By Benjamin Lyngdoh
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled and the dust has settled temporarily. This is the time to lift the foot off the accelerator and put for and counter arguments together and thereby derive at the most logical and effective modus operandi. At the outset, this discourse on local governance and the nuances related to it has dragged on for far too long. It has mutated into uncertainty. However, now we are offered some breathing space. Nonetheless, we must not be complacent and be satisfied by this temporary relief provided by the ruling; rather we should work towards settling this nagging issue to put it to rest once and for all through permanent and workable provisions. As such, I would like to place the following pointers –
Firstly, let us look at this matter away from the prism of KHADC and state government. The fact of the matter is that we are offered a golden opportunity on a platter. It is a historic opportunity. Through this ruling we are given a chance to arrive at the most comprehensive and holistic regulation concerning local governance. The lawmakers of the state must realize that what is done now will resonate for the times to come. At present, we are in a positive trend as far as this discourse is concerned and that way we must seal the deal. The ball is totally in our court and this calls for acting decisively in unity and formulation of the most effective regulations. In addition, our regulations and local governance processes have the opportunity to be a role model to other states that face similar issues in relation to their governance structures.
Secondly, it is high time that the KHADC and the state government work in tandem. This power positioning and one-upmanship is unnecessarily delaying and harming our local governance. This is extremely detrimental as local governance is at the heart of the day-to-day affairs of the populace. If it fails, the society as a whole fails. This may ultimately lead to anarchy. Hence, the lawmakers must keep the big picture in mind and end the squabbling and exchanges for position and power. In relation, if we look at uniformity, it is better for the state government to formulate the regulations. This will be applicable to the entire state. As such, the intra and inter duplication of responsibility and accountability between the three district councils and with the state government would be avoided. Needless to say, such an exercise needs consultations and synergizing of ideas between the district councils and the state government.
Thirdly and in relation to the second point, it is agreed beyond doubt that local governance must be under the supervision of the district councils. That is what they are there for. However, the fact remains that they are subservient to the state government in the federal governance structure. As such, it would seem proper and logical that they respect the ruling of the courts and leave the regulation formulation to the state (despite the fact that they can still challenge this in court). The district councils will not lose their sanctity and importance in the current scheme of things, rather it will only supplement their role and responsibilities with adequate authority which is appropriately defined. Overall, the district councils can be the enforcers of the regulation – legally, financially and otherwise. That way they will perform their designated roles without the dangers of duplication of responsibility and authority. For this to work, the state government regulation may give adequate space for the district councils in the planning and implementation of local governance matters.
Fourthly, the election of local governance officials is always a pressing issue. The pertinent questions here are – Who can stand? Who can vote? What is the term of office? In the current era, it is a medieval practice if candidature is reserved for a certain section alone. Election is a democratic practice and an open right. That way anyone and everyone desirous of contesting must be allowed to do so. The clanship and kinship denominations must take a back stage. Similarly, the voter eligibility and aspects of office holding can all be unambiguously defined in the regulation. In addition, critical aspects like remuneration for the local governance offices and perks and benefits can all be laid down. As such, this regulation has the potential to make our local governance structure one of the most professional and progressive contemporarily.
Fifthly, the direction to bring the local governance offices under the provisions of RTI is highly commendable. It must be applauded. For all intents and purposes, any local governance office is a public office. As such, it is only appropriate that it be open to public scrutiny. This will ensure transparency in the local governance operations and processes thereby percolating into fairness, just and equitable delivery of benefits. More importantly, this will discourage intimidation and highhandedness on the part of the local governance officials (read the Pamrakmai issue).
Lastly, it is only natural that the government servants who hold local governance offices provide information and report on it to their respective government departments. This is only in keeping with the routine practice that the permanent employer must know of the additional responsibilities of its employees outside their primary space of work. They are first subject to the government and then all else follows.
(The writer teaches at NEHU)