[Reader-list] FW: Gujarat Governor returns bill on voting

[anupam chakravartty]

Rakesh and others,

The bill has been questioned not because it might encourage forced voting or
any of the presumptions that critics have cited previously but the
contradictions lie within the system of elections in Gujarat.

I think Bipin, despite vociferously defending Gujarat, has not been able to
say anything on the system of Samras. I am reproducing an article published
in this regard:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/narendra-modis-samras-scheme-has-chinks-galore/449446/2

Published on April 21, 2009

*NGO study shows majority of panchayats under the scheme have not
internalised its essence*

Is Narendra Modi’s much-hyped Samras (Consensus) Scheme, which was intended
to harmonise and smoothen the democratic process at the village level,
negating its own raison d’etre for manipulative politics? An NGO study of
the scheme hints at that.

The Samras Scheme provides for the unanimous selection of a sarpanch of a
village panchayat instead of electing one. The idea behind the scheme is to
do away with conflict and disagreement of any nature in the villages. The
state government asserts that the scheme removes enmity in a village.

An analytical study of the scheme by a network of NGOs like Marag and Mahila
Swaraj Abhiyan (MSA), which have been working in the field since the
inception of the scheme in 2006, has revealed some of the major pitfalls of
the scheme. The study was conducted in about 200 Samras villages across 12
districts (Dahod, Panchmahals, Anand, Surendranagar, Sabarkantha, Kutch,
Surat, Amreli, Ahmedabad, Rajkot, Patan and Bhavnagar).

Under the scheme, a Samras village with a population above 5,000 receives an
incentive of Rs 1 lakh, while villages with a population between 5,000 and
15,000 receive Rs 1.5 lakh as incentive money. A village that appoints a
woman draws an incentive of Rs 7 lakh. Moreover, a village that goes the
Samras way for the second time receives an additional 25 per cent over the
incentive money.

The study included 40 all-women panchayats (22 in Ahmedabad, 15 in Baroda
and 3 in Kutch), while 95 percent of the women chosen in Samras never went
to the first meeting after taking charge and were not aware of the
incentive. Nearly 84 per cent of the marginalised group (Dalits and
adivasis) do not believe that elections cause confrontations or competition.
This is against the logic of the scheme.

No less than 32.3 per cent members of the marginalised group said that they
wanted to stand for elections, but could not due to Samras. The place where
the decision of the Samras was taken was pointed out to be the temple by
15.8 per cent and the sarpanch’s home by 97 per cent of members of the
panchayat body. While 75.8 per cent of the marginalised group was aware of
the decision being taken at the temple, only 8.5 percent knew about meetings
held at the sarpanch’s house.

Thirty three percent of the panchayat body members and 32.3 per cent of the
marginalised group members said that the Samras Scheme was adopted for
financial benefit. Nearly12.4 per cent of the panchayat body and 4.2 per
cent of the marginalised group believe that the reason was due to no
elections in many years. Interestingly, none of the panchayat members said
that the reason was to contain power within a certain community; 14 per cent
of marginalised group believe so.

Only 13.4 per cent panchayat body and 20 per cent of the marginalised group
believe that Samras is held to avoid disputes, while 20 per cent of
panchayat body members are clueless about the reason.

When contacted on Monday, Principal Secretary (Panchayat and Rural
Development) Varesh Sinha told Newsline, “I have not seen the survey report
so I cannot comment on it.”

ENDS

Isnt it ironical that Gujarat government which ran this scheme across the
state was implementing a structure where the elections were deemed
redundant?

-Anupam





On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Bipin
>
> My response (and it would be lengthy, please pardon me for that):
>
> 1) First of all, it's not undemocratic as you have claimed for the Gujarat
> Governor to send the bill back to the Assembly. The Indian Constitution
> gives a Governor the right to send any bill back to the Assembly if she/he
> feel so, but they should specify their objections to the bill. The bill has
> been sent back for reconsideration.
>
> Further, the Indian Constitution stipulates that if the assembly again
> passes the bill, the Governor has to sign the bill back within some time (I
> am not sure but I think it's 15 days or so). Secondly, once this is done,
> the bill has to go for assent to the President, where the Home Ministry
> approves it and then the President notifies the bill, which is when any
> bill
> becomes an act.
>
> The Governor could have very well sat on the bill and done nothing. In that
> case, no Chief Minister, not even Modi, could have done anything to get the
> bill signed from the Governor, and that would have been undemocratic. But
> this is not undemocratic. The bill has been sent for reconsideration based
> on certain views of the Governor, and the Assembly can rightly reject those
> views if it feels so as a whole.
>
> 2) The law which seeks compulsory voting is actually anti-democratic. It is
> a right certainly for the people to vote, but their duty is not to
> necessarily go out there and vote. The duty is a larger set of claims as I
> see it. Firstly, the right to vote is given to people so that they can
> express their views on who should rule them.
>
> The duty which is inherent in the right to vote is not that people should
> vote. It is in having a rational reason for why to vote (or why not to
> vote)
> and vote in favor of whom. This means that if I choose not to vote, I must
> have a reason as to why I have not voted. I need not mention that reason
> before others (freedom of speech and expression), but I must answer myself
> why I have not voted. If I have voted, I must have an answer for that too,
> as also for the question that why I voted for a particular candidate, or
> why
> did I express the option of not voting. These are questions one should
> answer for oneself, and that too based on reason and rationality. If that
> is
> lacking, that should be criticized. Instead of that it's wrong to criticize
> not voting simply.
>
> Even if I am forced to vote as per the act in question, whom should I vote
> for? What do I get by not voting for any candidate as one of the rules
> state? I have to mention my name and moreover, that name is public and not
> secret. Moreover, if I don't believe in the Indian democratic system or
> feel
> it has failed and failed most miserably (say I am a tribal who thinks so),
> then why should I be forced to vote? When I think it's futile, and if it
> has
> indeed proved futile inspite of my voting, what's the use of voting anyway?
>
> 3) The 40-50% voting is seen for Lok Sabha elections. Assembly elections in
> India generally see a higher voter turnout of around 60-70%, while for
> panchayat elections across the country, the voting percentages are quite
> high, around 80-90%. Those who doubt it can check the figures on the
> Election Commission site.
>
> The question will obviously arise: why low voting for Lok Sabha election?
> The answer is simple. Most of the people living in India, hardly get to see
> the Lok Sabha Member of Parliament. May be in cities, but hardly in
> villages. It is the panchayat, the gram sabha, and the local block
> officials
> who are the most important, in villages, or the councillors in cities. May
> be the MLA is important, but the Lok Sabha MP is hardly seen. The Indian
> bureaucracy doesn't exist, and therefore it's important that for the people
> to be able to secure basic services (from BPL cards to ensuring PDS shops
> remaining open to getting access to govt. schemes), they should get a
> favorable rule for this, a rule which can improve the functioning of the
> system and ensure required goods and services for them. Since that is in
> the
> panchayats, and the local governments, they feel they have a greater stake
> in the local governments and not say the national government.
>
> This is extremely ironic when we consider the fact that it's the central
> government which has the highest power in terms of decision making and
> finances, followed by the state and then the local governments. But the
> people face the local government officials daily (the councillors or the
> panchayat) so they feel easy officials can ensure greater development work
> in their constituency.
>
> We should be happy that for a central government, people vote in nos. of
> around 40-50%, which is still quite good considering the size of our
> electorate. It can be better, yes, and I believe it should be, importantly
> because the central government has larger power than it should have. But
> that doesn't ask for forced voting. That won't solve the problem. What will
> is education and further understanding of the situation.
>
> Therefore, for me, yes I would like the voting percentage to increase, not
> because I believe voting is duty of all, but because the central government
> has a larger impact on the people than they think it has, and therefore
> they
> too should be able to influence it and get better representatives for
> themselves if possible. Who knows, such education can also ensure the end
> of
> hopeless coalition governments (like NDA and UPA), and also force political
> parties to become more democratic!
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>