|
Urban societies and their governance systems are undergoing
transition in many cities around the world. On the one hand are
processes of globalization that impose decisions on cities that
have hardly any grounding in local decision-making – such as
for creation of large infrastructure projects, IT parks etc. On
the other are the dynamics of local communities, especially
slum neighbourhoods that use seemingly ‘extra constitutional’
measures, through their elected representatives or their own
community organizations to gain shelter, livelihoods and basic
municipal services.
The inability of local municipal systems to respond to the needs
of the poor is clear from the large proportion of urban populations
that live in ‘illegal’ squatter set-tlements, without adequate
access to water and sanitation facilities. A large majority of
urban citizens is engaged in informal sector occupations, many
of which are ‘encroachments’ on public space. When they get in
the way of infrastructure for industry, they are simply gotten rid
of. The issue is that municipalities get loaded with infrastructure
that services the needs of ‘globalized industry’, which they are
unable to main-tain, which diverts resources from the needs of
the poor, and which further marginalizes the poor.
Conventional municipal management systems are unable to tackle
this situation. Nor should we expect them to, as the relevant
controls are with higher levels of government, not directly
accountable to local electorates. In India, local urban governance
systems were fragile in the nature of their constitution when
the centralized government system was adopted sixty years ago.
Economic globalization forces have clearly exposed the fractures
of governance.
That conventional government planning, regulation and service
provision need to change was agreed over a decade ago at the
UN Habitat conference at Istanbul in 1996. The Habitat Agenda
adopted then focuses on improving governance, and introduces
the concept of the ‘inclusive city’ that responds to the needs
of all citizens, and especially the poor and marginalized.
The New Urban Governance concept recognizes that ‘good
urban governance is characterized by the interdependent
principles of sustainability, equity, efficiency, tran-sparency
and accountability, security, civic engagement and citizenship’.
There is a difference between ‘government’ and ‘governance’.
The formal institutions of the state form the government.
Governance however refers to the processes of decision-making
and implementation of decisions. It recognizes that many
different actors are in play in the processes of decision-making,
or should be. Those who are typically marginalized – such as women
from poorer communities – get an equitable voice in the
process of decision-making.
In India, the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments of the
early 90s expected to devolve power to local government bodies,
were steps towards decentralization and subsidiarity. The central
government’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission is
driving reforms to fully devolve municipal functions and enhance
financial autonomy of city governments, and encourage community
participation through creation of ‘area sabhas’ which
are parallel to village assemblies.
Experience hasn’t already proved that greater participation
results in poverty reduction. The emphasis is on processes and on
creating the forums for participation and engagement.
It is the government’s job to provide an enabling framework
(unless of course, the framework itself has to be first demanded
by citizen action). Once this is done, people are expected to
exercise ‘citizenship’ and participate in decisions on planning
and managing their neighbourhoods and cities. It is in the hands
of citizens to make use of the framework – to negotiate, build
consensus and resolve conflicts, and raise their own ca-pacities
for informed participation.
For this, city governments or citizens groups may also have to
create the framework for information generation, making it
widely available, review etc. Governance goes hand in hand with
engagement in a process of knowledge enhancement – of the
nature of poverty, of the difference between income poverty
and measures that mitigate poverty, of how to create systems
that combine poverty reduction with environmental impact
reduction, of how everyone benefits by combining the two goals
of reducing poverty and environmental imp-act. And since it is
not always clear what will work, a combination of precaution and
willingness to experiment is needed.
There is work to be done by government, community groups
and NGOs and by citizens to understand for themselves how to
address poverty and environmental impacts, and with each other
to decide what actions to take, how to review such actions and
engage in the business of democratic governance.
Contact the author at:
Centre for Environment Education
A 10 Garden Estate, 167/1 New DP Road, Aundh,
Pune 411007; Ph: 020 25898447, 25887009
Email: sanskriti.menon@ceeindia.org
|
