Direct Vs Indirect Election to Grama Panchayat President: Reflections and Implications

Abstract

This discussion paper is a qualitative analysis built on opinions. Though there is no one-to-one link between performance and service delivery of grama panchayats (GPs) and method of election to GP president, the paper talks about opinions, which support direct election. There is a discussion going on at the policy level in States like Karnataka whether to go in for direct election of the president of the gram panchayat or not. Although the overall preference of stakeholders and people is for direct election, the empirical data and the opinions of those with whom we interacted fail to clearly bring out the justification for direct or indirect election of GP president. The reasons are many: the differences in structure and size of the panchayats across selected States, linkages with higher level of PRIs, their financing mechanism and devolution of powers. In the absence of counterfactuals with similar panchayati raj system in States with direct election it is difficult to say which system is better than the other. Though the differences are not very significant, resource mobilisation, efficiency in delivery of services and utilisation of funds appear to be better in States with direct election. And, quick decisions, higher social auditing, higher social equity, satisfaction with election system and low incidence of no-confidence motion, dominance of caste are also the features noted in States with direct election. On the other hand, cooperation and collective decision, weightage to the institution rather than the individual, competition among members for getting benefits to their wards are some of the merits of indirect election. After weighing the merits of both the systems, direct election clearly stands out as a preferred system.

Elusive empowerment: characteristics of indirectly elected women chairpersons of district councils in Uttar Pradesh, India

“…Direct election of chairpersons was also perceived as more efficacious in restricting capture of power by local elites. Sivanna et al (2017) also found that the exercise of the right to recall (via a noconfidence motion, or NCM) was significantly more frequent in respect of indirectly elected chairpersons. This paper will later explore the incidence of NCMs in UP in some detail.…”

“…The authors therefore urge that the legislative intent of the enabling Act for women's quotas in PRIs should be more diligently put into practice. This paper has already noted that direct elections to the post of ZPAs in other states of India lead to higher satisfaction among the people with the functioning of the ZP when compared to indirect election (Sivanna et al 2017). The logistics of conducting direct elections for ZPAs in UP are not too onerous, as evidenced by current practice in the two lower levels of PRIs, which already fill the positions of both ZP members and ZPAs by direct election.…”