Twenty-five years after the passage of the Panchayati Raj Act in 1993, there are no celebrations anywhere. Neither the Union nor the State governments appears to have realised the import of the moment, or to take a closer look at where democratic decentralisation proved a success and where it failed.
The Constitution 73rd and 74th amendments were introduced in Parliament by the Narasimha Rao government in September 1991 as two separate Bills: the 72nd Amendment Bill for rural local bodies (also known as panchayats) and the 73rd Amendment Bill for municipalities. They were referred to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament and were ultimately passed as the 73rd and 74th Amendment Bills in December, 1992. After the bills were ratified by the Sate Legislatures of more than half the States, the President gave his assent on April 20, 1993. The Panchayati Raj Act became effective on April 24, 1993, and the Nagarpalika Act) on June 1, 1993.
Kerala has the distinction of being in the forefront of implementing the two Acts with State-level legislations and follow-up actions that sought to go beyond the Constitution Amendment Acts. Kerala could, indeed, make some remarkable strides in decentralised governance, setting an example for the other States with the People’s Plan Campaign launched in 1996. However, a lot more needs to be done to tone up the movement that had waned for want of political patronage and progressed in fits and starts during the past nearly 25 years.
“Among the States, Kerala stands well above the rest in terms of achievements in responsive and responsible local democracy. However, although the People’s Plan Campaign had attracted worldwide attention, it had weakened over the years and there was a remarkable return of bureaucracy. Even so, some of the efforts made in recent times such as the tracking of 14 district plans are notable experiments,” says Fourth State Finance Commission chairman M.A. Oommen.
The State’s gains in decentralised planning and governance could well be attributed to the recommendations of the Satyabrata Sen Committee. Grama sabhas and ward sabhas became the fulcrum of the development process. Local bodies became independent local governments and the threat of the State government dissolving them on political grounds became a thing of the past. The LSGD Tribunal was constituted to review such decisions and the institution of Ombudsman for the local governments was set up to check graft. District Planning Committees were made the secretariats for preparing and implementing district plans.
Good start
The initial phase of the campaign saw a surge in development activities beyond politics. The local bodies in the northern districts, mostly led by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML), were on a par with those led by the LDF in formulating and implementing schemes and projects. The second stage saw the organisation of development seminars, followed by formation of Task Forces for project preparation. Based on the inputs from the grama sabhas and ward sabhas, the Task Forces prepared development reports in the format suggested by the Planning Board. But most of the Task Forces could not function as expected and the fund absorption remained at 10%.
There were also other shortcomings such as duplication of projects, spurt in ‘deposit’ works. Inexperience of the elected members and staff of local governments in handling huge volume of funds and in executing projects became evident as the days wore on. Traditional governance methodology had to be revisited at every turn and orders issued to enable the local governments to move forward towards their aspirational goals. On top of all this came allegations of graft against elected representatives and the practice of doling out benefits to individuals.
The movement, which came under pressure from within the political executive under Left Democratic Front (LDF) rule, faced a crisis with the United Democratic Front (UDF) government assuming office in 2001. Chief Minister A.K. Antony remained a strong votary of the idea of decentralisation, but sections within the UDF were unhappy with the whole project. Over the past one decade, the decentralisation agenda has got slowly pushed to the back burner, the local governments getting to play only a secondary role in the overall governance project.
Two significant developments relating to the local governments in recent times is the present government’s decision to get them to play an active role in the implementation of its various missions and to ensure launch and execution of local Plans within the specified financial years. “The effort to launch and execute local plans within a given fiscal year can promise speedy progress in the implementation of decentralised plans. Kerala needs to convert local governance into the fulcrum of development politics for better delivery of services and an inspiring engagement with democracy. Wrong political interventions can be counter-productive here,” warns Dr. Oommen.
