The turf war over who calls the shots in deciding the dates of panchayat elections and the arrangements is contrary to the principles of local body empowerment
Being righteous and rancorous, over everything and all the time, is a lousy attitude; in a polity where the rules of business are defined by the institutions and practices of parliamentary democracy and the Government runs on public money, it exposes inveterate intolerance and disregard for alternative views. Being spendthrift at public expense to prove a point that is nothing more than an assertion of righteousness is indefensible by any Government.
The almost inevitable delay in completing the process of panchayat election in West Bengal and the consequences of that delay on spending of allocations for specific programmes is a case of talking up a storm without getting on with the job. The job is a seamless transition from the panchayats elected in 2008 to the new office bearers who should be elected and in place by June 25. The deadline is cast in stone, because it is embedded in the 73rd Amendment of 1992 to the Constitution of India and the change makers were very conscious that panchayats had, in the past, been mismanaged through prolonged postponement of elections, supersession, inadequate representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women, inadequate powers and insufficient financial resources.
The turf war over who calls the shots in deciding the date of the election and the adequacy of arrangements for holding the polls is contrary to the principles that underline the process of elected representation for panchayati raj institutions. The delay, by taking matters to court, be it in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, or elsewhere is so contrary to the intents and purposes for which the 73rd Amendment of 1992 was legislated that there is something rotten with those who are a party to such conflicts. By fighting over how the elections to the panchayats are to be held and when they are in fact held, it is obvious that ruling regimes in some States are unabashed in their reversal to running things the way the Constitutional amendment barred them from doing. The Constitutional provision for seamless transition from one elected panchayat to another if violated in letter and spirit suggests that political parties are willing to uproot the newest tier of Government without compunction.
It is unfortunate that in West Bengal in 2013, the panchayat and another 13 municipality election and by-election for 29 wards in different municipalities have been subjected to delay and inevitable supersession, thereby, jeopardising representation and decentralisation. The claim that the Trinamool Congress is committed to holding free and fair election, and by extension democratic principles, sounds hollow, when its actions contradict such assertions. The Trinamool Congress wanted early election to the panchayats. This would have meant that the term of the panchayats in West Bengal would have been shortened to serve some political purpose. The Trinamool Congress then entered into a dispute with the State Election Commission about the arrangements for conducting the election. It then extended the fight by announcing a date for the election, that is tantamount to trespassing the powers of the SEC. The turf war reached a point where the matter had to be referred to the judiciary for a solution. Now that the High Court of Calcutta has handed down its verdict, the Trinamool Congress Government has decided that it will appeal against the verdict. Before it has submitted its appeal, the Trinamool Congress has engaged in a campaign to malign the decision of the High Court, claiming that the May 11 deadline of set by the High Court was unreal.
The violation of the injunction to impart certainty, continuity and strength to panchayati raj institutions is a deed for which the Trinamool Congress is answerable. Accusing the SEC and its Election Commissioner Mira Pandey of partisanship smacks of witch hunting. For that too, the Trinamool Congress is answerable. That it has done so is an indication that the Trinamool Congress is uncomfortable with the idea of negotiating to find solutions and prefers escalating problems to a fight that leads on to a crisis. Such brinkmanship is a recipe for disaster. It is also an indication of the one-sided nature of the conflict. It points to a rather ugly preference for the principle that might is right, which is an attribute of dictatorial regimes rather than democratic politics.