As ADMK enjoys majority in all Corporations, the decision has surprised many; The move will encourage horse-trading
The ADMK Government’s move to abolish direct elections to the prestigious post of Mayor of Municipal Corporations and empower councillors to elect a Mayor has come as a surprise.
Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill introduced to amend the law in the Assembly state that in certain councils of Municipal Corporations, Mayors do not enjoy the support of councillors, Tamil Nadu has not witnessed any known case of rebellion against any of its 12 Mayors in the last five years. The ADMK enjoys a majority in all Municipal Corporations.
The only case where a Mayor did not get the cooperation of councillors was in 2001 when DMK leader Thalapathi M.K. Stalin was elected to the post in Chennai but his party did not have a majority in the council. This has prompted the DMK to go in for indirect elections in 2006.
Considering that it was the ADMK Government which restored the direct elections five years ago, it is not clear what compelling reasons have forced the latest move. Opinion is, however, divided on the move.
Retired IAS officer M.G. Devasahayam feels the Mayor in a city should be elected directly, as the requirements of urban local bodies, particularly in terms of governance and administration, are different those of rural local bodies.
P. Sattanathan, former Chairman of the Sengottai Municipal Corporation, also strongly advocated direct election to local bodies, saying it alone would ensure election of a person who had direct contact with people though he agreed that councillors in all local bodies had become trouble makers.
What prompted the government to introduce a Bill abolishing direct elections for the post of Mayor is a matter of conjecture, as in all the 12 Municipal Corporations, the Mayors belong to the ADMK and the party has a majority in the respective councils. Since 1996 when elections to the civic bodies were revived, the manner of conducting the Mayoral polls has undergone changes and the number of Municipal Corporations has also expanded from six to 12.
Mayors were directly elected to the six Corporations – Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchi, Tirunelveli and Salem – in 1996. The process remained unchanged in 2001. But the DMK Government amended the law in 2006 paving the way for indirect elections, after its Mayor M. K. Stalin faced a harrowing time in the Chennai Corporation where councillors belonging to the ADMK-Congress-TMC outnumbered those of the DMK and its allies during 2001-02.
He resigned later under the one-man, one-post rule.
Municipalities in Vellore, Thoothukudi, Tirupur, Erode, Dindigul and Thanjavur were converted into Corporations in the last 10 years during the ADMK and DMK regimes.
In 2011, the ADMK restored direct elections and subsequently converted Dindigul and Thanjavur Municipalities into Corporations.
Now, it has moved a Bill to go back to indirect elections.
Horse-trading: The next Coimbatore Mayor will be the person who the Corporation councillors vote for, not the people. The change has come as a result of a Bill the State Assembly on Jun 22.
In the past 20 years, the city had seen five Mayors. Of those the first, second, fourth and fifth were elected directly by the people.
Only R. Venkatachalam, the third Mayor, was elected by the councillors. He was in office from 2006-11.
The new process will not bring about any change in the way the city is administered, says the city’s first Mayor V. Gopalakrishnan, who served between 1996 and 2001.
In case of indirect election, the political parties nominate a councillor, whom they think will be best suited to lead the city.
The party councillors would vote for the candidate and he or she would function with the officials the way directly elected Mayors would do. Therefore there would be no change.
But, if there has to be a change, the political parties should nominate a well-read and a capable administrator, who should have a quick grasp of the administration. More so at a time when the city would be implementing projects under the Smart Cities project, he adds.
The State Government’s move is not about administration but about capturing power, says former councillor K. Purushothaman.
The CPI leader says that given the narrow difference in vote margin between the ADMK and DMK in the just-concluded Assembly election, the ruling party, to capture as many urban and rural local bodies, has tweaked rules so as to buy councillors. This will lead to horse-trading.
Plus, the political parties could change Mayors or Chairpersons as and when they want and elect a new one as indirect election makes it easy, he adds.
A retired bureaucrat says that under the new rules, the leader of the urban body will not be as powerful as directly elected one because they could be removed if a majority of councillors/elected representatives want them out.
In case of a directly elected Mayor or municipal chairperson, he or she can only resign and cannot be removed. The bureaucrat also says that this will lead to horse-trading.
For the first time since DMK’s M Subramanian in 2006-07, Chennai will have an indirectly elected mayor come October. The amendment bill tabled in the Assembly indicates the ADMK government’s unwillingness to continue with a tradition it re-introduced in 2011.
Observers, however, say the change will have little impact on Chennai’s development. Criticising the `vague nature’ of city governance laws -which permit ruling parties to alter the election pattern -experts said the move would only allow the state government to reaffirm its grip over the local body .
“It is a political move. Since the DMK outperformed the ADMK in Chennai in the Assembly election, the latter wants to gain the lost ground in the local body elections. Winning in Chennai creates the impression that the ruling party has not lost its influence,” said Venkatesh, faculty member at Anna Centre for Public Affairs, University of Madras.
The DMK, which is the principal opposition in the Assembly, will oppose the bill though. Saidapet MLA Subramanian told TOI the move would affect transparency. Asked why the DMK preferred indirect elections a decade ago, Subramanian said, “The situation was different back then.”
He said the change would encourage “horse-trading on the council floor“. Incidentally, as opposition in 2006, when the DMK scrapped the polls, the ADMK had similar reservations.
With the mayor’s post being perceived as one invested with more pomp than power, former deputy mayor Karate R Thiagarajan said the change wouldn’t matter much.“The new mayor will be hoisting flags and distributing chocolates,” he said.
But the same cannot be said of cities like London where the Mayor, elected by the people, is vested with power and responsibility. The Mayor puts together plans and policies, and runs and funds projects. “Chennai too can be similar if it weren’t for the prevalent political culture. The system here is such that an individual can’t promote an agenda without the support of his/her party ,“ said Venkatesh.
There are some for whom the move is a welcome change. Bureaucrats want a handpicked Mayor since they wouldn’t have to conduct a second election. Last time, polls to elect councillors were followed by the mayoral election. “The corporation gets most of its funds from the government. A councillor-elected mayor will have a better standing with government. It will be easy to impeach him if things go wrong,” said a senior government official.
Saidai flop show: The government’s decision to change the mode of election of mayors from direct to indirect may have been triggered by its bitter experience with Chennai Mayor Saidai S Duraisamy , who fell from grace with the party leadership within two years of assuming office in 2011. The party, apart from sidelining him, couldn’t risk replacing him as it would have meant testing the popularity of the ADMK government in Chennai city.
After his October 2011 win, Duraisamy had said he would convert Chennai into Singapore. Five years on, the streets continue to be littered. Neither his ambitious Amma theaters nor weekly markets took off. He announced them without even knowing that such projects did not come under the corporation’s purview. The city, meanwhile, faced the December floods and the Mayor seemed completely lost. He could not differentiate between storm-water drains and underground sewerage. As fallout, the ruling party lost 10 seats to the DMK in the city in the Assembly election.
All the 12 municipal corporations in the State are now headed by ADMK Mayors, directly elected by voters in 2011. Analysts say independent Mayors are a threat to the ruling party which wants to control civic administration. If the party wants to change a Mayor, it cannot do it at present. “But the party leadership can rein in wrong-doers in an indirect election,” political analyst M Kasinathan said.
After Thalapathi M K Stalin’s election was nullified by the one-man, one-post law in 2002, DMK changed the law in 2006 to introduce indirect elections. In 2011, the ADMK brought back direct election saying Mayors were concentrating only on their wards. Now, the ruling party has changed its position for indirect election.
“We’ve seen the two modes and found direct elections better,” said deputy leader of opposition, Duraimurugan. He said the ADMK was scared of holding direct election for mayors because it was on a sticky wicket. After losing Assembly seats like Trichy, Tirunelveli, Vellore, and 10 seats in Chennai city, Jayalalitha’s government was worried, he said.
VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan and CPM state secretary G Ramakrishnan said the move was politically-motivated and would lead to horse trading among councillors.
The ADMK Government’s move to abolish direct elections to the prestigious post of Mayor of Municipal Corporations and empower councillors to elect a Mayor has come as a surprise.
Though the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill introduced to amend the law in the Assembly state that in certain councils of Municipal Corporations, Mayors do not enjoy the support of councillors, Tamil Nadu has not witnessed any known case of rebellion against any of its 12 Mayors in the last five years. The ADMK enjoys a majority in all Municipal Corporations.
The only case where a Mayor did not get the cooperation of councillors was in 2001 when DMK leader Thalapathi M.K. Stalin was elected to the post in Chennai but his party did not have a majority in the council. This has prompted the DMK to go in for indirect elections in 2006.
Considering that it was the ADMK Government which restored the direct elections five years ago, it is not clear what compelling reasons have forced the latest move. Opinion is, however, divided on the move.
Retired IAS officer M.G. Devasahayam feels the Mayor in a city should be elected directly, as the requirements of urban local bodies, particularly in terms of governance and administration, are different those of rural local bodies.
P. Sattanathan, former Chairman of the Sengottai Municipal Corporation, also strongly advocated direct election to local bodies, saying it alone would ensure election of a person who had direct contact with people though he agreed that councillors in all local bodies had become trouble makers.
What prompted the government to introduce a Bill abolishing direct elections for the post of Mayor is a matter of conjecture, as in all the 12 Municipal Corporations, the Mayors belong to the ADMK and the party has a majority in the respective councils. Since 1996 when elections to the civic bodies were revived, the manner of conducting the Mayoral polls has undergone changes and the number of Municipal Corporations has also expanded from six to 12.
Mayors were directly elected to the six Corporations – Chennai, Coimbatore, Madurai, Tiruchi, Tirunelveli and Salem – in 1996. The process remained unchanged in 2001. But the DMK Government amended the law in 2006 paving the way for indirect elections, after its Mayor M. K. Stalin faced a harrowing time in the Chennai Corporation where councillors belonging to the ADMK-Congress-TMC outnumbered those of the DMK and its allies during 2001-02.
He resigned later under the one-man, one-post rule.
Municipalities in Vellore, Thoothukudi, Tirupur, Erode, Dindigul and Thanjavur were converted into Corporations in the last 10 years during the ADMK and DMK regimes.
In 2011, the ADMK restored direct elections and subsequently converted Dindigul and Thanjavur Municipalities into Corporations.
Now, it has moved a Bill to go back to indirect elections.
Horse-trading: The next Coimbatore Mayor will be the person who the Corporation councillors vote for, not the people. The change has come as a result of a Bill the State Assembly on Jun 22.
In the past 20 years, the city had seen five Mayors. Of those the first, second, fourth and fifth were elected directly by the people.
Only R. Venkatachalam, the third Mayor, was elected by the councillors. He was in office from 2006-11.
The new process will not bring about any change in the way the city is administered, says the city’s first Mayor V. Gopalakrishnan, who served between 1996 and 2001.
In case of indirect election, the political parties nominate a councillor, whom they think will be best suited to lead the city.
The party councillors would vote for the candidate and he or she would function with the officials the way directly elected Mayors would do. Therefore there would be no change.
But, if there has to be a change, the political parties should nominate a well-read and a capable administrator, who should have a quick grasp of the administration. More so at a time when the city would be implementing projects under the Smart Cities project, he adds.
The State Government’s move is not about administration but about capturing power, says former councillor K. Purushothaman.
The CPI leader says that given the narrow difference in vote margin between the ADMK and DMK in the just-concluded Assembly election, the ruling party, to capture as many urban and rural local bodies, has tweaked rules so as to buy councillors. This will lead to horse-trading.
Plus, the political parties could change Mayors or Chairpersons as and when they want and elect a new one as indirect election makes it easy, he adds.
A retired bureaucrat says that under the new rules, the leader of the urban body will not be as powerful as directly elected one because they could be removed if a majority of councillors/elected representatives want them out.
In case of a directly elected Mayor or municipal chairperson, he or she can only resign and cannot be removed. The bureaucrat also says that this will lead to horse-trading.
For the first time since DMK’s M Subramanian in 2006-07, Chennai will have an indirectly elected mayor come October. The amendment bill tabled in the Assembly indicates the ADMK government’s unwillingness to continue with a tradition it re-introduced in 2011.
Observers, however, say the change will have little impact on Chennai’s development. Criticising the `vague nature’ of city governance laws -which permit ruling parties to alter the election pattern -experts said the move would only allow the state government to reaffirm its grip over the local body .
“It is a political move. Since the DMK outperformed the ADMK in Chennai in the Assembly election, the latter wants to gain the lost ground in the local body elections. Winning in Chennai creates the impression that the ruling party has not lost its influence,” said Venkatesh, faculty member at Anna Centre for Public Affairs, University of Madras.
The DMK, which is the principal opposition in the Assembly, will oppose the bill though. Saidapet MLA Subramanian told TOI the move would affect transparency. Asked why the DMK preferred indirect elections a decade ago, Subramanian said, “The situation was different back then.”
He said the change would encourage “horse-trading on the council floor“. Incidentally, as opposition in 2006, when the DMK scrapped the polls, the ADMK had similar reservations.
With the mayor’s post being perceived as one invested with more pomp than power, former deputy mayor Karate R Thiagarajan said the change wouldn’t matter much.“The new mayor will be hoisting flags and distributing chocolates,” he said.
But the same cannot be said of cities like London where the Mayor, elected by the people, is vested with power and responsibility. The Mayor puts together plans and policies, and runs and funds projects. “Chennai too can be similar if it weren’t for the prevalent political culture. The system here is such that an individual can’t promote an agenda without the support of his/her party ,“ said Venkatesh.
There are some for whom the move is a welcome change. Bureaucrats want a handpicked Mayor since they wouldn’t have to conduct a second election. Last time, polls to elect councillors were followed by the mayoral election. “The corporation gets most of its funds from the government. A councillor-elected mayor will have a better standing with government. It will be easy to impeach him if things go wrong,” said a senior government official.
Saidai flop show: The government’s decision to change the mode of election of mayors from direct to indirect may have been triggered by its bitter experience with Chennai Mayor Saidai S Duraisamy , who fell from grace with the party leadership within two years of assuming office in 2011. The party, apart from sidelining him, couldn’t risk replacing him as it would have meant testing the popularity of the ADMK government in Chennai city.
After his October 2011 win, Duraisamy had said he would convert Chennai into Singapore. Five years on, the streets continue to be littered. Neither his ambitious Amma theaters nor weekly markets took off. He announced them without even knowing that such projects did not come under the corporation’s purview. The city, meanwhile, faced the December floods and the Mayor seemed completely lost. He could not differentiate between storm-water drains and underground sewerage. As fallout, the ruling party lost 10 seats to the DMK in the city in the Assembly election.
All the 12 municipal corporations in the State are now headed by ADMK Mayors, directly elected by voters in 2011. Analysts say independent Mayors are a threat to the ruling party which wants to control civic administration. If the party wants to change a Mayor, it cannot do it at present. “But the party leadership can rein in wrong-doers in an indirect election,” political analyst M Kasinathan said.
After Thalapathi M K Stalin’s election was nullified by the one-man, one-post law in 2002, DMK changed the law in 2006 to introduce indirect elections. In 2011, the ADMK brought back direct election saying Mayors were concentrating only on their wards. Now, the ruling party has changed its position for indirect election.
“We’ve seen the two modes and found direct elections better,” said deputy leader of opposition, Duraimurugan. He said the ADMK was scared of holding direct election for mayors because it was on a sticky wicket. After losing Assembly seats like Trichy, Tirunelveli, Vellore, and 10 seats in Chennai city, Jayalalitha’s government was worried, he said.
VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan and CPM state secretary G Ramakrishnan said the move was politically-motivated and would lead to horse trading among councillors.
No comments:
Post a Comment