Since the beginning of nomination
filing for the forthcoming Panchayat election frequent issues of political
conflicts are occupying news headlines. This conflicting situation and post
conflict blame game is not unique to 2013 Panchayat election only, rather
similar incidents are becoming increasingly common for last few elections. Even
elections of much lesser significance like School committee votes, college students’
union formation have witnessed unprecedented violence in recent period. There
is a trend of use of the term ‘occupancy’ (dakhol)
instead of election (nirbachan) to
characterise the so called democratic process which reflects a particular way
of thinking of the political parties in contemporary West Bengal.
It is important to look at the
background factors that are responsible for these conflicts to find out why
political parties try to capture Panchayats and often tend to undermine the fair
democratic process of winning elections. In my anthropological fieldworks in different
parts of Bardhaman, Purba Medinipur, Paschim Medinipur, Purulia, Bankura, and
Murshidabad I have seen strong fissures based on political orientation. Although
rural West Bengal is often portrayed as a peaceful place where the political
conflicts occur only when election takes place, this is precisely not the case.
Rural party politics remains conflict bounded throughout the year. Panchayat as
a Local Governance system rarely enjoys freedom in delivering public goods in a
closely knitted and prominently divided party based society. It is seen that from
the decisions of choosing the beneficiary for MGNREGS to large-scale works like
construction of roads and distribution of tube-wells are based on electoral
calculations. For example, in a coalition GP (Gram Panchayat, the lowest of the
three tier system), suppose X has 5 Y has 3 and Z has 2 and the opposition has
2 there will be a percentage calculation within the coalition. The total 10
seats (X+Y+Z, of course opposition is excluded from the calculation) represent
100 percent and hence X with 5 seats will pull approximately 50 percent of the
total public goods to be distributed which sidesteps prioritisation process
often undermining Annual Action Plan – a feature I have seen in several GPs in Bardhaman,
Purba and Paschim Medinipur, Murshidabad, Purulia and Bankura. In a single
party ruled GP there are more serious problems with party factions and leaders having
stronger network with higher political authorities tend to dominate the entire
distribution process. Hence, skewed allocation of public services characterise
many Panchayats in West Bengal. There are few exceptions where voice of the opposition
gets manifested and Annual Action Plans are strictly followed. Otherwise skewed
resource allocation is a quite consistent picture of the state. While different
studies focus on the importance of functionally effective Gram Sabhas to
enhance the performance of a GP, these democratic participatory processes are
frequently avoided, instead decisions are taken by the powerful political
leaders. In 2003 when GoWB initiated the formation of Gram Unnayan Samiti in
each and every village constituted by the elected representatives, nearest
opposition and nominated members like government employees, teachers and Self
Help Group members aiming at apolitical planning and implementation, I saw
conflicts and bloodsheds in Purba Medinipur, Murshidabad, and Bardhaman as
local political leaders perceived Gram Unnayan Samiti as another platform to
exercise political authority in addition to Panchayats. In paper it was a
selection of ideally non political people. Villagers were supposed to name and
then raise their hands in support of the name in an open forum. However, in
practice I have seen that in many villages two panels are placed by two parties
and eventual open voting revealed everybody’s political identity. This is
indicative of existing polarised condition of the villages where Panchayat
functions. Although regularised elections, land reforms, and better
distribution of public goods have helped GPs to gain trust of the villagers
under Left Front Regime, in last few years, different studies have focused on
the increasing politicisation of Panchayats.
With increasingly more resources
being distributed through the Panchayat machinery especially after the
onslaught of direct benefiting schemes like MGNREGS, IAY, Old Age Pensions,
etc., controlling Panchayats virtually ensures gaining political control over a
considerably large population. Present pre-election violence represents
politically fragmented and polarised nature of rural West Bengal. In different
election campaigns leaders are terming their political oppositions (Rajnaitik Pratipakhkha) as enemy (Shatru) to be wiped out and their cadres
are following the instructions wherever a party has strength. Pre-election
violence installed by regular direct and indirect threats including party
instructions to vote for them, violent conflicts between opposing parties,
biking rallies, bringing outside yobs either compel people to vote for a
particular party or to avoid voting. Beating out opposition party cadres, attacking
party offices, stopping people from participating in election process always
effectively create an image of fear that heavily influence patterns of
democratic function in a region. Constitutional bodies like Election Commission
can only attempt a fair election with adequate protection during the election
period. However, they can neither provide long-term solution to the problem of
political fragmentation nor can ensure security in everyday life. As a result
using people’s feeling of insecurity political parties continue to practice
occupancy rather than election. If political parties do not stop avoiding,
undermining and disrespecting the democratic process, administration does not
work in a judicial manner and people do not become more politically conscious,
West Bengal will see more instances of political violence and development
process will continue to get affected.
Yeah, we are not in a position to choose. Then what should be the alternative?
ReplyDeletePolitical conscious public sphere
DeleteKaleidoscope, this is a brilliant attempt to analyse current political violence in West Bengal. However, I would love to have more details on the ways in which violence is systematically used to perpetuate interests of political occupancy instead of election. This aspect, I think is hitherto understudied. Kudos to your effort.
ReplyDeleteThank you. Well, political violence and its impact on democracy is not understudied issue. However, in context of West Bengal it did not get the attention which it deserves. In order to do a detailed research on the use of violence, it is important to conduct extensive fieldwork during the period of violence. Another option is to do retrospective interview. I am working on a few retrospective interviews as part of my research. Lets see if something interesting comes out where theorisation is possible. Thank you again for your inspirations.
DeleteMulti-party democracy has its pros and cons. While parties often face strong opposition - feature of politics in India, but at the same time there are problems with electoral calculations. This is an obvious trend. When CM Smt Mamata Banerjee was an indispensable part of UPA - II West Bengal enjoyed good amount of resources at the expense of other states. Similarly, a village gets better public works if it has a strong representative in the GP. Liked your writing! Thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteYeah, might be, but then there should be a strong role of the public sphere, more precisely politically conscious public sphere. While other states have caste based, religion based political divisions, and politics consciously use these other identities for electoral gains, West Bengal is increasingly becoming politically divided society. As we all know constitution provides an interesting space for stronger public voices in Panchayat, i.e. gram sabha and gram samsad sabha. Making these two strong through an approach of so called development communication would certainly make things better!
DeleteI don't accept political polarisation and skewed resource allocation as an obvious outcome of multi-party democracy.
I agree with you Suman, but do you thing that we can think of a politically conscious society which can think of the pros and cons of a political party and then vote for a change. For example, if APB - Ananda and Nielsen's prediction matches how would you explain Sarada and related incidents where ruling party was blamed!
DeleteI am not theoretically trained to undermine people's active and conscious living. I believe that people are active agents and takes conscious decisions (of course I am not talking about party cadres with ideology inclination). Therefore, if ABP's prediction matches, which I think will match then the hypothesis that poeple are active agents actually is proven. People know political incompatibility results in ill functioning of development works, so having TMC in Assembly and Left Front in GP will not yield good result, therefore, they will consciously vote for TMC, even if there are problems.
DeleteIn a fucking democracy we are not in a position to choose!
ReplyDelete