'privatising' urban policymaking?

While b.pac, is formed only few months ago in run up to KLA elections 2013, the links between some members of these groups go back over a decade to the 1999 - Bangalore agenda task force (batf). e.g., at least 2 members of b.pac were in batf.

Many individuals from non-profit groups being from corporate sector, they are likely to have links with industry associations such as assocham, ficci, cii, nasscom, fkcci etc.

This is an important and long standing affiliation for most of them and in many cases they are office bearers and /or representatives of these industry chambers at various forums.  
Similar industry associations with foreign countries like USIBC, prince of wales business leaders forum etc., also exist and have similar objectives.

But we need to examine in detail these groups / committees :- batf, janagraha, bcct, abide. Why is there such a need? because many of them are closely involved in preparing plans, policies, primers, legislation, guidelines and the identification and implementation of contracts and projects.They are also funded by private corporate sector and / or their foundations.

This seems to be part of an unstated strategy. This funding has been used to lobby and influence specific outcomes, profitable to sectors such as urban housing, urban roads, urban infrastructure, urban sector policy, regional urban planning, urban land titling etc.,

A change in the policy making process has occurred with politicians and bureaucrats recognising that the private (corporate) sector can have increased role in policy and planning with the influence of world bank, adb, dfid, usaid etc. The use of consultants such as pwc, kpmg, e and y, ipe, etc was facilitated by them through many policy, legislation and projects and now local consultants are also part of the same.

These non-profits now operate through a consensus in which they have aligned their objectives for a city's growth, the sectors which should grow and the 'stakeholders' who should profit from this growth at the city level. Similarly the future investment destinations, and new locations of manufacturing and services are also planned by the corporate investment interests with support from govt and the chambers.

Individuals in these also have common link with corporate funded non-profit sector. Some of these are bcct (f), iusf, janaagraha, b.pac, abide etc. Some of these seem to work in tandem.

They are also represented on various Union or state govt committees, such as infrastructure, investment, ppp, urban governance, affordable-housing, micro-banking, transport etc.

They are also ably supported by favourable media conglomerates who occasionally become their mouthpieces.

Why has this process, privileged and advantaged corporate local plans over the constitutional processes such as district planning committee, metropolitan planning committee and ward committees etc?

If the local and regional planning paradigm is to be framed by multilateral banks, bilateral funders and now corporate funded non-profits, it is almost as if the plans should be adopted by the MPC's / DPC's without proper deliberation, debate or discussion!

Why shd the constitutional framework be disregarded except for making them into rubber stamp authorities for plan approval?

'privatising' politics: b.pac decreasing political risk to corporate investment ?

There are connections of b.pac founders and members to industry lobby groups like assocham, ficci, fkcci,nasscom or cii. these are industry or business chambers which influence and keep up group pressure on the Union and state govts for favourable policies. one such is associated chambers of commerce and industry (assocham) which has suggested points for the party manifestos :url link here (assocham moots 5-point growth agenda for parties in Karnataka )

and the report below correctly mentions that it is the IT- BT barons who are now funding 14 candidates from all parties with Rs 5 lakh each + campaigning online for them : url link here (IT-BT barons to fund 14 candidates).

Is it possible that the instability and inaction resulting from the 5 year term BJP govt has had an impact where rate of growth of Karnataka state has suffered due to which the it- bt honchos in the disguise of b.pac would like to ensure continued growth of their sectors? adb based in manila has cautioned the private corporate sector in general on the political risks and has therefore moved their project oriented decsion making to predominantly bureaucratic parastatal funding and investment institutions. If adb got a chance they would even have prepared a long term buisness plan for the KUIDFC in Karnataka -but were prevented from doing so at the last minute. Is this exactly the kind of business plan which is now being executed by b.pac through lobbying, and influencing outcomes so that political party manifestos and voting in elections by others need not create any setback for them, their business and business growth?


b.pac and other similar groups would like to decrease political risk arising in the KLA elections 2013, by asking parties to align with their it-bt business agenda, and their Bengaluru agenda viz.,
implementing the report of the Karnataka Information Technology and Communication (ict) Group which is over Rs 2,50,000 crores investment over 15 years just for Bengaluru : url link here ( The $50b Pai-Naidu Plan: too much, too late ). This was presented to the GoK after b.pac had coalesced but before it was formally launched as a trust on feb 3rd 13.
bmrg bill and bbmp legislation (initiated by abide but now backed by broad consensus in it-bt sectors through b.pac)

fact is that the pac's are a US phenomenon which gained strength before the 2010 elections to senate and congress and were supported by the US supreme courts 2010 decision in Citizens United vs Federal election commission.

b.pac has been inspired by them to push the agenda of ppp's (private sector-politician partnership) and it may well end up beginning the process of 'privatisation' of politics in Karnataka and India.

reference : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Directly elected Mayor for BBMP would conflict with the Constitution and public demands?

The argument against the very concept of a directly elected Mayor for a 5-year term comes from the need to have a representative, democratic, decentralisation based electoral process, with caste reservation and the principles enshrined in the Indian constitution, as well as the need for representation of the historically deprived urban poor.

Abundant safeguards need to be identified and implemented to ensure compliance with these principles in conformity with Part IX-A (74th CAA). The expression of the need for a directly elected mayor conflicts with them.

This could well be the classic conflict which a face off between concepts of globalisation and modernity throw up. In the Indian context the principles of equality and social justice implemented through the form of reservation for backward and historically deprived castes and communities (SC/ST, Women) is itself the expression of modernity. This is because it shows how the nation can move forward and how such a step ahead is consistent with the long standing demands for maintaining social justice and equality.

This is crucial when it comes to elections to municipal and local governments, use of resources and decision making regarding the planning and allocation of resources for fulfillment of basic public needs.

On the other hand the demands of the globalised terrain of for profit corporates and MNC's is to place a city such as Bengaluru in the governance frameworks of New York or London. Their not for profit foundations also join the chorus. In Bengaluru this reactionary force has crystallised into the Bangalore Political action committee (b.pac) a trust, which positions itself as the promoter of a middle class 'vote bank', the young educated globalised urban youth.

b.pac the "infrastructure advocates"

But there is a consensus among members of the b.pac trust to support the creation of infrastructure for the economic growth of city of Bengaluru rather than the human development of its citizens. This would mainly include highly expensive and profitable signal- free corridors, underpasses, toll based expressways, metro rail and stilt flyovers. Many of these would be access controlled due to high tolls or by restricting certain vehicles (like cycles, buses, horse drawn carriages and other non-motorised Transport) but not restricted for cars, SUV's, MUV's and XUV's.


Clearly this approach is distinct from supporting the implementation of projects for basic needs such as water supply, roads, drains and street lights, which are paid for by the property taxes of citizens. In fact by prioritising infrastructure growth as opposed to basic needs the property taxes are being diverted away from essential core functions of local governments such as water supply, streets, roads and roadside drains.

5-year term conflicts with constitutional principles

It is not possible to have adequate rotation, reservation, or representation if the term is five years for one directly elected Mayor. But would this conflict with constitutional principles? Yes - since this may result in the election of a Mayor from the SC/ ST community only after a period of 20-25 years depending on the rotation in reservation. It would be a gross setback to such principles and public demands.


Similarly an argument for the election of a mayor with a Bengaluru vision based on profits for 'stakeholders', commercialisation and corporatisation are also inconsistent with the principles listed above.

This is exactly why the current corporate obsession with 'infrastructure led growth' and growth rate of cities and city economies cannot be the drivers of a city vision consistent with democratic constitutional norms.

In fact the corporate vision for planning and infrastructure growth at local government level calls for a sacrifice of local democracy. These are more consistent with the vision of a city -state or a union territory which end up negating the need for a BBMP municipal council.

The democratisation required to strengthen the functioning of a local municipal council must also be debated and would be the subject of a future blog.....

74th CAA, untouchability, Bengaluru, BJP and the new BBMP Woman Mayor (ST ?)

The landmark urban decentralisation legislation- also known as the Nagarpalika act (74th CAA) along with its counterpart Panchayati Raj act (73rd CAA) is nearing the completion of 20 years in May 2013. This constitutional status for 'local government' a subject in the state list was an important achievement in the processof decentralisation. This act was discussed, debated and negotiated- through 3 different lok sabhas (1984-89, 89-91, and 91-96), with views expressed by national and regional parties and the tenure of 4 PM's (Rajiv Gandhi, V.P Singh, Chandrashekar and Narasimha Rao). Together these amendments were certainly the largest addition to the constitution in terms of impact and content on democratisation and decentralisation.

Karnataka High court order Mayoral elections go ahead

The Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru has recently ordered in April 2013 that the BBMP Mayor election can go ahead. The Chief Election officer of the CEC has also given the green signal for the same despite the fact that the code of conduct for MLA elections is in force. The condition imposed by the court order is that the GoK shd consider the post to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates.

(Mayoral poll can be held if posts are reserved for STs)

The GoK in Jan 2013 had misused the delay in availability of the updated Census 2011 data. They did it by postponing preparation of the reservation roster of wards for election in the Urban local elections. Despite this with the Supreme courts intervention the elections to local governments were held, on March 7th 2013 by the state election commission. To prevent this all political parties had passed a joint resolution in the state assembly censuring the SEC. Thereafter the assembly even passed a law amending the KMC Act to force the SEC to take the concurrence of the GoK before announcing elections.

These efforts to prevent elections failed because the Governor of Karnataka did not provide his consent to the amended act. And when the elections were held the BJP was rejected by the voters, despite being known as an urban based party.

BBMP Mayor election - confusion and discrimination

Recently the BJP led GoK had changed the Mayor election reservation roster to General category to provide a chance for a Brahmin mayor (Lobbying for Mayoral post hots up). This was taken to court by groups saying the opportunity had to be given for the ST category since this was not done since last 16 years after the first election for Mayor held in 1996 (post the passage of 74th CAA).

Once again the GoK is forced to have elections to the post of Mayor, Dy Mayor and Chairpersons of standing committees of BBMP, by reserving the category back for Women - General (Govt changes category, city to have a woman mayor) .

Since it seems like the position of the BJP is against following constitutional mandates and principles, their ferocious attempt at imposing a Brahmin mayor on Bengaluru has backfired, instead the Mayor will now be category General - Women.

The BJP led GoK has an approach of symbolism and tokenism with the lack of any genuine commitment. So even the passage of a state act for 50% reservation of seats for women candidates in local government elections also backfired since this otherwise major political move could not be implemented.

They lack the basic approach of inclusiveness and would like to deploy all kinds of exclusionary and exclusivist tactics, which inevitably backfire, because people would take them to court or rout them at the elections.

In the case of the April 27th or 30th 2013 (going by news reports) Mayoral election for the BBMP, the ruling BJP has now once again demonstrated why they shd definitely not be re-elected in next months MLA elections.

B.PAC : Promoting 'Selection' Democracy?

In a representative democracy like India where elections play a major part in the democratic process and are in fact called 'the dance of democracy' there can be no such thing as 'selection' democracy. Voters have a strong linkage with manifestos of political parties and the parties have to finally decide what represents the people's demands and needs in consultation with the public.

But now in the recent formation of the Bangalore political action committee (B.PAC) we note that there's a deliberate approach towards 'selection' democracy. The elite of the city of Bangalore wax nostalgic for the heady day's of brand Bangalore. Some of them are the same ones who strongly objected to the renaming of the city as Bengaluru.

And that is where their frustration begins. Their frustration is about the lack of infrastructure and the un-governability of the city- because of its messy local politics. And these elite feel that the elected politicians are unaccountable. The elite of the city would like to see governance, and service standards of infrastructure which would suit them whether they lived in New York or London, or Bengaluru.

The B.PAC members believe it is beneath their level to deal with local government officials or elected representatives. It is also too difficult for them as well and so their strong sense of hierarchy forces them to deal with only the state or Union govt. In fact they would like Bengaluru to be a Union territory or a 'city-state' so that the messy local govt politics will become a thing of the past.

based on the USA super PAC's model

The B.PAC model is entirely based on the Super PACs in the US elections of 2012 and earlier. In the US these PACs are mainly corporate lobbies focused on creating specific profitable outcomes in the elections for themselves by supporting candidates. Indian democracy does not allow an important role for individual candidates, instead it depends on parties to select candidates based on political winnability.
 

B.PAC is a reactionary move by frustrated leaders of the corporate sector who feel they are losing control over the saleability of brand Bangalore, and its governance, and would therefore like to see a new law for BBMP and the passage of the Bangalore region governance (BRG) bill even if it is not consistent with constitutional mandates and priniciples. This bill which was promoted by abide during the entire 5 year term of BJP (2008-13) could not be passed due to opposition from the people, local elected reps and other MLAs. The govt could never even introduce this in the state legislative assembly (KLA).

So the b.pac now feels that the MLA's, corporators, councillors, panchayat members and all organisations and common public who opposed the BRG bill conceptually- such as on the proposed centralisation of powers, policy and legislation should be dealt with by possibly supporting and 'selecting' candidates for the Karnataka MLA election in May 2013. These candidates could be from any party - BJP, Congress, LokSatta, JD(S) etc. But they should support the b.pac Bangalore agenda. And they expect the 'aspiring' middle class to join them for the joy ride.

What is a fact is that they support the BRG bill, which these corporates have agreed is suited to their legislative requirements of governance, infrastructure and policy and their display of consensus through b.pac now, means that they have secretly cast their own 'vote' in favour of it (backed by corporate money power) prior to such a legislation even being readied for tabling in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (KLA). This sort of secret 'voting' is highly anti-democratic and reactionary. Should such a method of remote control, whether it be from money or corporate clout be allowed in the upcoming 'dance of democracy'?

This sort of secret 'voting' by consultants, non-profits or even the 'policy community' is not new. The Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of the Govt of Karnataka (2002) was prepared with the agreement of the World Bank. And it was the brute majority of then ruling Congress party in the state which was utilised to pass this act. This unleashed a process of fiscal responsibility legislation for the entire country. The NDA led Indian government introduced the Fiscal responsibility and budget management act (FRBM) in 2003. Ultimately, in 2004 the UPA govt passed the act. all the states were later forced to adopt the same as a condition of the finance comission.

the impact of these FR Acts on the citizens of states needs to be the subject of another blog ...

In 2008 Karnataka elected the BJP. Can we undo past mistakes?

The mistake of being swayed by a false notion of being correct, by voting for the BJP when the JD(S) 'betrayed' the BJP in 2007 by not handing over or transferring power  to the BJP after the expiry of 20 months. How does the electorate of a state like Karnataka make efforts to set right the mistakes it has made such as the one mentioned above? This mistake has proved very costly because such a decision by the electorate was not weighed fully in the light of available information and knowledge. 

Just how costly - was shown by the Govt in an annual lurching from crisis to crisis. Overall this has resulted in a govt which while voted in with a near majority to rule for five years creating the largest debt burden on the citizens of the state increasing it by additional Rs 70,000 crores in 5 years. This also nearly doubled the state debt to Rs.124,000 crores resulting in an increase in debt from Rs. 5,000 to 10,000/-per capita.

This was done by a BJP  govt which was seen as a source of instability, corruption and lacking governance. This happened in what was a fairly  progressive state where the original Indian rural decentralisation models were brought forward and implemented by political thinkers. Instead the debt financing model of the World Bank and Asian Development bank was pushed forward by the BJP. This was because the inexperienced politicians of the BJP were not in any position to say no, because they really did not know better. Can this continue? the answer is no.

The debt financing model can be brought to a halt with alternatives.These must be identified and the ruling party(ies)must be informed of  how this is possible.

But this will also call a halt to the speed at which the so call world class infrastructure is being developed.

and generate a debate on development vs non-development... but that will be dealt in a seperate blog.