Panchayats powerless in A.P.

By George Mathew

WHEN THE World Bank President, Mr. James D. Wolfensohn, visited Andhra Pradesh in November 2000 a briefing note on the State prepared by the Bank team stated that the Chief Minister, Mr. N. Chandrababu Naidu, was India's leading State reformer. The document further said: ``Naidu's popularity will be tested soon in the upcoming elections for rural local bodies (panchayats). These elections were originally scheduled to be held in October but the political fallout from the power reforms may have influenced Naidu to postpone them.''

The most disturbing aspect of this statement is that even today - after eight years of their becoming constitutional bodies under Part IX of the Constitution - elections to panchayats rest on the will and pleasure of the Chief Minister. The TDP Government had about nine months earlier in February 2000 also postponed elections to the other two tiers of panchayats - zilla and mandal parishads - and these have not yet been held although more than a year has elapsed.

As there is no political will and scarce respect for the Constitutional mandate, the process of throttling democratic local institutions is easy. Just promulgate an ordinance placing zilla and mandal parishads under administrators, although the Constitution does not permit such a measure. The reason? The Andhra Pradesh Assembly had requested the Centre to amend Article 243(c) of the Constitution and till then the State would not have elected zilla or mandal Parishads. Can anyone think of a more flimsy ground for postponing the panchayat elections? The ordinance lapsed and the 87th Constitution Amendment introduced in Parliament to amend Article 243(c) was not even taken up for discussion.

In the face of the onslaught on the Constitution by the politicians in power, politically conscious citizens did not spare the TDP Government. Several writs were filed against the Andhra Pradesh Government for violation of the Constitution. The High Court directed that the elections be completed by May 31, 2000. But the State Government did not relent. It went in appeal to the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the High Court verdict and directed that elections to zilla and mandal parishads must be held by March 31, 2001.

Meanwhile the village panchayat elections were due in October 2000. So the easiest way to tackle this problem was to catch the clause 243(d)(6) on OBCs which has given powers to the State Legislatures for making reservation for backward class persons for seats and posts of chairperson of panchayats. This clause had been misused since 1993 by every ruling party which did not want to face panchayat elections. Who is a backward class citizen in a State? There is no census of such citizens or nationally accepted criteria for identifying them. So we open a pandora's box through this clause and it comes as a godsend for postponing elections. Parliament must take up this issue seriously and delete clause 6 of Article 243(d).

The powers that be saw to it that writ petitions were filed challenging the above clause and also questioning the method in which seats were reserved. The High Court granted this plea and gave time till May 31 to identify the OBC population in a scientific way. But the question is what were the petitioners doing in the last five years? Why wait till election eve? Where was the Government which has proclaimed its motto of governance as `smart' (simple, moral, accountable, responsive, transparent) based on `e-governance' all these years?

More shocking is the place the Government led by Mr. Naidu has given to panchayats in the Andhra Pradesh Vision 2020. In the 352-page document, panchayati raj institutions are dismissed in one paragraph. The TDP has totally misunderstood decentralisation as envisaged in the 73rd and 74th Amendments as it declared that the ``State is determined to strengthen its administration through responsible management by panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) and community organisations'' (p.325). Sorry Mr. Naidu, you cannot equate PRIs with community organisations because the Constitution has defined PRIs as institutions of self-government in Article 243(g), and for all practical purposes it is the third stratum of governance in the country.

Contrast Mr. Naidu's understanding of panchayati raj today with that of the TDP in 1984 about nine years before the enactment of the 73rd Constitution Amendment. The TDP manifesto in 1984 stated, ``Telugu Desam will work for directly elected district administration forming a third tier in the country's federal polity with proper constitutional backing so that people may have democratic self-government at local level, not under the district bureaucracy but over ..... and finally district government should come to stay'' (p.14). It must be said to the credit of the TDP that when it ruled the State in the 1980s, Andhra Pradesh tried to evolve its own system of local government without borrowing much from West Bengal or Karnataka with the aim of taking self- government institutions to the poorest of the poor. But for more than a year the present TDP leadership has placed PRIs under administrators.

Everyone was concerned as to what the Andhra Pradesh Government would do when the Supreme Court wanted the elections to zilla and mandal parishads completed by March 31. Of course, the `smart' government under its CEO (Mr. Naidu prefers the title CEO of Andhra Pradesh Inc.) was not doing anything to expedite the election process. However, the State woke up after four months and filed a petition belatedly on February 17, 2001, pleading inability to hold the elections and praying for further postponement. What happened in the Supreme Court when the case came up on April 4, 2001, for hearing is a matter of extreme significance.

When the Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Andhra Pradesh tried to convince the Court that an extension of time for conducting the elections was required in the light of the timeframe stipulated by the High Court regarding the identification of backward class voters, the court was told that the State has been postponing the elections due in March 2000 on some pretext or the other. The Court enquired about the present position regarding the administration. It was informed that the District Collectors were the special officers discharging the functions of zilla parishads. The Court remarked that the attempt to defeat the electoral process and allow officers appointed by the political party in power to carry on the administration was totally unacceptable. On the plea by the Advocate for the State that as a last chance some more time be granted for conducting the elections, the Supreme Court finally passed the order that it was not pleased to extend the time once again and directed the State to ensure that the elections are completed by July 31, 2001. The Court also stated that no further time would be granted for the same.

When the Court passed the above order, counsel for the State Election Commission came up with another plea. Counsel submitted that it would require 40 days after the identification of the seats to hold the election and therefore this factor also should be taken into consideration. But the Court was categorical in stating that this was a problem to be settled between the SEC and the State Government and that the elections must be held before July 31, 2001.

The Supreme Court's order should serve as a timely warning to all Chief Ministers and ruling parties who treat the panchayats as poor cousins of the State Legislatures. The attitude of the State-level politicians in power that they can make critical issues related to the panchayats suit their convenience and get away with it must stop.

It is ironical that the TDP's Vision 2020 ends with the following quotation from Gandhiji: ``True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the Centre. It has to be worked from below by the people of every village.'' The TDP's blatant disregard for the Constitutional directive to have democratically-elected panchayats in every village is a matter of serious concern.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The power of storytelling
Next     : Over to poll commission