Once a model of reform, Karnataka’s politics drifts away from governance

Karnataka has been witnessing a political drama, with the chief minister’s gaddi as its central theme. Who will be the next CM? Will the present incumbent continue? Apart from the deputy chief minister — the original contender—other aspirants have thrown their hats into the ring.

The recently concluded caste census, meant to identify the more socially and economically deprived groups, seems instead to have reinforced the salience of caste in society and politics. This has been starkly reflected in different caste groups asserting their right to occupy the chief minister’s chair. 

With political leaders preoccupied with power struggles, governance has clearly taken a back seat. It is said that politics happens during elections and governance between elections. In Karnataka, that distinction seems lost. Interestingly, the conflicts we see today
are largely intra-party rather than
between the ruling and opposition parties—the latter content with taking jibes at the former’s inability to manage its internal battles.

Meanwhile, there is a flurry of activity in the state capital. The Bengaluru Development Minister is rushing through large infrastructure projects-- tunnel roads and flyovers costing nearly Rs 20,000 crore, white-topping of roads and pothole filling —ignoring citizen’s protests and expert opinions. However, the deputy chief minister undertakes walks interacting with people and later declares that no one can stop him from implementing any project, except God. One hopes the Hon’ble Judges take note. Either way, the people’s voice clearly doesn’t count. 

The newly constituted Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), which has replaced the elected BBMP, has centralised all powers, flouting the constitutional mandate to devolve authority to urban local bodies (ULBs) and vest planning authority in the Metropolitan Planning Committee. That this was done in the absence of an elected local body-- and therefore without consulting grassroots representatives constituting the first tier of governance --undermines the very spirit of democracy.

It is claimed that the GBA is modelled on the Greater London Authority (LGA). There is, however, a fundamental difference between the two. The GLA is an elected body, headed by a mayor directly elected by the people. It functions democratically, presided over by the Greater London Assembly, which acts as a check on the Mayor, ensuring transparency and accountability. The GLA focuses on three key areas -- strategic planning, transport, and policing. The policies of the mayor are detailed in the ‘London Plan’, which is regularly updated and published. The municipal and civic services in the Greater London area are delivered by the 32 London Borough Councils. The GBA, by contrast, is dominated by government nominees, with scant public oversight.

A recent CIVIC Bengaluru Manifesto Report Card paints a bleak picture. Of the 134 promises made by the ruling Congress Party in its manifesto, only 6.7% have been fulfilled. Excluding guarantees, the figure drops to a mere 3.1% across the seven key domains: education, health, mining, forests and environment protection, urban development, Namma Bengaluru, administration and governance. Appallingly, over half the promises (54.5%) show no work started, with the urban development sector faring worst -- 70% of its commitments untouched-- followed by health, administration and governance at 64.3%.

On Bengaluru, the report is damning: “Undemocratic, unplanned, unsustainable” governance -- citing delayed municipal elections and the unconstitutional GBA Act. The state is also staring at a fiscal crisis. For three consecutive years since the launch of guarantees, Karnataka has run a revenue deficit and is dangerously close to breaching the Fiscal Responsibility Act limit, with debt liabilities at 24.9% of GSDP against the prescribed limit of 25%. Unless remedial measures are taken, Karnataka’s reputation for prudent financial management could
be at risk.

Ironically, while Bihar — long seen as dominated by caste politics —in the ongoing election campaigns talks of sushasan (good governance) and samajik nyay (social justice), unemployment and debt traps, Karnataka seems to be regressing. In the 1970s and 1980s, leaders like
Devaraj Urs and Ramakrishna Hegde championed social justice and decentralisation of power.

Today, those ideals appear to have been replaced by caste arithmetic and political expediency -- a telling sign of deteriorating political and ethical standards.

Ethics and integrity are central to accountability and trust in governance. Yet, these values are increasingly absent from political discourse. The Second Administrative Commission, headed by Veerappa Moily, in its report, Ethics in Governance, had recommended an ethical framework for ministers, legislators and the judiciary, following which an Ethics Committee was constituted in the Lok Sabha in 2015 to formulate a code of conduct for its members. The code has yet to see the light of day.

To strengthen accountability and restore public confidence, the Commission’s recommendation to set up Ethics Committees should be extended to the state level as well. Such committees can play a significant role in promoting transparency and reinforcing the foundations of good governance.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)