India is not a post-constitutional democracy

All political parties have to be registered and state that they will conform to constitutional principles. Once this is done by them, any violation of this which is brought to the election commission's notice through complaints can be used to question the registration itself. They could be disqualified or even de-registered in case of severe violations.

To a large extent un-elected and un-electable or failed political workers get nominations as chairpersons or presidents in boards, corporations and similar authorities. sometimes like in the case of Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) elections are held, but most likely rigged as well. Similar nomination without public scrutiny happens in case of batf and abide and an extra constitutional role for corporates in city planning is created. Corporate or business plans for growth do not have any space in this form at all!

Social justice and equity plans or other plans for a city like Bengaluru or region need to go through a metropolitan planning committee (mpc) which if formed properly is likely to have representatives from various parties and technically qualified people. To prevent a single party from dominating decisions in the mpc elected reps from all different parties and urban and rural jurisdictions shd be represented.

And if they are unaware they shd legalistically read up Part-IX (73rd CAA) and Part IX-A (74th CAA) of the Indian Constitution both of which have just completed 20 years recently.

Better days are ahead if more people know how to prepare plans with a constitutional morality, and more people inside and outside government have the capacity and the capability to conform to it and make other committees like batf or abide conform to it.

Equality before law as well as one person one vote are constitutional principles. Similarly equity in terms of resource allocation or use is just as important. In urban or rural areas any other form of influence will amount to buying favours / lobbying or even reverse clientelism (from corporates to politicians).

We need more people to commit themselves as upholders of constitutional norms. As the local government delivers facilities closest to the people all attempts to divert resources away from human development and reallocate funds to more profitable "infrastructure growth" comes into conflict with both the role of local government and constitutional norms.

We must bring back the focus on the all round development of people's and local government capacities and capability to deliver the amenities and facilities.

 
Separating the roles of government such as in the case of MP's vs MLA's vs corporator's / councillor's / panchayat members, and respect for all tiers of government (esp., local govt) are part of this framework of principles. So while the state govt provides the funds, functions and functionaries, the local government provides the facilities and amenities.

extra constitutional forms like govt committees for infrastructure or other corporate lobbies should not deliberately encroach on the constitutional form instead they must allow democratic decision making. Any number of committees as per law could be started but they have to confirm such principles and conform to them. These are the built in checks and balances and those who support the constitution will agree that an important role for citizens also exists for protecting the same, nurturing and helping move ahead.

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.....