The State Government’s move to abolish direct elections to the prestigious post of Mayor of Municipal Corporations and empower councillors to elect a Mayor has come as a surprise.
Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill introduced to amend the law in the Assembly state that in certain councils of Municipal Corporations, Mayors do not enjoy the support of councillors, Tamil Nadu has not witnessed any known case of rebellion against any of its 12 Mayors in the last five years. The AIADMK enjoys a majority in all Municipal Corporations.
The only case where a Mayor did not get the cooperation of councillors was in 2001 when DMK leader M.K. Stalin was elected to the post in Chennai but his party did not have a majority in the council. This has prompted the DMK to go in for indirect elections in 2006.
Considering that it was the AIADMK Government which restored the direct elections five years ago, it is not clear what compelling reasons have forced the latest move. Likewise, it is rather strange that the DMK is now opposing the Bill.
Opinion is, however, divided on the move.
‘Connect with the masses’Retired IAS officer M.G. Devasahayam feels the Mayor in a city should be elected directly, as the requirements of urban local bodies, particularly in terms of governance and administration, are different those of rural local bodies.
P. Sattanathan, former Chairman of the Sengottai Municipality, also strongly advocated direct election to local bodies, saying it alone would ensure election of a person who had direct contact with people though he agreed that councillors in all local bodies had become trouble makers.
However, another retired civil servant who had worked in the Municipal Administration Department says an indirect election is better because a directly elected Mayor cannot do much either because of lack of majority in the Corporation Council or if the State government does not allow the elected head to function.
“The Mayor’s post itself is an anomaly. In a city like Chennai, three parliamentary constituencies fall under the Council’s area, but the holder of the post really has no power when compared to the MPs,” the former official said.
It is better if the elected councillors choose the Mayor, although the flip side is the emergence of factionalism. However, this would have to be managed politically, he said.
An indirect election may not augur well for smaller political parties that seek to contest the local bodies polls in the company of bigger parties. Unlike in direct elections, where the smaller parties would be allotted mayoral seats in a pre-poll pact, in an indirect election, the larger parties may renege on their promise of supporting the mayoral candidates of allies in the post-election scenario. This was witnessed in 2006, when councillors of the DMK resorted to cross-voting, leading to the defeat of chairman candidates of allies including those of the PMK in several municipalities.
An advantage of an indirect election is that in case the Mayor resigns midway of his/her term – like in Coimbatore, Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli two years ago – the State need not waste money in conducting fresh direct mayoral elections. Instead, the councillors could elect a new Mayor.
