Frequent change of guard in local bodies across the State has broken the continuity of governance and derailed their development initiatives.
After the elections held in 2010, nearly 25 per cent of the district, block and grama panchayats have undergone changes at the helm. The figure is likely to touch 50 per cent in the remaining years of their term.
The latest in the series was witnessed at the Anchal panchayat in Kollam, where the United Democratic Front (UDF) lost power because of internal dissensions.
Among the district panchayats, seven, or half, got new presidents and five vice-presidents. Pre-election agreements among the front allies and factions within the Congress were the main reasons for the change in the district panchayats.
But the change of 244 presidents and 204 vice-presidents of grama panchayats and 49 presidents and 37 vice-presidents of block panchayats is largely being attributed to shifting group loyalties, personal differences of opinion, defection for personal gains and wafer-thin majorities.
The State Election Commission disqualified 50 members who acted as facilitators for leadership change under the provisions of the Anti-Defection Act.
The UDF, especially the Congress, was the major loser from the changes at the helm. Members of the warring factions in the Congress either defected to the rival camp or abstained from the election processes, facilitating easy wins for the Left Democratic Front (LDF). Instances of differences between the CPI and the CPI(M) and factionalism within the CPI(M) have also been cited. But those are negligible compared with what had happened in the UDF.
Official sources told The Hindu here that Malappuram had set a record by re-electing 41 grama panchayat presidents and 16 block panchayat presidents. Kollam stood second with the re-election of 27 grama panchayat vice-presidents. Defections were fewer in Kasargod.
A leadership change has far-reaching consequences. Since local bodies are handing a lion’s share of the Plan funds and are acting as the fulcrum of the development process, upsetting governance will bring all such activities to a standstill. Acclimatisation with the projects will be a tough and time-consuming proposition for the new leadership. This will prove costly for the beneficiaries as it will slow down project execution and lead to cost escalation. The committees will be forced to shelve projects.
The leadership change also means a thorough shift in priorities. Again the beneficiaries, especially the marginalised sections which rely on the local bodies for housing, drinking water supply and power connections, will be at the receiving end. In the absence of effective follow-up and timely action, their requests will go unheeded. The same applies in the case of apportioning of Plan funds and giving preferential treatment to wards. Rare cases of smooth power transfer are also there.
The best instance is in the Vilappil panchayat which has been waging a relentless battle against the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to get a solid-waste management plant in its limits shut down. Sunitha Kumari, who took over as president, has expressed her resolve to continue the agitation spearheaded by her precursor, Shobana Kumari. But these are rare exceptions and mostly the new leaders tend to go for a thorough change.
The State Election Commission too has to spend substantial sums for holding the elections. The meeting for electing a president or vice-president is held by the returning officer of the local body concerned. The officer will have to be assigned for the task on special duty. He or she will have to serve a week’s notice for starting the procedures. It does not improve the quality of governance or prove to be of any good to the voters. Given the factionalism and differences of opinion in political parties, the process is bound to continue till the end of the tenure.
