New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016. xvii, 288 pp. (Tables, figures.) US$99.99, cloth. ISBN 978-1-107-12887-3.
The objective of this book is to explain variations in the adoption and implementation of local democracy across developing countries. It disputes what it characterizes as two common views on the subject: the first, that local democratization is simply an extension of national democratization; and the second, that it is one form of decentralization or the transfer of power from higher to lower tiers of governance. Adopting a minimalist definition of democracy—as competitive elections—the author argues that government elites, and especially chief executives, are more likely to adopt or implement local democratization when they either lack access to party organizational networks or face internal party competition for control over such networks. This suggests that the key variable influencing the implementation of local democratization is the relationship between governmental elites and party organization.
This thesis is advanced for a dataset of 68 developing countries with a population of over 10 million, across three continents: Asia, Africa, and Central and Southern America. However, the substantive focus of the book (chapters 3 through 7) is on India. It is the empirical account of the introduction of local democracy in India, and the analysis of intra-party competition in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, that provides the substantive basis of the book’s argument. The author uses a mixed-methods approach that blends the qualitative and the quantitative.
The author’s focus rightly encompasses both the introduction and implementation of local democratization. The analytical distinction between these two is sometimes blurred though it is clear that the same explanation is offered both for the adoption of institutions of local democracy by the national government and their varied implementation by state governments. On the issue of adopting local democracy, Bohlken explains Rajiv Gandhi’s motivation to revitalize panchayat raj in terms of his attempt to reduce his reliance on the competing power centres within the Congress Party by establishing an “effective base of local intermediaries” for himself. This is very much in line with the then opposition’s rejection of the proposed amendments as “from the PM to the DM without the CM.” It is true that Gandhi felt frustrated in his attempts to reform and modernize the Congress by curbing the influence of entrenched “power brokers.” However, as K.C. Sivaramakrishnan shows in Power to the People? (Konark, 2000), a first-hand account of the process by which the amendments came to be formulated and eventually passed, Rajiv also keenly desired to more effectively channel public resources for development. Why Narasimha Rao’s minority government managed to get these bills through in 1993, while Gandhi’s majority government did not in 1989, remains a puzzle. The fact that Rao was compelled, exactly a year later, to introduce the lavishly funded Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme as a sop to MPs who felt they were losing control over the local, is significant.
The introduction of local democracy in 1993, along with provisions for affirmative action (for women and members of historically disadvantaged groups), was certainly a watershed moment that marked a departure from even the most well-intentioned earlier attempts at democratic decentralization in states like Karnataka or West Bengal. Frequently, however, the specific characteristics of panchayat institutions before and after 1993 are elided. The assumption of continuity—as in citing scholars from the 1960s to the 1980s—is troubling not just because it suggests that the role played by local representatives has remained unchanged over time, but also because it diminishes the importance of the very processes of local democratization that are the subject of this book. With all its imperfections and challenges, it is indeed democratization that is the pre-eminent feature of the new architecture of local governance.
The difference between the period before and after 1993 is arguably not just in the quality of local democracy introduced, but also in its twinning with decentralization for development. The stated purpose of the constitutional amendment was to give the people, through their elected panchayats, a voice in the preparation of plans and implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice. Local democracy was not democracy for its own sake; it was necessary because devolution by itself would not be effective unless people’s participation was ensured.
There is no doubt that, once in place, these institutions would be used to distribute rewards and offer incentives to suit the interests of leaders at higher levels of governance. This is where the explanation for the adoption of democratic decentralization could differ from that of its actual implementation. The implementation box can be checked through the routine holding of elections. But, starving the panchayats of funds or propping up parallel bodies (not just caste panchayats, but also water and forest management committees), can render them substantively irrelevant. Once again, the relationship of democratization with decentralization is important.
The author wisely acknowledges that local democratization may and does occur without genuine decentralization. However, she stops short of asking the normative question of the value of such democratization. In India, varying degrees of inadequacy in the devolution of functions and resources often render elected representatives powerless. In circumstances of voice without valence, indeed of the hollowing out of democracy, should we not interrogate the worth of the concept of “local democratization” even if defined in a minimalist way, as the holding of competitive elections? In the final analysis, it does seem to be relevant whether initiatives for local democratization are seen as enjoying primacy (for whatever instrumental political reasons) or whether they are seen as necessary complements to the task of decentralized development. Bohlken’s argument supports the first of these views; many of the champions of local democratic decentralization—whether governmental elites or civil society activists—are likely to take the latter view. The disagreement, then, zeroes in on the question: what is local democratization for?
Niraja Gopal Jayal
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India