With the cabinet approving the amendment to the Local Government (Pourasabha) Act, the stage is now set for candidates to contest municipal polls under party banners. The changes, they say, are minor but in fact those have the potential of transforming the country's social and political maps. Political intrusion into its social fabric has so far remained aggressive on a limited scale. At least, those who opted to stay apolitical had the freedom to do so. This latest move might cross the boundary to drag the unwilling ones into the political vortex.
From now on, candidates will either have to be nominated by registered political parties or seek independent nomination. True, of late such polls were assuming more political character than before with politicals parties backing their candidates quite openly. Yet this overt support often made glaringly partisan by the participation of party stalwarts including members of parliament (MPs) and ministers in election canvass did not receive the official stamp of approval. In fact, such solicitation on party line could be contested according to election campaign rules.
Apparently, the failure to put a brake on increasing party involvement seems to have prompted the authorities to legalise the exercise. However, a move such as this should have taken into consideration the serious implications it is likely to have. When political polarisation is at its extreme, society gets antagonised within itself. A most eligible candidate with acceptance to people irrespective of his/her party affiliation will feel hardly interested to contest a mayoral or commissioner's post. Without a party endorsing such a person's candidature, s/he will have to seek nomination as an independent candidate. In that case, the election campaign will severely get hampered simply because of the fact of opposition from the organised political parties, the ruling party in particular. The hope of enjoying a level-playing field for contest will simply evaporate.
Too much politicisation of inhabitants of smaller municipalities is undesirable for a number of reasons. Social integration achieved on account of familiarisation with each other over decades or even centuries runs the risk of falling apart. Election incites mob sentiment and in local government polls, friends can turn enemies because of flare-up of tempers in the heat of the moment. After all such elections were in the not too distant a past an occasion where people participated in a festive mood. It was considered more a social event than a political one. Now all this will have a different perspective with the introduction of politics in the contest.
There lies the danger of further polarisation of urban societies. In the large cities, though, where neighbours do not usually interact or even get to know each other, the introduction of politics to mayoral election will hardly affect social make-up. Apart from the locals of different areas or inhabitants living for generations, the rest can take it easy because of the aloofness they usually maintain. But in smaller towns, the import of politics can end up rifting society, leaving people antagonised because of municipal polls.
Socialist countries went for overt political orientation at the grass-roots level and the results cannot be said to have been what the proponents of an egalitarian society dreamt of. In the quest for equality of man, they ended up creating social stratification of a different order. Involvement of politics in excess enslaves one to the party and it becomes increasingly difficult for such elected representatives to look beyond the party parameter.
Local bodies cannot and should not be bastions of the party loyalists. Once they compete for such bodies with party tickets, the orientation and instinct will naturally look for preservation and promotion of party interests. Political culture here strives to be sophisticated and generous. Even opposition MPs are often subjected to neglect when it comes to fund allocation for development. Now if mayors or commissioners from the opposition get elected, they cannot expect any better support from the ruling government.
What is possible in a one-party communist society, is not at all acceptable in a democratic set-up. Bipolar or multi-polar, politics should set the tone of a rational treatment of all citizens in society. It has to be inclusive, not exclusive. Undue interference by political allegiance with local body offices threatens to disrupt social integrity in the long run. It would be better to leave municipalities alone. They could elect their mayors without forcing their inhabitants to assemble under any political umbrella. The reason why such a respite was necessary is that politics by all means has become polluted and vicious. Politics thrives now on brawn rather than on brain power. Idealism has taken leave of politics. Society would be better without its pernicious influences.
Now that the urban local government bodies have been readied for political contest, what next? Will the union councils also be brought under similar arrangement? Members and chairmen of such local bodies too have been coming mainly from political parties. But there is no compulsion for them to make it official. That it is not is good for the system. Acceptance of a candidate on the basis of his or her personality and attributes, integrity in particular, rather than party affiliation is more important. If these tiers too are politicised, social polarisation will go beyond repair. This cannot be a welcome outcome for society.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
