Umesh Baurai and Dr. Avnish Jolly, Chandigarh :Professor Partha N. Mukherji added a very interesting facet to the whole discussion by comparing Gram Panchayat elections in West Bengal and Punjab. He reasoned why it was so important to study elections – in this case panchayat elections – within a week or so of the election. It is within this ‘critical period’ that certain forces and processes come into operation that lead ‘not only to the visibility of phenomena that are manifest, but also those that are latent’.
The manifestation of such latencies, which cannot be easily imagined or expected, surface during this period’. Latencies are of two kinds: (i) People who had suppressed their views and feelings find themselves opening up, particularly with those who constitute their primary relationships. A decision has to be taken – whether to vote; if so, whom to vote for; and why? Elections ‘compel’ the surfacing of such latencies. (ii) A deeper layer of latency lies in the voter discovering new aspects released by the electoral process which had remained largely unanticipated. Certain forces are often released, not necessarily consciously directed or guided by political actors (parties), which have their own consequences. Elections provide the context in which one can catch the pulse of the people in the dynamic mode. From the research point of view the electoral arena provides a methodological moment that neither exists before the ‘critical period’ nor after. The researcher needs to ‘capture’ the manifest and the latent layers of reality.
Prof. Mukherji broadly indicated that in West Bengal, where elections to PRIs were held in the month of May, prior to the elections in Punjab, the formal structure of panchayati raj institutions had matured considerably. Elections have been held with ritual regularity. Rules and procedures have evolved consistent with democratic practice. The problem has been with the political culture of violence that is reluctant to allow space for opposition to grow. This is not consistent with democratic practice. The contradictions arising out of the institutionalised structure, on the one hand, and the inconsistent political culture, on the other, pose serious problems.
Punjab, in contrast, presented a more anarchic situation where neither the formal structure nor political culture was consistent with democratic practice. The use of violence whether in West Bengal or in Punjab, denies the citizen a fear-free exercise of her/his franchise in the choice of a representative. The PRIs in Punjab were being deliberately kept weak with a top-down model of development in which the rural citizens exercised practically no power to change their own destiny. Professor Mukherji warned that keeping the rural citizens disempowered at the panchayat level can lead to alarming consequences.
Dwelling on the evolution of PRIs he pointed out that a mega-programme like Community Development in post-independence India failed because it was elitist in orientation – empowering the asseted for greater productivity, whilst excluding the asset-less. He emphasized that people must become the architects of their own development plans and their implementation.
Mahatma Gandhi advocated a polity based on panchayati raj, which should take the form of concentric circles as opposed to the pyramidical structure of western liberal democracy. Instead, the Nehruvian model sought to tune up the inherited the Westminster model for a fast-track modernisation programme. It is only when the Community Development Programme, the much-advertised engine of rural transformation modeled on the ‘extension’ methodology of the U.S. failed to deliver, that Nehru realized the futility of this ‘Top-Down Model’ and the wisdom of Gandhi. Subsequently, different committees like Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1959), Ashok Mehta Committee (1978), and G.V. K. Rao Committee (1986) followed by 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, marked the steady advance of the philosophy, concept, and constitutional formalisation of democratic decentralisation.
Referring to the specifics of local self-government system of the PRIs in Punjab, he pointed out how successive governments had tried to sustain ruling party dominance by establishing a relationship of perpetual dependence of the PRIs on the State government. This is a form of clientelism (patron-client relation) which is a clearly top-down model. In this model funds flow from above (the State exchequer) for half-a-dozen items (drainage, tank excavation, tank bunding, etc) on which money has to be spent, no matter even if there are higher priorities for non-listed items. Such a top-down model provides a fertile structural opening for corruption. Corruption could be severely contained if people participated in making their perspective plans and administered their implementation. .