HUBLI, Jan 26,2006
Panchayat raj institutions have been caught in vortex of political polemics in Karnataka.
In the hype created over the imminent fall of the Congress JDS government in Karnataka, and new combination of the JDS led by Kumaraswamy the son of Devegowda taking over with the support of the BJP, the poor panchayat raj institutions find themselves totally neglected.
The political cataclysmic changes have been product of the hung verdict given by the electorate in the elections to the zilla and taluk panchayats in Karnataka held in December. But all attention in Karnataka is on when the new combination would assume office in Karnataka rather than how exactly the newly elected members of the taluk and zilla panchayats begin their reign.
To be true, none of the three main line political parties in Karnataka were eager to have panchayat elections. They had tried their best to postpone them. But their efforts were thwarted by the intervention of the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances all were very reluctant players in the elections. Though they had some premonition about the effect of the panchayat verdict on the political scene, none of them even in their wildest dreams had bargained for the wholesale change of political equations in Karnataka. The developments may bring far-reaching changes in the political scenario of Karnataka but have certainly not augured well for the panchayat raj institutions, which are eagerly waiting to begin their five-year reign.
The panchayat elections held in December, it may be noted here mark an important phase in the history of the panchayat raj movement in Karnataka. For the first time the State Government had empowered them both functionally and financially to the extent that an amount of more than Rs. 100 crores on an average is kept for the first time at the disposal of the panchayat raj institutions in each of the 27 districts in Karnataka. Two thirds of the amount would come to the newly elected bodies, the taluk and zilla panchayats and their area of operation are clearly demarcated and funds come to them directly. This is for the first time that these institutions have been given the kind of right and responsibility and financial wherewithal to manage their institutions.
But the problem is that whether they can discharge their obligations fully. The functional and financial empowerment had been introduced formally through the budget with greater infusion of funds to the extent of Rs. 2880 crores. This started from the month of April.
But the bodies whose five-year term expired in June-July have remained under the control of the government appointed administrators. The uncertainty over the elections contributed to the further delay. Only this month the administrators are poised to hand over the charge to the people’s representatives. This means for the first nine months of the financial year, these bodies will not be exercising the powers given to them. How much can they do in the last quarter of financial year remains to be seen.
There are other problems, which need to be straightened out for them. All of them have been put on the backburner as a consequence of the political crisis of the ministry formation. Nobody is there to care or listen to the panchayat institutions as such. (ends)
============00000000000000=============
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
From M Madan Mohan
Panchayat poll: some interesting questions
HUBLI, December 31. 2005
The fractured mandate turned in by the voters of Karnataka at the just concluded elections to the zilla and taluk panchayats has raised some interesting questions.
The electorate in Karnataka had done so nearly twenty months ago in 2004 assembly elections. After nearly twenty months also, there does notnot seem to have any change in their perception of the political parties in Karnataka. The only difference between the two verdicts is that the present one has been the exclusive voice of the rural electorate.
Why should the three main line parties in Karnataka fail to get the mandate, despite all the grandiose plans they have outlined in the manifestos issued on the occasion? Incidentally this was for the first time that the political parties thought fit to come out with separate manifesto for the panchayat elections.
It appears that the result is more a reflection on the failure on the part of the political parties to focus attention on the governanance of the panchayat raj institutions than anything else. Their approach to the poll was skewed since the beginning.
All of them regarded the hustings as an opportunity to gain power rather than demonstrate their commitment to the experiment of decentralization of power, in which the state has been ahead of others in the country. This attitude found myriad expression in the manifestos issued and the speeches made by the leaders during the campaigns.
The parties spoke the new schemes, as if they will not implement if the panchayat elections were not to be held. None of them had the time or inclination to how they would run the panchayat raj institutions, make the best use of powers and finances made available, and encourage participatory approach of the people, which holds key to success of the system. They were also notnot forthcoming how they would like the remove the hurdles in the taking the experiment of decentralization to the logical conclusion.
Of the three main political parties, only BJP chose to make some articulation on this aspect. But its voice but its voice was too weak to be taken note of in view of the party’s lackadaisical approach to the experiment at national and state level.
The biggest tragedy was that of Congress. It is the party, which has expressed at the highest policy making level of its commitment to the decentralization of administration. It is the party, which brought about the much-needed Constitutional Amendment (73rd) to give constitutional status to the pantheist and insulate them against the whims and fancies of the state government with a view to ensuring regular elections.
In Karnataka, it is the Congress, which enacted the first panchayat raj legislation, in tune with the 73rd Constitutional amendment way back in 1993. More than a decade later, it introduced comprehensive amendments to do remove the lacunae.
More importantly, it was during the Dharam Singh took a historic step, which is considered as a major step in empowering the panchayat raj institutions. By an order issued in August 2004, the State Government transferred schemes and funds from the state sector to the district for being implemented by the three-tier panchayat raj system. This arrangement was formalised when the then Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Siddaramaiah introduced the budget.
All this resulted in whopping Rs. 2880 crores being put at the disposal of the zilla, taluk and gram panchayats in the 28 districts of the state. This meant an average of more than Rs. 100 crore being put thedisposal of these institutions for development works. The funds were to be shared at the rate of 39% (zilla panchayats), 28% (taluk panchayats) and 33% (gram panchayats). It was nothing short of a bonanza that had been given to them.
The party in its wisdom chose not to dwell upon its achievements either in the manifesto or in the public speeches made by its leaders.
As a party, which shared the legacy of the undivided Janata Dal, which introduced the panchayat lawin 1983 (which was replaced by the Congress in 1993), the JDS also surprising missed talking about this aspect and talking about its own commitment to the cause.
The panchayat elections in way are purely local election, where much depends on the army of local workers that each party has, rather than its political philosophy or charisma of its leaders. It is in fact an election of workers and not of leaders.
Under the circumstances, the measure of success depends on the type and quality of the workers at the level for each of the political parties. It was here that the Congress proved that it had comparatively a better brigade than others. But the most disconcerting aspect for the party is that the size of its local army of workers is shrinking. And this certainly is not a good augury for the future.
. Eom 9:29 AM 31-Dec-05
Panchayat poll: some interesting questions
HUBLI, December 31. 2005
The fractured mandate turned in by the voters of Karnataka at the just concluded elections to the zilla and taluk panchayats has raised some interesting questions.
The electorate in Karnataka had done so nearly twenty months ago in 2004 assembly elections. After nearly twenty months also, there does notnot seem to have any change in their perception of the political parties in Karnataka. The only difference between the two verdicts is that the present one has been the exclusive voice of the rural electorate.
Why should the three main line parties in Karnataka fail to get the mandate, despite all the grandiose plans they have outlined in the manifestos issued on the occasion? Incidentally this was for the first time that the political parties thought fit to come out with separate manifesto for the panchayat elections.
It appears that the result is more a reflection on the failure on the part of the political parties to focus attention on the governanance of the panchayat raj institutions than anything else. Their approach to the poll was skewed since the beginning.
All of them regarded the hustings as an opportunity to gain power rather than demonstrate their commitment to the experiment of decentralization of power, in which the state has been ahead of others in the country. This attitude found myriad expression in the manifestos issued and the speeches made by the leaders during the campaigns.
The parties spoke the new schemes, as if they will not implement if the panchayat elections were not to be held. None of them had the time or inclination to how they would run the panchayat raj institutions, make the best use of powers and finances made available, and encourage participatory approach of the people, which holds key to success of the system. They were also notnot forthcoming how they would like the remove the hurdles in the taking the experiment of decentralization to the logical conclusion.
Of the three main political parties, only BJP chose to make some articulation on this aspect. But its voice but its voice was too weak to be taken note of in view of the party’s lackadaisical approach to the experiment at national and state level.
The biggest tragedy was that of Congress. It is the party, which has expressed at the highest policy making level of its commitment to the decentralization of administration. It is the party, which brought about the much-needed Constitutional Amendment (73rd) to give constitutional status to the pantheist and insulate them against the whims and fancies of the state government with a view to ensuring regular elections.
In Karnataka, it is the Congress, which enacted the first panchayat raj legislation, in tune with the 73rd Constitutional amendment way back in 1993. More than a decade later, it introduced comprehensive amendments to do remove the lacunae.
More importantly, it was during the Dharam Singh took a historic step, which is considered as a major step in empowering the panchayat raj institutions. By an order issued in August 2004, the State Government transferred schemes and funds from the state sector to the district for being implemented by the three-tier panchayat raj system. This arrangement was formalised when the then Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Siddaramaiah introduced the budget.
All this resulted in whopping Rs. 2880 crores being put at the disposal of the zilla, taluk and gram panchayats in the 28 districts of the state. This meant an average of more than Rs. 100 crore being put thedisposal of these institutions for development works. The funds were to be shared at the rate of 39% (zilla panchayats), 28% (taluk panchayats) and 33% (gram panchayats). It was nothing short of a bonanza that had been given to them.
The party in its wisdom chose not to dwell upon its achievements either in the manifesto or in the public speeches made by its leaders.
As a party, which shared the legacy of the undivided Janata Dal, which introduced the panchayat lawin 1983 (which was replaced by the Congress in 1993), the JDS also surprising missed talking about this aspect and talking about its own commitment to the cause.
The panchayat elections in way are purely local election, where much depends on the army of local workers that each party has, rather than its political philosophy or charisma of its leaders. It is in fact an election of workers and not of leaders.
Under the circumstances, the measure of success depends on the type and quality of the workers at the level for each of the political parties. It was here that the Congress proved that it had comparatively a better brigade than others. But the most disconcerting aspect for the party is that the size of its local army of workers is shrinking. And this certainly is not a good augury for the future.
. Eom 9:29 AM 31-Dec-05
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
