Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

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.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

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 ...

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Indian middle class affected by Urban reforms?

The opposition to the impact of reforms seems to be spreading like an epidemic from Surat to Guwahati and from Bangalore to Hyderbad, Mysore and Mumbai to Delhi. One of the crucial concerns of the middle class land owner is how to pay the increasing property taxes. The Unit area method introduced as an urban reform by the MoUD, GoI under JNNURM is causing the biggest difficulty for the urban middle classes since the rates of tax are now indexed with the land rates which have appreciated hugely compared to when they bought the plot / land. So in turn, now even with some depreciation the plot-owner ends up paying a huge property tax plus vacant land tax.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

First Lok Sabha Post-JNNURM election


15th Lok SABHA MP's must debate JNNURM

  1. In 2005 before the JNNURM launch, OUR MP's never debated the mandatory and optional conditions which were part of reforms package.
  2. Since these conditions were thrust upon the states who needed to enter a tripartite MoU with the Union, State and City governments being signatories, there is a need to debate the conditions of the reforms.
  3. These reforms were essentially a sop to the lobbies of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) who had been demanding the same for a long time and still continue to do after 5 years of huge profits.
  4. The 15th Lok Sabha MP's must undertake a wide ranging public consultation process on the success/ failure of JNNURM !
  5. Urban areas have been developed in extremely inequitous manner.
  6. Costly and expensive Facilities are being provided to rich and elite people who get massive tax concessions (www.cbgaindia.org) in excess of Rs 300,000 crores / year for the last 4 years 2004-08.
  7. Projects must be prepared on priority to fulfil the essential needs services of the masses, the urban poor and the lower middle class.
  8. Funding for the same should also be provided adequately.
  9. Property taxes must not be escrowed to give an opportunity to payback investors THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. They must be invested in basic needs of the electorate such as drinking water, proper roads, air quality maintenance and pollution control.
  10. Social Audit and monitoring that the funds must not be misused is to be introduced as a peoples initiative.
  11. The GoI's 11th Plan document pushes back the date for achieving the urban drinking water targets to 2012. This needs to be relooked at and targets must be fulfilled earlier.
  12. Development cannot happen for the rich only leaving the poor behind.