Case for good governance in Indian cities

Addressing democratic deficit

The Indian Prime Minister came to power on the promise of good governance and consequentially, acche din. The government, thus, meticulously set out to reduce the bureaucratic delays resulting from the omnipresent red-tapism. Recognizing the need to decentralize, in what should be hailed as a watermark in Indian federalism, the government accepted the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendation of devolution of 42% funds to the state governments. To give cities their due, the Prime Minister launched three major urban developmental projects — AMRUT, the Smart Cities Mission and Housing for All.

Cabinet shuffles are more of an assessment of the performance of the government ministries than of the minister himself and in that sense, the Urban Development Minister seems to have done rather well for himself. Now that the Prime Minister is done taking stock of his Cabinet, it is time he did the same to the policies. Creating Special Purpose Vehicles for implementing the Smart Cities Mission is perhaps a subdued acknowledgment of the inefficiency of the city governments in India.

The true spirit of the 73rd Amendment and the idea behind devolution of powers to the citizens will find vindication only when we address the democratic deficit in the functioning of the city governments. While a couple of cities do boast of a directly elected Mayor, he/she remains a mere figurehead as opposed to the state government appointed bureaucrat in whose hand lies the real governance of the city. The Municipal Commissioner remains in office during the pleasure of the Chief Minister. A direct consequence of this short term appointment is the narrow and short term approach towards urban governance. Howsoever capable the bureaucrat may be, his elected counterpart will always have greater incentive to perform. The current polity rests all responsibility on the government official who is not answerable to the people he governs.

Rajeev Chandrashekhar, in his excellent piece in LiveMint, has distinguished between deal governance and rule based governance. A deal governance is one replete with too much discretion vested in the government official with no standards of accountability. Rule based governance, on the other hand, ensures transparency, efficiency and acts as a check against crony capitalism. Concentrating power in an unelected member of the polity is a classic example of deal governance. All plans for creating world class cities will prove fruitless until and unless we plug these holes in the fundamental structure of governance.

The way forward is making city governments truly empowered to make their own decisions. This would happen only when cities start having direct elections for an empowered Mayor. A necessary corollary to this would be abolishing the post of a Municipal Commissioner/officer appointed by the state government and transferring complete control of the city to the hands of the Mayor.

Secondly, to further allow for worthwhile politics to grow around the Mayorial position, the Constitutional mandate for reservation under Article 243 T will have to go. By reserving the seat of the Mayor for SCs for one term and STs or women for the consequent term, the system prevents an individual from being the Mayor for a long enough term to make a significant impact.

Thirdly, empowering the Mayors would necessarily require the States to let go of their all-pervasive presence from matters of urban governance. Existence of multiple parastatal agencies alongside city governments results in undue delays with most of these agencies engaging in turf wars to capture maximum funds with minimum responsibility.

Lastly, essential urban services like water, sanitation, electricity and solid waste management should be left exclusively to the city governments. The Constitution of India is partly responsible for this mess. Entries like Water, Public Health and Sanitation exist under the State List as well as under the City List. The use of the phrase “Legislature of a State MAY, by law” under Articles 243-W and 243-X has further aggravated the situation by making this devolution of powers discretionary on the state governments.

Jurisprudentially, the position of city governments in India is a misnomer. They are constitutional bodies which derive their powers not from the Constitution but from state legislation. A constitutional amendment plugging these loopholes will probably help the Modi government deliver their promises more effectively than a Rs. 90,000 crore budget for various urban development missions.

Text: Shree Agnihotri (Research Associate at Free A Billion)