a way that builders, users, and residents co-design, co-build, co-govern, and combine their activities to support ways of production and living that develop their shared advantage.”

Urban shared advantages are the three basic elements that make cities magnets of productivity and prosperity: economies of density, scale, and association. Density is the concentration of people and their activities that enhances the sheer efficiency with which an economic activity could be pursued. Scale is the increase in the volume of any particular opportunity, producing what we call ‘economies of scale’ that make activities attractive or services profitable. The scale and density of interactions among people with different interests, expertise, and objectives then combine to create the third basic element—the economy of association—that exponentially increases the variety of ways and efficiency with which people can organise, work together, invent solutions, and launch joint strategies for urban advantage. Bengaluru does not get the full leverage of these urban advantages because it does not practise the urbanism of inclusive and shared development.

But there appears to be a breakthrough here, with leading real estate developers adopting the live-work-play concept by co-designing and building office/commercial structures, social infrastructure, and living space in close proximity to each other. But this should extend to the entire city’s planning and not be confined only to elite sections.

Strengthening democratic and participatory practices in local governance gets people closer to government, which helps them guide public institutions, policies, and programmes. People’s participation expands public spaces, enhances the relationship between society and government, gives greater legitimacy to democratically elected authorities, promotes respect for citizenship rights, enhances the quality of politics, and strengthens solidarity and cooperation.

When citizens’ groups and civil society are mobilised and organised in a systemic way, they are in a better position to identify their challenges and also assess gaps in the governance system, especially with regard to service delivery (through community monitoring and the use of social accountability tools). This form of participatory decision-making can form the basis for the emergence of good political leadership, which is woefully lacking now.

This was the intention of CAA-1992, under which Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) were to be transformed into Urban Local Governments (ULGs), which were to perform the key tasks assigned under the 12th Schedule (Article 243W): Urban planning and development; land-use and construction; economic and social development; roads and bridges; water supply; public health and sanitation conservancy; urban forestry and environment protection; safeguarding the interests of weaker and handicapped sections of society; slum improvement and upgradation; urban poverty alleviation; provision of urban amenities; and promotion of cultural, educational, and aesthetic aspects

This has failed to take off because a pragmatic brand of urban politics has not emerged to take this agenda forward. Such politics that could urge governance reforms to give more autonomy, financial powers, and professional capacity to ULGs is an urgent imperative if urban quality of life and delivery of services are to improve.

Urban politics should encompass participatory urban governance that would include the ULG, the private sector, and civil society. All three are critical for sustaining human, economic, and social development. The city government creates a conducive political, administrative, legal, and living environment. The private sector promotes enterprise and generates jobs and income. Civil society mobilises groups to participate in economic, social, and political activities. It also resolves conflicts. Because each has weaknesses and strengths, governance is brought about through constructive interaction among all three. In short, urban politics should treat city governance as a joint venture.

Bengaluru has the ecosystem to make this happen. In 2016, the Bengaluru Blue Print Action Group was formed with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah as Chairman and eminent citizens representing the private sector and NGOs. This was criticised as elitist, challenged in the High Court, and therefore did not take off. He has become the Chief Minister again, but he should not repeat this experiment. Instead, he should concentrate on transforming BBMP from being a ward of the state government into an autonomous and participatory ULG. Mere pooling of parastatals under an umbrella and creating a Special Purpose Vehicle will not do. It has to be a self-governing city government. Therein lies the future of Bengaluru.

(The writer, a former army and IAS officer, was the administrator of the Chandigarh Capital Project and chief administrator of the Haryana Urban Development Authority)