Panchayati Raj: A God that failed

The democratic edifice of India is built by 239544 panchayats represented by 2828779 elected representatives. This constitutional arrangement becomes more complex when we add more conventional institutions, formal and informal, like the khap panchayats in Haryana, pani panchayats in Orissa, vana panchayats in Uttarakhand, caste panchayats in Karnataka, Gavki in Maharashtra and Oor in Tamil Nadu.

All these constitutional and conventional panchayats deal with economic development, social justice, dispute settlement, rural development and social welfare services. A question may arise in this context: have these multiple agencies been working in tandem or encroaching upon each other’s domain? There are conflicts and contradictions in the domain of self-governing institutions when they distribute the slice of the cake to the villagers. For these reasons, they are also called as self-aggrandised governments.

Sadly, the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) have not been successful in inculcating political consciousness among the people. The reasons are not far to seek: financial constraints, lackadaisical bureaucracy, rampant corruption and politicians’ insensitivity.

Echoing his concern, Dr George Mathew, Director, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, lamented that though over three million men and women are elected to the PRIs, they have no idea about their rights and responsibilities. Unless political bodies at all levels including the MPs, the MLAs and government officials take a positive stand, the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act will remain on paper.

The PRIs in India, barring a few exceptions, are growing in size and scale but without the roots. What we witness today is a miasma of cynicism, disillusionment and disappointment. The founding fathers’ intentions are marred by gory killings for gotra, election boycotts in the fear of losing the caste hegemony, auctioning for panchayat positions, violence and pressure to prevent capable candidates from contesting elections for the reserved seats, gross financial irregularities, fraud, corruption, misuse of funds and so on.

This is due largely to a crisis of ethos and culture. The dynamic, honest and committed youths keep off the rural leadership. On seeing this vacuum, leaders capture the helm of affairs whose conduct reflects covetousness, not commitment; avariciousness, not temperance; and collusion with landlords and politicians, not cogitation for genuine empowerment. The rural youths prefer to migrate to cities in search of jobs or reluctantly feast on agricultural income which works as disguised unemployment.

Because of compelling circumstances, they elect representatives as Hobson's choice. These representatives too run around politicians and officials for funds and services in the rural areas. Thus, public interest takes a back seat. Elections will serve little purpose unless people are endowed with resources and authority to steer the machinery of governance.

Over the years, the Centre and the states have set up numerous committees and commissions. These have made recommendations for institutional and procedural reforms. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report on local governance, has considered the core principles of local governance reform. These include subsidiarity, devolution, capacity building, citizen-centricity and accountability. This reform package presents two contradictory viewpoints. One, the policymakers wish to devolve more powers to the PRIs in the name of citizen-centricity (examples: community policing, maintaining public order and resolving local disputes). And two, they have become platforms to perpetuate exploitation and injustice meted out to weaker sections. Both paradoxical roles (anticipated and discharged) are products of two ideological strands and present the superstructure of the PRIs without a structure or base. This implies that the ethical soil propitious for the success of grassroots institutions is yet to be levelled.

The ground reality has not changed much in terms of economic development empowerment and social justice. In other words, there is neither raj nor panchayats with autonomy and independence. These elected representatives of village republics are losing credibility and people’s trust. Their sense of fairness, justice and equity has also become questionable. The cultural terrain of the PRIs, which hitherto neglected all reform measures, needs a second look.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, while speaking on “development with freedom” makes a case for the revival of our old cultural values of good governance. The values enshrined in social capital and signifying trust, cooperation, faith, impartiality and justice at the community level need to be reincarnated if India should become a super power.

Cultural renaissance is the need of the hour. The evidence of such governance culture is vividly seen in the practices and traditions of diverse faiths, sects, religions and philosophies of Indian ruling elites. In addition to devolving funds, functions and functionaries to the PRIs, there is a need to awaken people and free villages from the iniquitous system of poverty, squalor, injustice, factionalism and suspicions between neighbors sharing common streets and fields.

The root cause of the country’s present ills is the culture of misgovernance. And this can be effectively tackled if the Gram Sabhas and Mohalla Committees are rejuvenated by involving people.

The current debate on corruption reminds one of Plato’s utterances. Plato was hostile to democracy because the people lacked expertise and enlightenment to understand governance. Robert M. MacIver calls this situation as “aristocratic fallacy” wherein both the rulers and the ruled are incompetent. The people select a good physician and an able lawyer but not a good representative. Competence and wisdom in governance are rare phenomena.

The Gram Sabha is the place where the first brick of our democratic edifice lies but it remains unnoticed. The potential and power of the people, if tapped properly, can transform the lives of masses in rural areas. Consider three success stories: Odenthurai near Coimbatore for generating environmental-friendly power; Michael Pattinam in Tamil Nadu for rainwater harvesting; and Hivre Bazar near Ahmednagar for environmental preservation, development and communal harmony.

The cumulative effect of these experiments has shown that the Gram Sabha is the gateway to democracy. Today, however, what we witness is the Sarpanch Raj where no effective meetings of Gram Sabhas are convened to assess the performance of Gram Panchayats. And even if these are convened, there is poor attendance.

The Gram Sabhas can act as watchdogs of a committed and accountable democracy. They can supervise and monitor the functioning of the village panchayats and government functionaries. They can also examine the annual statements of accounts and audit reports of the Gram Panchayats prepared for implementing the rural development schemes. Their success varies from state to state. In states like Kerala, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, they are more active and functional but in states like Bihar, they are merely ceremonial bodies.

There is an urgent need to ensure cent per cent attendance in the Gram Sabha meetings. An effective campaign involving the media, students, NGOs, mahila mandals, schools, colleges and NCC will help ensure this.

For efficient resource mobilisation, organic linkages between panchayats, line departments of the state government and the Gram Sabhas have to be evolved. They need experts in micro-level planning in such areas as building community assets, social welfare, social justice, environmental conservation and rural development.

In most states, the Gram Sabhas are only advisory bodies. They should be made the sanctioning authority for taking up any developmental programme at the village level.

The Gram Sabhas should meet at least for four times a year. Maximum decentralisation and transparency will ensure accountability and reduce corruption. The list of beneficiaries, muster rolls, bills, vouchers, accounts, applications for licenses and permits should all be tabled, examined and approved by the Gram Sabhas. If the people are dissatisfied with their representatives, the Gram Sabhas should be endowed with the right of recall.

The Gram Sabhas should be empowered to penalise local bureaucracy for dereliction, embezzlement and fraud. These can provide a direct link between the service providers and service recipients by shortening the long chain of accountability under which crooked civil servants manage to escape punitive action on account of legal plumbing.

The writer is Reader, Department of Public Administration, Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana

Overdue reforms

l The Panchayati Raj institutions (PRIs) hold the key to good governance. Over 70 per cent of India’s population continues to live in the villages and 60 per cent of the nation’s workforce draws its sustenance from agriculture and related activities. This sums up the importance of PRIs.

l The states should re-examine the Gram Panchayat delimitation for greater efficiency in the delivery of services. When small villages are clustered, gains can be expected, but the trade-off could be in terms of larger Gram Sabhas.

l The people’s participation is inversely proportional to the Gram Sabha’s size. Many Gram Panchayats are too small to function as autonomous institutions of local government. To be an economically viable administrative unit, a Gram Panchayat must have a minimum population size.

l When Gram Panchayats are large as in Kerala, West Bengal, Bihar and Assam, states should constitute ward sabhas which will exercise in such panchayats powers and functions of the Gram Sabha and of the Gram Panchayat as may be entrusted to them.

l Panchayats should have their own staff. They should have full powers with regard to recruitment and service conditions of their employees within a broad framework of state laws and certain standards.

l The state governments should not have the power to suspend or rescind any resolution passed by the PRIs or take action against the elected representatives on the ground of abuse of office, corruption, etc. or to supersede/ dissolve the panchayats.

l In all such cases, the powers to investigate and recommend action should lie with the local Ombudsman who will send his report through the Lok Ayukta to the Governor.