People-centric planning vital

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.

---

Highlights:

• Better governance needs decentralised setup with strong democratic institutions
• Decentralised democracy promotes development of masses
• Political analysts in India beleivbelievedecentralisation is not yet fully affective

---

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.

By: Dhurjati Mukherjee
Source:INFA