|
Open Forum
New
Delhi, 9 September 2016
Democracy
& Decentralisation
PEOPLE-CENTRIC
PLANNING VITAL
By Dhurjati
Mukherjee
Strengthening democracy was at one
time very much in the air as it was perceived that such an approach would
benefit the masses. A decentralised set-up having strong democratic
institutions was obviously the broad strategy to achieve a truly representative
and better governance approach. However, though the 73rd and 74th
amendments were adopted to promote grass-root democracy, there are grave doubts
whether a decentralised democratic framework exists in the country today.
As is generally agreed, democratic decentralisation
enriches individual autonomy and freedom, participation and deliberation which
some would regard as an important part of the development process. In fact, the
decentralised democratic process is perceived to enhance development i.e.
development for the masses, who comprise around two-third of India’s
population. But it is well known that development in the country has been
lopsided, resulting in violent and non-violent protests at different points of
time. In recent times, be it the Jats of Haryana, the Patidars of Gujarat
and Dalits and Muslims across States, they are up in arms at some point or the
other.
Political analysts believe, and not
without reason that decentralisation has not yet become effective in any
significant manner. This is obviously due to the fact that municipalities and
panchayats are not quite representative, being captured by local elites, on the
one hand, and have very little decision-making power and authority, on the
other.
In understanding decentralization,
one may refer to the World Bank, which observed that this can best be
understood as a political process in the sense of the devolution of resources,
tasks and decision-making power to democratically elected lower-level
authorities, which are largely or wholly independent of central government
(World Bank, 2000). It is rational to argue that decentralisation facilitates
time-specific and location-specific knowledge to implement policies that
influence and take care of people’s welfare.
Decentralisation in political,
fiscal, and economic systems affects development outcomes in a number of ways
and specially the livelihoods of people. Thus decentralised provision of social
and physical infrastructures should correspond with the diverse demand
conditions in different regions and match their resource endowments better than
central provision. Even with regard to the provision of quasi-public goods,
identification of target groups of beneficiaries is easier and implementation
of policies more effective when undertaken by decentralised governmental units.
While there is a cry against
centralization of power by the Centre, this is also the fact with the
panchayats. Thus, the involvement of the people is hardly manifest in our
democratic framework and the result of this has been the outbreak of different
types of movements and protests, which have intensified in recent times. But
are the political leaders interested to know the views of the aam janata (general public) and involve
them in the development process? If they think otherwise the consequences
would be dangerous in the coming years.
Let us take the case of Manipur
where Iron Sharmila rightly decided to call off her 16-year- old fast as this
did not yield any tangible result of repealing the Armed Forces (Special
Powers) Act (AFSPA). The decision is a clear rebuttal of the non-violent
movement against a rather authoritarian
government. Reports also indicate that though the people of the State wanted
the repeal of the Act, the centralized Central government refused to adhere to
it.
One may refer here that the Centre
appointed a five-member committee way back in 2004 under a former Supreme Court
Judge BP Jeevan Reddy, which included a former Lieutenant General, to view the
Act and consider repeal or possible replacement by a more humane legislation.
On June 6, 2005, the committee recommended in its 147-page report the repealing
of the Act unanimously. But even this recommendation was not adhered to by the
government which wanted to continue using military force against citizens of
the country. Reports indicate that many a military officer with long years of
experience in the North-East has argued after retirement that it should be
repealed.
If democratic decentralisation has
to become a reality, such Acts need to be repealed. The strategy of using force
cannot be sustained for long and cannot win the confidence of the people, who
are generally not involved in insurgency. It is believed by political
scientists that the repeal should be seen as the first step in an effort to
create a more effective counter insurgency capability that draws more on
information technology, psychological operations, political persuasion through
personal contacts and conflict resolution.
Though we talk loudly about India being the
world’s largest democracy, the number of people actively involved in the
democratic process – except casting votes -- is quite few. Most grass-root
organizations i.e. the municipalities and panchayats do not have much say in
the planning and implementation of projects which are normally thrust from
above. The involvement of the masses, which Gandhiji visualized, has not taken
affect even till now though the 73rd and 74th
Constitutional amendments bills have been passed long ago, conferring
constitutional status on rural local governments.
It goes without saying that power
and wealth should not be concentrated in the hands of the State – ruled by a
few people of a particular political party or group but not representing the
wishes and aspirations of all – but equally vested from the bottom to the top.
A bottom-up approach is obviously the answer to ensure that development
reaches the masses and is planned and executed by them for maximum
benefits. This may steadily help in narrowing up the widening gap in
incomes between the richer and the poorer sections of society and also between
the urban and the rural sectors of the country.
Thus, decentralised economic and
political power, in the true sense, would have to be brought about leading to a
civilization that would carry forward human progress in the right direction.
The people should be the centre of focus and their basic needs and demands the
only consideration. And this would obviously be considered a sustainable and
inclusive approach with the majority benefitting from development. A synthesis
of economics and ethics is what can be called a truly Gandhian socio-economic decentralised
order whose relevance is not only of our times but of all times and not only in
India but in all countries
of the Third World. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|
Archives 
