vmenon - 16 July, 2009 | Bangalore | governance | Abide | Citizen Reports | Participation

I believe that the Abide process is a step in the right direction. I have gone through, right from the start, the documents on the web. I regret not being more involved earlier and hope can be of some help in future.

Unabashedly, I can say that some of my civic work elsewhere have not yielded the required results, but in the process, have learnt more on grass root issues and NGO /Civic organizations constraints, and the whole government machinery methods and madness.

I have had two long sittings with Prof Mahesh, essentially on governance model and a specific infrastructure/road widening project (hosur –lakshar road).Illuminating, but it did still leave some points of concern, hence this note.

The notes below are my own personal opinions and not of any organization I am part of.

I could have misread or misinterpreted some of the recommendations, but here are my inputs nevertheless.

1. Mismatch between governance model recommendations and specific verticals planning and implementation.

• The main and fundamental thrust of Abide seems to be to push for legislation of the Bengaluru governance bill as close to the 74^th amendment as possible.
• The specific areas (transportation /urban poor /heritage etc) while important seem to be  going by “what can be done quickly”, and “what are the most obvious” measures. This statement is being made since in what seems to be the priority area of roads and transportation, the method of planning, decision making and implementation, seems to be at variance to the principles of the governance bill i.e. citizen centric and involvement,  plan consultations, municipal oversight etc.

Note: This is not a value judgment, and definitely not a comment, that the transportation and roads plans are not either good or in keeping with requirements, just that these plans seem to be going on a parallel stream and decision making methodology ,while waiting for the governance bill to come thorough. 

• In a specific area that a few of us looked into, the lakshar-- hosur road widening project, there did not seem to be  
  
  • There does not seem to be any intention, need or direction to involve citizens on the plan or implementation, by the civic authorities. The reporting seems to go into Abide.
  • The fundamentals of pedestrian first /cyclists second did not seem to find its way into the actual plan that we got out. (Clarified by Prof,Mahesh , that it was a wrong plan.)

The simple point being made here is that it does Abide no good in the long run , when it looks at citizen centric governance , Citizen/RWE/neighborhood participation in governance along with disclosures ,while on the other hand in specific areas and projects , it is business as usual.

While one can sort of understand the constraints and considerations that have gone into this apparent dichotomy, it can open Abide to a fair amount of criticism.

Why not just practise the modes recommended in the governance recommendations in the projects that abide seem to be directly overseeing.

2. On the governance model and draft bill and accountability

It is doubted if anyone can really find fault with the plans and draft bill itself, maybe some nit picking here and there. However I am more concerned with what is left out rather than what is included.

My assumption: 

The governance model (while adhering to 74^th as closely as possible), seems to place emphasis and therefore effectiveness on

1. Organizational and therefore legislation strength to the MPC model, with municipality oversight.
2. Transparency and disclosure provisions
3. Contracting methodologies and monitoring.
4. Post responsibilities( mayor /commissioner/councilor /convener etc) 

Also in-built seem to be qualification/disqualification criteria for elected members.

Note: All of the above are excellent and highly needed but one specific area of accountability seems to have been missed, namely the specific accountability of parastatals and the accountability of government servants/bureaucracy

Rationale: For many of us at the grass root level, the inefficiency, non accounatability, Non responsiveness of the government machinery is a prime issue. Elected representatives are at least approachable and in a way answerable and accountable through the electoral process, not so the beuraracy.

While disclosure, transparency provisions, and even the lokayuta strengthening in the governance recommendations, go a long way, ultimately it does not answer the question

“If someone does not do his work/is bad at his work what happens to him”

No amount of good planning, transparency and disclosure provisions will do much to a work force which is by practice and law immune to after effects of a job badly done.

A possible way forward

1. A separate study/ paper by Abide on service rules, its constitutionality and changes that can be brought about.
2. The internal departmental enquiries being brought to public domain, and right to ask for internal enquiry onto elected representatives.
3. As already stated strengthening of lokayuta.
4. In a parallel effort, to ensure system strengthening, bring in the right to recall provisions of councilors by wards citizens.
5. Public hearing of projects be it a major one, or one at a ward level, finding an institutional recognition prior to works.

3. Some minor observations at the “consultation” meeting.

• Most of the citizens attending have been to “consultation “ meetings before, be it for the Masterplan,JNNURM plans, Sakrama etc .and have also participated in feedback/objections on bills /legislation etc.One hopes Abide, will takes a departure from these earlier exercises and does truly become a consultation model.
• It was not too surprising to note the absence of non BJP leaders in the forum. That is the political game, however nonpartisan one’s intention is. However I and many others were surprised at the absence of “eminent citizens” appointed onto Abide (RK, Prof Mahesh being the only ones present, not counting Mr. .Ravindra).

I sincerely wish the process all success and take my hats off to all who have brought the papers to this stage. And I hope I can play some small part in the future.

Vijayan Menon

(13/July/2009)

---

COMMENTS

---

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!