The government’s decision to take the ordinance route to have Zilla Panchayat elections on party lines has come under flak from the opposition and civil society. Political analysts have called it a ‘fraud’ and rightly asked why the government didn’t use the last three years it has been in power to bring about the change through the Legislative Assembly.
It certainly didn’t dawn on the government only recently that the Zilla Panchayat elections are due in March and that they could or should be held on party lines. The Zilla Panchayats have a fixed term and if the government was considering elections on party lines it had enough time and ample opportunity to bring about the necessary amendment in the Legislative Assembly where the amendment could have been debated and then passed. The government has the numbers in the House to get the amendment through, and therefore there was no fear that the amendment may not have gone through.
Getting it passed by the House would not only have been a transparent manner of making the change but would have also given the opposition an opportunity to put forth its arguments against the amendment in the legislature. An ordinance only succeeds in pushing through the government’s decision on a certain subject without a discussion and debate in the Legislature, like this one has.
If civil society has questioned the ordinance route, the Goa Panchayat Raj Institutions’ Union asked the government to rethink on the amendment and even questioned the motive of the government. If the change is meant to ensure stability in the panchayats, where village panchayat sarpanchas and ZP presidents, are voted out and new ones voted in every few months, then there is no guarantee that this amendment will meet the purpose.
To ensure stability in the panchayats it would require that the Act be further amended to bring in an anti-defection provision that would force members changing sides to either give up their seat and seek re-election or be disqualified. Though Goa’s Zilla Panchayat elections have never been held on party lines, in many constituencies one does find that it has been party-backed candidates that contest and once elected band together to elect the district panchayat chief. This allows for a very loose coming together of the elected members that can break at any moment as they seek a larger slice of the cake, which Goa has experienced. Just contesting on the party symbol will not stop them from fishing for a better deal.
Party politics at the grassroots level could change the political face of Goa. The rationale behind the ZPs is to ensure that power percolates down to the grassroots. The current system allows an individual who has no party affiliation but who is interested in working for the people to contest and also become politically active. Elections on party lines would change that, as instead of looking at the worthiness of the candidate, voters would be swayed by the party symbol. As has been alleged by a ZP member, allowing the district panchayat elections on party lines would result in accumulation of powers in the hands of parties and their bosses. The elected representative would then have to follow the party line and party thinking, rather than have the freedom to choose and decide on what is best for his constituency and for the district.
What is more important to the Zilla Panchayats, and their members, is that they be given powers and the finances to be more effective and productive. This is what they have been demanding for a very long time. The government is aware that the ZPs do not have a budget big enough to take up developmental works. In December 2014, Panchayat minister Dayanand Mandrekar had publicly made a rather telling comment when he questioned why Zilla Panchayats were formed if the government didn’t intend to fund them. Since the district bodies were formed in Goa, those elected to the bodies have been complaining of non-availability of funds. Elections on party lines could lead to complaints of ZPs being denied funds if the district panchayat is not controlled by the party in government.
The government’s decision affects the grassroots and here the government must act by what is best for the people. The government still has time to change its mind.
