Editorial: Need participatory, not performative rule

Many Chennaiites would recall how MK Stalin, then the Mayor of Chennai between 1996-2002, had walked through the streets, listened to the grievances of the public regarding garbage collection and instructed officials to redress them immediately. It was back in 2000, that the Chennai Corporation tied up with private contractors for the first time to facilitate the collection of garbage. Decades later, Stalin as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, did an encore after torrential rains lashed the city last November. 

As celebrated as it was as an example of Stalin’s penchant for the old-fashioned way of conducting politics even in this information age, it highlighted something more serious: the absence of the local body representatives, the ones who connect directly with the constituents.

In any modern, functioning democracy, it is unimaginable that a body as important as the Corporation Council was absent for five years, an interregnum where officials took important policy decisions in closed rooms from where information did not flow; it merely trickled depending on what the bureaucracy decided was safe for the people to know. It relegated citizens to the equivalent of children while officials exercised their powers to use a parental control feature on the TV. 

Beyond the opacity, this goes against the idea of having a three-tier system of governance where the local bodies form the grassroots and address every day issues confronting the people. While it is admirable that the Local Administration Minister or the CM are present on ground zero in the event of inundation or waterlogging, it is the wrong model of governance. By definition, the primary responsibility of a legislator is that – to legislate.

Civic issues such as choked stormwater drains or inadequate garbage disposal mechanisms are addressed best by civic body representatives who are more clued into the problems in a given locality and have, at least in theory, a better understanding of the ways and means to resolve them to the satisfaction of locals. The Minister handling the Local Administration department only needs to step in if the issue is serious enough to warrant her/his intervention.

Unlike in many developed economies where referenda are common, in a nation of India’s size, it is often impossible for an MP or an MLA to offer every citizen a chance to be heard. That precisely is where a Corporation Council comes into play in a city like Chennai. 

Having a ward-level representative and a Mayor might be a welcome change from the present scenario. But perhaps, it is time to make administration much more participatory to transform governance to ground-up from the present top-down.

Earlier this month, a residents’ welfare association in the city urged the civic body to hold open house meetings to enable residents to meet the officials and raise the issues they faced. Such meetings are common in most European cities and townships, and even the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board holds monthly meetings at the local level.

Such initiatives have the potential to bring in more people to take an active interest in the development of their neighbourhood in which they are direct stakeholders. These meetings are likely to be packed with differing perspectives, but as the ones who are footing the bill by way of paying their taxes, the people have the right to be heard and argue for their interests. 

Making the ward councillor duty-bound to participate in the meeting would prod them into being even more responsible to the public. And it would ensure that the officials are responsive to residents’ complaints.

The upcoming local body election is, thus, merely the first step towards that. For governance to be more proactive and participatory instead of merely being performative, the citizens need to participate actively in polls and beyond.