Urban centres in times of the Pandemic
India is a rapidly urbanizing state. The 2011 census estimates that 31% of Indians live in urban areas. It counts 4041 statutory towns, 3892 census towns and 474 urban agglomerations as urban areas. These numbers however are quite outdated in 2020 and also there is considerable consensus among experts that there is an underestimation of urban spaces owing to the outdated definition of ‘urban’ in India. For example, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, based on satellite data, reports that at least 54% of India’s population lived in cities or large urban areas in 2015 and the World bank using the Agglomeration Index finds out that 55.3% of India’s population lived in urban-like spaces in 2010. Regardless, the fact remains that these urban spaces should be governed democratically with the spirit of the 74th amendment. The COVID-19 situation further reasserts the importance of such governments and their role in Indian society.
Cities and urban spaces have emerged as hotspots of the Coronavirus. It is from the cities that the coronavirus subsequently spread to other rural areas.
Cities and urban spaces have emerged as hotspots of the Coronavirus. It is from the cities that the coronavirus subsequently spread to other rural areas. Throughout history, pandemics have originated and perpetuated from cities, therefore it is not irrational to predict another pandemic perpetuated from cities in today’s close-knit global village. This warrants a greater need to safeguard the cities which are the essential links that connect nation states to the globalized world. The first step in this direction would be to empower urban governments for efficient crisis management and prevention of communicable diseases by assuring basic public goods.
Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity advises that the Central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed at a more local level. The principle therefore asserts the sovereignty of the citizen in a democracy and places her at the center of decision making.
In line with the principle, everything that can be done better locally, including providing basic services like safe drinking water and ensuring public goods like clean air, should be done by the local governments. The rationale being that, one, it increases efficiency and promotes self-reliance; two, it provides legitimacy to democracy and three, it creates awareness among people and develops responsible citizens. And another obvious reason is that it is most effective in understanding the local problems and in ensuring a pragmatic feedback loop.
All these reasons become much more clearer in times of crisis such as the Covid-19 pandemic when local assessment and rapid service delivery become difficult. Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) neither have properly delineated functions to perform nor do they have the finances to do so. The 12th schedule of the Indian Constitution lists a group of 18 subjects on which the local governments can act upon, but only if the States ‘may’ wish to assign those functions by virtue of another State legislation. Even when legislated, States usually encroach into the domain of the purview of the local governments.
The Veerappa Moily commission’s sixth report dealing with local governance sums it up perfectly.
“Confusion, unnecessary duplication, inefficiency, wastage of funds, poor outputs and outcomes are the result of this organisational jungle. The local organisations which should be the ones most directly and fully concerned are at best treated as a small part of the implementation, occasionally consulted but, in most cases, by-passed and ignored”.
Furthermore, the establishment of parastatals has reduced the functions of the local governments. The Parastatals perform specific functions which are supposed to be performed by ULBs and are accountable only to the State government thereby circumventing the ULBs. In addition, the Union government also takes a share of the implementation space with centrally sponsored schemes thereby making proper delineation of powers impossible for ULBs.
The Veerappa Moily commission’s sixth report dealing with local governance sums it up perfectly.
“Confusion, unnecessary duplication, inefficiency, wastage of funds, poor outputs and outcomes are the result of this organisational jungle. The local organisations which should be the ones most directly and fully concerned are at best treated as a small part of the implementation, occasionally consulted but, in most cases, by-passed and ignored”.
Now, when experts ask for decentralized governance to efficiently deal with the pandemic and to decentralize decision-making regarding lockdown measures, all they get is a dysfunctional organisation jungle where local governments do not have the wherewithal to function as self-governing institutions.
Disaster Risk Reduction
Strong local governments are of great importance, especially during disasters and pandemics. Experts suggest that a sound bottom-up governance approach has been more successful in the wake of disaster response. For instance, in a UNDP study on disaster risk reduction in Bangladesh, they point out the importance of local governance.
The report suggests that local governments are crucial because they ‘play the greatest role in sustaining ongoing, participatory disaster risk reduction at local community level’. The report goes on to summarize that the key lesson learnt from the study is that decentralization of authority and decision making is essential to effectively deal with the disaster.
“Decentralization of authority to local governments is vital to ensure local ownership of disaster risk reduction and the local implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Local authorities should have the responsibility of implementing disaster risk reduction, and be accountable to the community they represent in doing so”.
Much has been written about why governments closer to the people are more effective but what is equally important is that when decision making is decentralized, citizen satisfaction and responsibility is increased (for example, see this study done in Indonesia). This becomes important in times of the Covid-19 pandemic where individual responsibility is necessary to stop the spread of the virus. Also with lives and livelihoods pitted against each other, citizen satisfaction is important to make hard decisions which might deter personal freedom in the short term.
Considering all this, the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, which was used by the Union government to impose lockdown measures, seems to lack the involvement of local governments in disaster risk reduction. V N Alok in his article for the Financial Express, deals with this complaint. He argues that there is only a passing reference to local government in the Act and even when referenced, functions are mostly subsidiary to the District authority headed by the Collector/Magistrate which is controlled by the State government. On the other hand, there is no ambiguity in assigning functions to the State and Union governments.
India is often referred to as the ‘flailing state’, which is strong and sound in the centre, with no reliability at the grass-roots. Local governments can provide the missing link that could hinge the State to the people.
This again echoes Veerappa Moily Commission’s concern that there is no proper delineation of powers for the local governments. Article 243 N and 243 ZF mandated that all laws inconsistent with parts IX and X of the Indian constitution shall be changed accordingly within a year of passing the 73rd and 74th Amendments. But most States have still not identified and changed all statutes conforming to the idea that local governments are self-governing institutions. This shows India’s hesitation to look at local governments as self-governing institutions capable of dealing with problems.
India is often referred to as the ‘flailing state’, which is strong and sound in the centre, with no reliability at the grass-roots. Local governments can provide the missing link that could hinge the State to the people.
Its importance is felt during the pandemic more so than ever, especially in cities where the institution is weak compared to rural India. An integrated approach, with involvement from the local government, would prove to be more effective than centralized decision making. But before relying on ULBs and locally elected leaders, they have to be empowered-politically, functionally and financially. The first step towards such empowerment could be by including local governments in conversations regarding governance and decision making; to be more vocal about local governments.
