No consensus on consensus panchayats

Even as the state Government is smarting after it managed to get elected samras...

Even as the state Government is smarting after it managed to get elected samras (consensus) panchayats for 30 per cent of the villages during the recently concluded village panchayat elections, it has drawn flak from activists and sociologists who have termed it as a process of “subverting democracy” by offering “carrot of monetary incentives” and “linking development with political process”.

Out of a total of 1,436 villages for which the elections were held on January 20, 426 villages opted for samras or consensus panchayats, with sarpanch as well as members getting elected without holding of elections.

Though the samras scheme had been in practice in the state since 1991-92 Congress regime, it became popular and attracted attention when Chief Minister Narendra Modi increased the monetary incentives in 2001 panchayat elections.

Story continues below this ad

With increase in incentives, the percentage of samras panchayats naturally registered an increase. According to officials of the State Election Commission, the percentage of samras villages, which was hardly four to five per cent previously, jumped to 27.2 per cent in 2001 and to 30 per cent in this year’s elections. The idea of samras, officials say, is to promote harmony, and reduce social and caste tension generated during village panchayat polls. State’s Panchayati Raj Ministry, soon after the notification of January 2008 panchayat elections, had announced a monetary assistance of Rs 1 lakh for villages having seven panchayat members and Rs 2 lakh for bigger ones with more than seven members. The assistance, according to officials, is given to samras panchayats for carrying out developmental projects in villages.

Activists are, however, not against election of samras panchayats if it is achieved without any monetary attraction for development or what they call as “bribe” from the Government to influence the panchayat polls. Dubbing the whole scheme as “subversion of democracy at the grassroots level”, Gangan Sethi of Jan Vikas questioned the logic of linking development with election process. “Development is a policy matter and can’t be linked with election,” he said.

Stating that samras was against the essence of democracy as it obstructed the devolution of political power to powerless through holding regular village panchayat elections after every five years as per article 243E(I) of the Constitution, Satyakam Joshi of Surat-based Centre for Social Studies said: “We can’t ignore democracy even if it leads to some kind of caste and community tension”.

State Election Commission (SEC) secretary V H Shah said that EC fully followed the electoral laws from notification till final results of elections. “But if anybody felt it was illegal and unconstitutional, let the person challenge it in court,” he said, clarifying that the commission neither announced nor gave any incentive, monetary or otherwise. It was given by the Ministry Of Panchayati Raj.