One of the solutions for delivery of public services and development that is being considered and is being implemented across the country is decentralised governance. It is based on the assumption that individuals will want to and can have a say in determining their life and will be interested in and capable of making sure that the services and facilities due to them are in fact available. Whether it be educating their children or building a road to their village, it is assumed that beneficiaries can and will want to make sure that the work is done and will take the effort to monitor or implement these programmes.
What this means is that democracy is limited not just to voting our representatives at various levels, but also in taking an active part in deciding and monitoring what they do while in power and ensuring access to decision-making. Is this a concept that we are ready for? Is this assuming too much? I am not sure since I have not studied this matter, but there are certain doubts on this model of governance or a naive assumption that this will solve everything. I am not ridiculing the idea nor am I suggesting a return to centralised model, but we need to approach this with caution and ensure accountability and transparency while embracing decentralised governance.
If devolution and decentralisation are to work, then there has to be individuals interested in taking up the responsibilities associated with this. For this to happen, these individuals should also be able to devote time and effort for this purpose and this is the responsibility of our panchayat representatives. But then is representation fully fair? In spite of SC/ST and women's reservation, it has been found that these representatives are on many occasions controlled by upper castes and women controlled by their husbands. This defeats the purpose of reservation and the voices of those who require public services the most might not be even part of the decision making process.
In this system, gram sabha is the arena where the panchayat members are held accountable. But if not everyone is aware of how the work is being implemented and cannot devote time to see if the schools are functioning or roads are built properly and cannot attend gram sabha meetings, since they are busy fending for themselves and ensuring their daily survival, how is accountability ensured?
Another assumption is about the skills of the elected representatives who are responsible for planning and implementation of several programmes. There are attempts to overcome this through several training and capacity building schemes, but in their five year tenure, significant time will go towards this and due to rotation of reserved seats, most of them will not be able to contest the next cycle of elections.
If individuals are not educated enough to know the power of each individual and develop their capabilities to contribute, to monitor and hold their representatives accountable through direct meetings and if their social position is a barrier to being granted access and contribute to decision-making, how can devolution and decentralisation ensure good governance? On top of this, there is also the issue of interest and motivation for each of us to take the time and effort to make the system work.
Education, access to levels of decision making, accountability, transparency and public scrutiny is essential to make decentralisation and devolution of powers work towards development and better delivery of public services. This does not mean that we have to wait till the entire population is literate, but it has to be a virtuous circle of greater public scrutiny ensuring better facilities for the people which in turn increases public interest in and accountability of the system.
What this means is that democracy is limited not just to voting our representatives at various levels, but also in taking an active part in deciding and monitoring what they do while in power and ensuring access to decision-making. Is this a concept that we are ready for? Is this assuming too much? I am not sure since I have not studied this matter, but there are certain doubts on this model of governance or a naive assumption that this will solve everything. I am not ridiculing the idea nor am I suggesting a return to centralised model, but we need to approach this with caution and ensure accountability and transparency while embracing decentralised governance.
If devolution and decentralisation are to work, then there has to be individuals interested in taking up the responsibilities associated with this. For this to happen, these individuals should also be able to devote time and effort for this purpose and this is the responsibility of our panchayat representatives. But then is representation fully fair? In spite of SC/ST and women's reservation, it has been found that these representatives are on many occasions controlled by upper castes and women controlled by their husbands. This defeats the purpose of reservation and the voices of those who require public services the most might not be even part of the decision making process.
In this system, gram sabha is the arena where the panchayat members are held accountable. But if not everyone is aware of how the work is being implemented and cannot devote time to see if the schools are functioning or roads are built properly and cannot attend gram sabha meetings, since they are busy fending for themselves and ensuring their daily survival, how is accountability ensured?
Another assumption is about the skills of the elected representatives who are responsible for planning and implementation of several programmes. There are attempts to overcome this through several training and capacity building schemes, but in their five year tenure, significant time will go towards this and due to rotation of reserved seats, most of them will not be able to contest the next cycle of elections.
If individuals are not educated enough to know the power of each individual and develop their capabilities to contribute, to monitor and hold their representatives accountable through direct meetings and if their social position is a barrier to being granted access and contribute to decision-making, how can devolution and decentralisation ensure good governance? On top of this, there is also the issue of interest and motivation for each of us to take the time and effort to make the system work.
Education, access to levels of decision making, accountability, transparency and public scrutiny is essential to make decentralisation and devolution of powers work towards development and better delivery of public services. This does not mean that we have to wait till the entire population is literate, but it has to be a virtuous circle of greater public scrutiny ensuring better facilities for the people which in turn increases public interest in and accountability of the system.
1 comment:
I am tempted to quote Montesquieu again - apathy of the citizen. But that does seem like the case.
LSG institutions have extremely low visibility and presence in the public discourse, whereas the answer to a lot of problems lie with strengthening them.
Everybody is talking about devloving more powers, but how about devolving more responsibilities as well?
At the risk of sounding very naive, this is my take on decentralisation - give them functions, (also funds and functionaries), make them responsible, get the common man on the ground to voice his opinion about how his local affairs are being managed, why the garbage in front of his house stays there, why the roads are pathetic and things will begin to change.
Post a Comment