12-18-2023, 03:49 PM
Evaluating the Panchayati Raj System at 30 years after 73rd Amendment
PRIs have had a stunning success and a shocking failure throughout the course of their 30-year voyage, depending on the goal line against which they are measured.
While the PRI has achieved in establishing a new layer of administration and political participation at the grass roots, this has not been able to improve governance.
There are around three million voted local government candidates and about 250,000 PRIs and urbanized municipal bodies.
The 73rd and 74th Amendments mandated that women be represented in municipal authorities by at least one-third of the total seats. Bharat has the most women in elected seats, with 1.4 million. SC/ST nominees were also given priority in terms of seats and sarpanch/pradhan leadership roles.
According to PRIs, having women political engagement in local governments increases the likelihood of women coming forward and reporting crimes. Drinking water and public goods are substantially more heavily invested in districts with female sarpanches. Furthermore, several devolution measures have been formally safeguarded by the states, giving local governments significant autonomy.
Successive (central) Finance Commissions have significantly boosted fund allocations for local governments, as well as grant amounts. "The 15th Finance Commission" is also contemplating increasing local government allocations to meet international norms.
Issues:
The absence of sufficient cash is the grey area. To really be able to raise its own revenue, panchayats need to expand their territory.
Panchayats' performance was also harmed by the intervention of regional MPs and MLAs in their operations.
The 73rd Amendment simply required the establishment of local self-governing bodies, leaving the discretion to delegate powers, responsibilities, and money to state legislatures; this is where PRIs failed.
Various government functions, including education, health, sanitation, and water, were not required to be transferred. Instead, the amendment identified the functions that could be devolved and left it up to the state government to decide which functions should be devolved.
Throughout the last 30 years, there has been relatively little devolution of authority and services. Because these responsibilities were never transferred, state executive authorities have sprung up to fulfil them. The most typical example is indeed the state water boards, which are notoriously inept.
The absence of funds for PRIs is the Amendment's biggest flaw. Local governments can either rely on local taxes or intergovernmental transfers to fund their operations.
Also for subjects that are beyond the jurisdiction of PRIs, the state government must expressly authorise the power to tax. The 73rd Amendment made this a decision for state legislatures to make�a one that most states have not made.
Intergovernmental transfers, in which state governments devolve a portion of their earnings to PRIs, are a second source of revenue. State Finance Commissions were constituted as a result of the constitutional change to recommend the revenue split between state and local self governments. These really are, however, only suggestions, and state governments are not obligated by them.
Despite the fact that financial commissions at all levels have called for more devolution of finances, governments have taken little action to do so.
PRIs are hesitant to take on initiatives that involve significant financial investment, and they are frequently unable to meet even the most fundamental local governance requirements.
PRIs also have structural flaws, such as a lack of secretarial support and a lack of technical competence, limiting the collection of bottom-up organizing.
There is adhocism, or a lack of clear agenda formulation in gram samiti meetings and gram sabha as well as a lack of suitable structure.
Despite the fact that women and SC/STs have representation in PRIs due to reservation stipulated by the 73rd amendment act, Panch-Pati and vicarious representation are present in the cases of women and SC/STs leaders, respectively.
However, after 30 years of the PRI's constitutional framework, accountability procedures are still quite inadequate.
The uncertainty in the allocation of functions and funding has allowed states to consolidate power, preventing elective representatives who are much more aware of and emphatic to ground-level issues from taking control.
Challenges and Criticisms:
Financial Dependence: Panchayats often face financial constraints, relying heavily on state governments for funds. This dependence can limit their autonomy and effectiveness.
Capacity Building: Many Panchayats lack the necessary capacity, resources, and expertise to effectively plan and implement developmental activities. There is a need for continuous capacity-building programs.
Political Interference: In some cases, local politics and power dynamics can undermine the true spirit of decentralization, with interference from higher levels of government or political parties.
Uneven Implementation: The success of the Panchayati Raj System varies across states and regions. Some states have implemented the system more effectively than others, leading to disparities in governance outcomes.
Gender Inequality: While the reservation for women in Panchayats is a positive step, challenges persist in ensuring their meaningful participation and overcoming social barriers.
Conclusion:
The Panchayati Raj System has undoubtedly brought about positive changes in local governance, empowering communities and fostering development at the grassroots level. However, challenges persist, and continuous efforts are needed to address issues such as financial autonomy, capacity building, and political interference. Evaluating the system at the 30-year mark provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and ensure that the vision of decentralized and inclusive governance is fully realized.
PRIs have had a stunning success and a shocking failure throughout the course of their 30-year voyage, depending on the goal line against which they are measured.
While the PRI has achieved in establishing a new layer of administration and political participation at the grass roots, this has not been able to improve governance.
There are around three million voted local government candidates and about 250,000 PRIs and urbanized municipal bodies.
The 73rd and 74th Amendments mandated that women be represented in municipal authorities by at least one-third of the total seats. Bharat has the most women in elected seats, with 1.4 million. SC/ST nominees were also given priority in terms of seats and sarpanch/pradhan leadership roles.
According to PRIs, having women political engagement in local governments increases the likelihood of women coming forward and reporting crimes. Drinking water and public goods are substantially more heavily invested in districts with female sarpanches. Furthermore, several devolution measures have been formally safeguarded by the states, giving local governments significant autonomy.
Successive (central) Finance Commissions have significantly boosted fund allocations for local governments, as well as grant amounts. "The 15th Finance Commission" is also contemplating increasing local government allocations to meet international norms.
Issues:
The absence of sufficient cash is the grey area. To really be able to raise its own revenue, panchayats need to expand their territory.
Panchayats' performance was also harmed by the intervention of regional MPs and MLAs in their operations.
The 73rd Amendment simply required the establishment of local self-governing bodies, leaving the discretion to delegate powers, responsibilities, and money to state legislatures; this is where PRIs failed.
Various government functions, including education, health, sanitation, and water, were not required to be transferred. Instead, the amendment identified the functions that could be devolved and left it up to the state government to decide which functions should be devolved.
Throughout the last 30 years, there has been relatively little devolution of authority and services. Because these responsibilities were never transferred, state executive authorities have sprung up to fulfil them. The most typical example is indeed the state water boards, which are notoriously inept.
The absence of funds for PRIs is the Amendment's biggest flaw. Local governments can either rely on local taxes or intergovernmental transfers to fund their operations.
Also for subjects that are beyond the jurisdiction of PRIs, the state government must expressly authorise the power to tax. The 73rd Amendment made this a decision for state legislatures to make�a one that most states have not made.
Intergovernmental transfers, in which state governments devolve a portion of their earnings to PRIs, are a second source of revenue. State Finance Commissions were constituted as a result of the constitutional change to recommend the revenue split between state and local self governments. These really are, however, only suggestions, and state governments are not obligated by them.
Despite the fact that financial commissions at all levels have called for more devolution of finances, governments have taken little action to do so.
PRIs are hesitant to take on initiatives that involve significant financial investment, and they are frequently unable to meet even the most fundamental local governance requirements.
PRIs also have structural flaws, such as a lack of secretarial support and a lack of technical competence, limiting the collection of bottom-up organizing.
There is adhocism, or a lack of clear agenda formulation in gram samiti meetings and gram sabha as well as a lack of suitable structure.
Despite the fact that women and SC/STs have representation in PRIs due to reservation stipulated by the 73rd amendment act, Panch-Pati and vicarious representation are present in the cases of women and SC/STs leaders, respectively.
However, after 30 years of the PRI's constitutional framework, accountability procedures are still quite inadequate.
The uncertainty in the allocation of functions and funding has allowed states to consolidate power, preventing elective representatives who are much more aware of and emphatic to ground-level issues from taking control.
Challenges and Criticisms:
Financial Dependence: Panchayats often face financial constraints, relying heavily on state governments for funds. This dependence can limit their autonomy and effectiveness.
Capacity Building: Many Panchayats lack the necessary capacity, resources, and expertise to effectively plan and implement developmental activities. There is a need for continuous capacity-building programs.
Political Interference: In some cases, local politics and power dynamics can undermine the true spirit of decentralization, with interference from higher levels of government or political parties.
Uneven Implementation: The success of the Panchayati Raj System varies across states and regions. Some states have implemented the system more effectively than others, leading to disparities in governance outcomes.
Gender Inequality: While the reservation for women in Panchayats is a positive step, challenges persist in ensuring their meaningful participation and overcoming social barriers.
Conclusion:
The Panchayati Raj System has undoubtedly brought about positive changes in local governance, empowering communities and fostering development at the grassroots level. However, challenges persist, and continuous efforts are needed to address issues such as financial autonomy, capacity building, and political interference. Evaluating the system at the 30-year mark provides an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and ensure that the vision of decentralized and inclusive governance is fully realized.