CSES in Media

Kerala showing way in decentralisation

This report was published in The Financial Express on 08/03/2005

Keralas decentralised planning experiment launched in mid-90s, coupled with the creation of legal framework for devolution of powers and resources, can be a model for other states, according to MA Oommen of the Institute of Social Sciences. In his study on deepening decentralised governance in rural India; lessons from the peoples plan initiative of Kerala for the Kochi-based Centre for Socio-economic and Environmental Studies, Dr Oommen says only Kerala has conformed to the 73rd constitutional panchayat amendment transferring functions, funds and functionaries.

Other states have made halting and piecemeal, and often retrograde progress and have provided several loopholes that will render the process of building self-governing democratic institutions at the sub-state level ineffective.

However, he has been critical of Keralas progress with regard to administrative autonomy that leaves many things to be desired. Gram panchayats in several states were not adequately strengthened financially and technically to deliver even some of the basic services.

Almost all the 29 subjects assigned to the Panchyati Raj Institutions (PRI) are state-concurrent and need clarity to avoid duplication. Here Kerala, along with Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh had broken the subjects into activities and sub-activities.

While it is the constitutional mandate to plan for economic development and social justice, only Kerala had readied a detailed planning process. In deepening local democracy by strengthening basic grama sabhas, Keralas Panchayat Act had been amended to empower sabhas for planning, selecting schemes and beneficiaries, besides giving them the authority to scrutinise budget accounts.

According to Dr Oommen, the real watershed in Keralas decentralisation and planning process began in around 1999, when the then CPM-led Left Democratic Front government took several landmark initiatives and measures to transform the relations between the local government and society. It took the peoples plan campaign mode that was abandoned by the Congress-led United Democratic Front government that came to power in 2001.

The LDF government decided to devolve 35-40% of the state plan funds to the local bodies as against 2.35% during the eighth Plan. Each local body was required to prepare a comprehensive area plan before it could lay claim to this plan fund. All expenditure responsibilities with poverty alleviation schemes were transferred to the newly-created three-tiered PRIs, restricting the role of the state government to monitoring and capacity-building.

Peculiar to Keralas public action tradition, planning was used as an instrument of social mobilisation. The plan entitlement of each local government was based on a formula with 60% weightage on population and a one-third weightage on backwardness.

Local planning involved a multi-stage process that broadened the avenues of peoples participation.

Based on the priorities of sabhas and the analysis of primary and secondary data, a detailed development report was prepared for each gram panchayat and discussed at public fora.

Based on this a task force with the help of bureaucracy and experts prepared the projects. Beneficiary committees were formed to implement them. Institutional innovations like right to information, citizens charter, transparency guarantees, ombudsman, appellate tribunal and performance audits were created.

A capacity building exercise, involving 600 key resources persons at the state level, 10,000 at the district level and one lakh at the local level, launched though this corps disappeared with the abolition of the campaign process by the UDF government.

Infrastructural facilities of government schools, anganwadis, hospitals and rural libraries improved and several new houses were constructed. However, there were instances of serious lapses, corruption and indifferent co-operation by the beneficiaries. Given the average Keralites organised civic life through association with several organisations, the campaign leading to a development culture above partisan considerations has been strongly contested.

According to M Tharakan, who was director, Kerala Institute of Local Administration during the campaign regime, It is evident that Kerala society has deep fissures created by clientelistic party affiliations…It is difficult for local level organisations by themselves to rise above divisive interests.