As the dust settles on voting in the Zilla Panchayat (ZP) elections and political parties turn to post-poll calculations ahead of counting day, a deeper question resurfaces beyond seat tallies, margins and alliance arithmetic: what real authority do these district-level bodies exercise in Goa’s governance framework?
The elections have been keenly contested, treated by political parties as a test of grassroots strength and an organisational marker between Assembly polls. Yet behind the electoral heat lies a quieter institutional reality. ZPs continue to function with limited powers, weak financial autonomy and little direct control over development works. The contradiction between the political importance attached to these polls and the modest authority vested in the institutions being elected has defined the ZP experience in Goa for years, raising questions about whether the elections serve governance or merely political management.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Elections without authority
For political parties, ZP elections serve multiple purposes. They energise cadre, test ground-level strategies, accommodate local leaders and provide a platform to signal organisational presence across constituencies. Over time, the ZP has also emerged as a political stepping stone, with several leaders using district-level positions to build visibility, consolidate networks and eventually transition into the State legislature.
Over the years, ZPs have also functioned as a political springboard in Goa, with several leaders using a ZP term to gain visibility, build organisational networks and establish their credentials before contesting Assembly elections. This has further raised the political stakes attached to ZP polls, even as the institution itself remains constrained in terms of powers, finances and decision-making authority.
Political observers note that this explains the intensity surrounding the contests. “Zilla Panchayat elections matter politically because they help parties map their grassroots strength and manage aspirations,” said political observer John Fernandes. “Administratively, however, the institution has very little leverage over outcomes, which is where the contradiction lies,” he added.
A former ZP member who remains involved in the current campaign, but is not contesting this time after his ward was placed in a reserved category, said the issue of devolution needed to be addressed by the next government rather than pushed through in the middle of an electoral cycle. “When you keep Zilla Panchayats weak, you undermine the institution itself,” he said. “There is still a lot that ZPs can do in terms of development works within their constituencies and in influencing local issues that people bring to us. But without clarity on powers and funds, even that role gets diluted.”
This duality of political relevance and administrative weakness has ensured that ZP polls remain competitive even as questions persist over what elected members can realistically deliver once in office. The result is an election cycle heavy on mobilisation and rhetoric, but light on conversations about institutional reform.
Design, planning and the District Development Plan paradox
In principle, ZPs occupy a critical position in the three-tier system of local self-government, intended to provide district-level coordination and planning between village panchayats and the State government. Unlike village bodies, which focus on hyper-local works, ZPs were envisaged as institutions that would take a wider view, identifying district priorities, addressing inter-village concerns and guiding integrated development across sectors.
In practice, this role remains underdeveloped in Goa. Village panchayats and municipalities enjoy clearer executive functions and defined channels of implementation, while ZPs are largely confined to a coordinative role. They sit between grassroots institutions and the State machinery, but without authority to independently sanction projects, deploy funds or direct line departments.
These limitations are most visible in the District Development Plan (DDP) process, meant to form the backbone of district-level governance. The DDP is prepared through a bottom-up exercise, drawing on proposals from village panchayats and consolidated inputs from municipal councils, and compiled through the District Planning Committee (DPC). On paper, it reflects decentralised planning in action. On the ground, its impact has been far more muted.
In South Goa, the scale of this disconnect became evident in early 2024, when the district’s first comprehensive DDP in over two decades was finalised after months of effort. The plan consolidated more than 3,000 proposals from panchayats and municipal bodies, with an estimated outlay of around Rs 229 crore. For local bodies, the exercise generated cautious optimism that long-pending infrastructure and community needs would finally be addressed through a district-level framework.
Despite being forwarded to the government and later to the Finance Department, none of the proposals were sanctioned or funded. What was projected as a milestone in district planning instead became a case study in institutional paralysis.
When effort meets a wall
The failure of the South Goa DDP had consequences that extended beyond delayed projects. By early 2025, officials grew reluctant to even initiate the next planning cycle, wary of approaching panchayats for fresh proposals when the fate of earlier submissions remained unresolved. “Asking panchayats to send new plans without clarity on the previous ones is unfair,” said J Santan Rodrigues, President of the Goa Panchayati Raj Institutions Union. “When months of work lead nowhere, it destroys confidence in the entire planning process.”
By the end of the outgoing ZP term, no meeting of the South Goa DPC had been convened to revive the stalled plan. As a result, voters went to the polls with the core issue of district-level planning still unresolved, even as a new ZP is set to take charge. During this period, leadership changes at the ZP level coincided with continued silence on the DDP, reinforcing perceptions that political manoeuvring had overtaken governance priorities.
Officials familiar with the process privately acknowledge that when district plans fail to move beyond submission, the credibility of planning itself erodes, making it harder to justify fresh exercises to already sceptical local bodies.
Devolution, political control and the missing middle
At the heart of the DDP impasse lies a deeper issue: incomplete devolution of powers. More than three decades after the 73rd Constitutional Amendment envisaged a three-tier panchayati raj system, successive governments in Goa have hesitated to fully transfer functions, finances and functionaries to local bodies.
Key sectors such as health, education, irrigation and land reforms remain under State control. Without authority over personnel or budgets, ZPs are left dependent on higher departments even when local priorities are clearly articulated. This dependence is compounded by the continued dominance of line departments and legislators in shaping development outcomes.
A recurring criticism from within ZPs is that district bodies are squeezed between powerful State departments and elected MLAs. In practice, legislators continue to wield significant influence over development works and fund allocation, leaving ZPs with limited space to assert authority. Projects identified through district planning are frequently subsumed within departmental or MLA-driven priorities, weakening the relevance of district-level coordination.
Rodrigues argued that this hollows out planning itself. “Planning without control over funds is meaningless,” he said. “The DDP becomes a document, not a tool.”
Senior academics and former officials familiar with decentralised governance note that resistance to devolution is as much political as administrative. Transferring authority reduces the leverage of Ministers and MLAs over development works, while departments are often reluctant to share control with elected district bodies.
Voices from within the system
Frustration has surfaced even from within the institution. During a previous term, former South Goa ZP Vice-Chairperson Kushali Jorgo Velip publicly questioned the relevance of ZPs in the absence of authority. “If Zilla Panchayats do not have proper powers and status, what is their purpose?” Velip had asked during a ZP meeting. “Funds may be allocated, but there is no clarity on our roles.”
Soon after, amid leadership changes directed by the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership at the time, Velip resigned from the post. The episode highlighted unease even within the ruling establishment about the limits placed on district institutions.
How other States differ
The contrast with States such as Kerala is instructive. There, local bodies control plan funds and play a decisive role in implementation, giving district planning real consequence. Authority is aligned with responsibility, lending credibility to decentralised governance. In Goa, by contrast, planning is decentralised but power remains centralised, leaving ZPs caught in between.
Voters, expectations and the credibility gap
Beyond institutional design and administrative bottlenecks, the power deficit of ZPs has begun to shape voter behaviour in subtle but significant ways. While ZP elections continue to draw participation, conversations on the ground increasingly reflect a limited expectation of what elected members can realistically deliver. In several constituencies, voters differentiate between issues they raise with village panchayats, MLAs and ZP members, often reserving district-level representatives for matters that require escalation rather than resolution.
This credibility gap has consequences. When ZP members are unable to demonstrate tangible outcomes despite repeated planning exercises, public engagement with district institutions risks becoming transactional rather than participatory. Over time, this weakens the feedback loop that decentralised governance is meant to create.
Former ZP members privately acknowledge that the absence of visible outcomes makes it difficult to sustain public confidence across terms. As a result, election campaigns increasingly focus on party affiliation, personal accessibility or alignment with higher authorities, rather than on district-level policy or planning priorities.
Symbolic institutions, real elections
This imbalance explains the paradox at the heart of ZP elections. Politically, the contests matter. Administratively, the institutions struggle to assert relevance. Elections generate mobilisation and momentum, but rarely translate into a shift in district-level governance.
As counting day approaches, the unresolved question remains: does Goa intend to empower its ZPs as genuine instruments of decentralised governance, or will they remain symbolic bodies that absorb political energy without exercising authority?
Until genuine devolution of powers, funds and functions takes place, ZP elections are likely to remain high on political drama, while the question of whether Goa truly wants empowered district governance remains unanswered.
