Gram sabhas' have ceased to
be vibrant spaces for popular participation and effective agencies to hold
government functionaries to account.
Decentralization is a
strategy to empower citizens to control their own destinies. At its core,
decentralization signals that citizen collectives can come together to make
decisions of allocation and expenditure of public resources. ‘Democratic
decentralization’, as practised in India, is where this power is devolved to
elected local governments—this was the spirit of the 73rd and 74th amendments
to the Constitution in 1992-93.
This form of decentralization
sought to break away from the conventional planning processes that did not
involve citizens. Bringing about reforms in such a context required a ‘big
bang’—of the kind attempted in Kerala, where, in 1996, instead of waiting to
gradually create and upgrade the administrative capacity of the local
government officials and elected representatives, the state government decided
to devolve untied funds. The assumption was that these funds would trigger a
wave of local accountability. The devolution was accompanied by a state-wide
people’s campaign to mobilize people to participate in local governance.
In the democratic
decentralization system, gram sabhas were envisaged as key platforms for
popular participation. A quorum was defined for convening a meeting, and they
had to develop by-laws that specified the number of times they were to meet in
a year. Gram sabhas were responsible for catalysing local planning by conducting
‘needs assessment’ exercises, and devising plans for development projects that
would be aggregated at the panchayat level. When further aggregated and
rationalized at the district level, these would become official inputs into the
state government’s annual budgeting process.
This highlights the
importance of the gram sabha as a pivotal institution in local planning.
However, 25 years since the landmark constitutional amendments, their state is
quite different in reality. With low participation, and frequent hijacking by
small but influential interests, gram sabhas have struggled to stay relevant.
The dip in popular participation has had significant implications for the
future of democratic decentralization in India. It is therefore important to
take urgent steps to revive the humble institution.
1. There is a widely shared
perception that gram sabhas are only for discussions on benefits from
individually-targeted government schemes, and the planning process is seen
merely as an exercise in identifying beneficiaries for these schemes. This
needs to be countered by running a widespread awareness campaign where the
development agenda of local governments, and the role of gram sabhas, is
clarified.
2. There is a significant
imbalance of power between local government officials and gram sabha members.
Government officials are supposed to attend key gram sabhas, and communicate
how projects and schemes under their jurisdiction are relevant to communities.
The active participation of these officials, and a clear demonstration that
gram sabha decisions cannot be simply overruled by the local bureaucracy, would
be an important factor in restoring trust. For instance, administrative
sanctions for scheme implementation should not take place without authorization
at the gram sabha level.
3. There is a perception of
rampant corruption by local leaders and elected representatives. The quantum of
funds that flow through local governments, and the reports of misuse, add to
this suspicion, or at least strengthens the perception that local governments
are unable to ensure clean effective spending. Local accountability should be
the central theme that binds every gram sabha. An active state government,
acting as a watchdog, should complement the role of popular participation, and
put pressure on local governments and government officials operating at the
grass roots, from both above and below.
4. In most parts of the
country, self-help groups have put down strong roots. In Kerala, the
Kudumbashree model has demonstrated how these groups can interact with local
government, strengthening, as a result, the spirit of local governance.
5. Finally, when it comes to
gram sabhas, one size does not fit all—not all gram sabhas care about service
delivery issues; there might be ones whose primary concern is the quality of
tertiary health, or educational institutes, or job creation.
The functioning of gram
sabhas is affected by the manner in which agendas are framed for public
meetings, and the levels of involvement of critical actors such as elected
representatives, government officials and subject experts. It is evident that
there is very little scrutiny of the local governments by the state government.
This calls for a more active role from the state government in reforming the
organization and the conduct of gram sabhas to improve popular participation.
This would form the basis for state governments and civil society to hold gram
sabhas and the local government accountable for the delivery of public
services.
In the techno-managerial
framework of development, local governments have become contractors who just
implement schemes designed and funded by those above them. In this process,
gram sabhas have lost their ability to function as vibrant spaces for popular
participation, as well as the ability to function as effective agencies to hold
government functionaries to account. It is this space that gram sabhas need to
regain if the goals of democratic decentralization are to be realized.
Suvojit Chattopadhyay works
on issues of governance and development in South Asia.
Article courtesy:
https://www.livemint.com/