In the late 1990s, I found myself in the green expanse of Kerala's northern district of Thrissur as part of a fact-finding team trying to feel the pulse of a decentralisation beast that had already taken on a life of its own in the state. As the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (CAAs) that bestowed local governments with the legal sanctity to be de facto third tiers of government were ratified by the parliament in 1993, it was least expected that Indian states would make a beeline to implement this in letter and spirit. As states perfunctorily grappled with the landmark amendments, most of them chose to bide their time, even in giving them any modicum of seriousness, while a handful of others hit the ground running to empower their citizens to be part of the decision-making process. Kerala belonged to the latter, where the state government had the robust Peoples' Plan Campaign (1996 onwards) already underway that took the idea and power of democratic decentralisation into the consciousness of its citizens. It was the only state that had hitched its wagon stoically behind the decentralisation agenda, transferring all the 29 functions that the CAA mandated to be under the control of panchayats, while it internalised the "big bang" approach in getting the requisite funding and people to implement these critical aspects through the local governments. Kerala, along with Karnataka and West Bengal, came to be heralded as the triumvirate that ploughed the lonely furrow to take 'power to the people'.
30 Years On, Still A Pipe Dream?
The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act sought to have village assemblies or the Gram Sabha as the core democratic unit in rural areas. It primarily mandated a three-tier panchayat system at the village (Gram Panchayat), at the intermediate level (Block or Taluk) and the district (Zilla Panchayat), with reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and women. The states also had the mandate to hold local government elections to the three tiers every five years through the establishment of an independent State Election Commission. To enable PRIs to receive adequate funding, State Finance Commissions also needed to be instituted. The Act also provided for the legislation of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, for the scheduled areas located in eight states of the country.
Needless to say, some states utilised the Act as a springboard to devise a decentralised framework through which services could be delivered to citizens through the panchayats as de facto institutions of self-government. States like Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Odisha went ahead and proactively worked to carry out experiments in decentralisation, ably complemented by key sectoral departments. Apart from the troika of Kerala, Karnataka, and West Bengal, a few states managed to harness the power of people's planning, but these could not be sustained. More than 20 states went on to increase the representation of women to 50 per cent, as against the 33 per cent reservation that was mandated by the Act. Best practices and locally-led innovations in governance from states saw them being studied and adapted by watchful South Asian neighbours as they marvelled at common citizens being part of the planning and decision-making process. This, however, required enormous steadfastness, both in terms of devolving finances and sharing power as state departments grudgingly went about these tasks. It also meant that a mammoth exercise of capacity-building had to be initiated for both the officials who had been transferred to the local tiers and the newly elected people's representatives who were thrown neck-deep into the planning and decision-making process. Many states found these challenges difficult to surmount, losing out on the spirit of the thinking and deliberations behind the amendments.
The "May" And The "Shall" Up Against Bureaucracy's Steel Frame
The vagueness of the wording of the Amendment led to its lazy, almost arbitrary reading by the states. Many indulged in rhetorical crusades of delivering its promise, mostly flatteringly deceiving. In this space, civil society, NGOs, and people's movements took on the cudgels on behalf of the panchayats against a dithering state. They worked with partners and allies to bring the revolution of deepening democracy to the grassroots. What many did not contend with at that time was the bulwark of the country's bureaucratic steel frame that the idea of grassroots democracy would have to work with. Legislations, government orders, and notifications soon became the order of the day as state panchayat and rural development ministries scrambled to coordinate with other sectoral ministries, especially finance, to implement poverty alleviation programs, rural housing, drinking water, primary health centres, primary and secondary schools, women and child development, and sanitation functions. Gradually, the local governments were implementing central and state-sponsored schemes that were tied to specific conditions, reducing their ambit to just doing the bidding of what the states or the centre required them to do. This led to ring-fencing the authority and freedom of the local governments, and any locally devised projects or services depended on how much "untied" financial resources they had. What further exacerbated the situation was the poor local resource mobilization in terms of the collection of own-source revenue that panchayats across states had to struggle with. The onslaught from higher levels of government that local governments had to contend with was not small; ranging from clawback of their duly mandated responsibilities and powers to the infiltration of MLAs and MPs into local realms of their governance architecture that subverted the spirit and idea behind the constitutional amendments. There were also doubts if India was ever really serious about building local governments as the third tier of the federal structure by constraining the remit of local governments.
Need For Local Governments To Evolve As Autonomous Entities
It has been three decades since the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment acts came into being. Local governments being merely viewed as passive recipients of policies and programmes emanating from higher levels of government cannot be the name of the game. Enabling them as a key level of government is critical. Today, globally, local governments are at the centre stage in innovative and partnering roles contributing to shared working to address contemporary challenges. Here, it is imperative to take rapid strides to enable local governments to move away from first-generation problems that they still grapple with. Trust in government is a crucial aspect of the governance relationship between the state and citizens. One of the key attributes that PRIs could potentially foster among the local communities and citizens acting as a last-mile service delivery mechanism is building trust between them and their elected representatives. This aspect assumes even greater significance in times of unexpected crises such as the pandemic or natural disasters, with examples on the ground illuminating this. It is also the time when the roles and responsibilities of local governments in supporting and strengthening state emergency measures, in evolving locally adapted solutions, and in drawing on the synergies with local groups and institutions hold immense significance. It is noteworthy that during the pandemic, central and state governments intentionally engaged with local governments to formulate mechanisms to roll out relief, welfare, and emergency measures. Yet, this will be effective only when local governments are strengthened and capacitated on a sustained basis so that they are well-equipped to deal with the crisis efficiently at the local level. Thirty years on, a fundamental shift in the way we think about the potential of local governments is direly needed.
(Anand Mathew is based in New Delhi.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author.