Not So Local Government
Context:
- In 2023, the 73rd and 74th Amendments were adopted. To advance democracy at the grassroots level, the constitution has been altered.
- Yet, the political system has a tendency towards centralization that threatens the notion of local government as well as the objective of enhancing democracy by creating institutions of inclusive governance.
Defeat to the Decentralization Idea:
- Notwithstanding the state’s performative devotion to the idea, decentralisation has always been at the mercy of a number of opposing impulses.
- There was an initial belief that centralised power would be required to reduce the influence of local elites, despite the fact that there is little evidence to support the notion that the outcomes of decentralisation would have been worse than what we ultimately obtained.
- The existing national and state governments wanted to keep the majority of the resources for themselves.
- India has the lowest local government spending relative to its overall resources. Surprisingly, the Gandhian theory of political decentralisation was in opposition to real decentralisation.
What is decentralisation, and why is it important?
- Decentralization did not involve the distribution of power or income. It was the creation of an idealised world above politics, one that would keep it out of the common political conflicts and back-and-forth.
- Compared to other levels of government, local government would be subject to greater demands.
- But, we intuitively foresaw that panchayats would serve as this centre of unanimity (some states give incentives for election by consensus). Nevertheless, it must be admitted that there was little to no demand-side impetus for decentralisation.
- The 73rd and 74th amendments made significant progress.
- They created spaces for deliberation, they gave millions of people identities as representatives, they facilitated the transfer of power, they sparked the emergence of new standards, particularly in relation to the participation of women, and they in some cases changed the composition of local elites. They led to the progressive expansion of municipal capability and the transfer of numerous functions to local government.
City government issues:
- Local governments are criticised as being ineffective, whereas higher levels of government are thought to be in better shape.
- Contrary to popular belief, however, the state is regularly let down by a lack of funding and support from above, despite being competent at the local level.
- Paradoxically, in part due of NREGA and greater finance commission grants, the quantity of financial resources within the jurisdiction of local governments increased dramatically.
- Disorders related to municipal elections were viewed by some as proof of their success. It was a subtle acknowledgment to the stakes involved in local administration that local political competition became robust in many jurisdictions and that political spending in local elections occasionally reached ludicrous heights.
- Their significance is limited by the local government’s role as merely administrative conduits rather than independent political actors, the limitations placed on them by a combination of bureaucratic control and deliberate underinvestment in capacity, and the lack of political pathways for successful panchayat performers to advance in their parties.
Decentralization proponents emphasise the following issues:
- First, notwithstanding the significant changes brought about by the 73rd and 74th amendments, has there been much progress on the demand side for decentralisation?
- Which movement or group will be the most supportive of local government? Or will whatever incremental changes we make be, like in 1993, the outcome of unintended coincidences that disappear at the first hint of opposition?
- Oddly enough, municipal governments rarely desire to exercise their power even when they have it.
- Second, decentralisation was supported by a faith in institutions. They were created with the intention of acting as the pathways for inclusive development and active citizenry.
- This aphorism came to be because inclusive growth is impossible without inclusive governance. It was a part of a variety of reforms intended to revamp the organisational structure of the Indian state.
- Decentralization would be preferred over centralization, transparency over secrecy (thus the RTI Act), independent regulators over administrative discretion, local capability over concentrated authority, and active involvement over subject status.
- Believing in the strength of institutions at this time in history seems foolish; institutions are helpless against organised social and ideological forces.
Conclusion:
- As the 30 years of constitutional change for PRIs come to an end, the highest number of elected members, the largest political affirmative action programme, the largest number of village assemblies, and other world-beating achievements will all be crossed off.
- These achievements are real. But this discussion will reveal a lot about our attitudes about democracy: while we find the idea intriguing, we will use every effort to keep it from degenerating into a circus. When democracy is not taken seriously, the 73rd and 74th Amendments are not taken seriously either.
