Now that enough discussions have taken place as to what is meant by a "smart city" in the Indian context, how the agenda is to be taken forward, and the contours of the scheme that are likely to be announced by the central government soon, it is worthwhile looking at two key elements of the concept. As the Union urban development minister has been repeatedly emphasising, smart cities would essentially mean smart people on the one hand and smart governance on the other. The question is whether our city governance system is ready for the big challenge.
The 74th Constitutional Amendment was enacted in 1993. It did two things: first, it gave urban and rural local bodies the recognition required; and second, it left it to the states to decide about empowering the third level of governance. This second item remains an unfinished agenda even today, because states have not redrafted their municipal legislations to make governance effective. All the functions listed in Schedule 12 of the Constitution have not been meaningfully transferred to urban local bodies. How then are they to assume leadership roles in providing basic facilities to city-dwellers?
We have mayors and chairpersons who are mostly indirectly elected, in many places for a one-year period. Even if mayors and chairpersons are directly elected, as is the case in a select number of states, they have no powers - their constant complaint being that either all the powers are with the commissioner, or many matters have to be referred to the state government. In such a scenario, how is the city-level leadership to emerge and take new initiatives to bring about improvements in service delivery or make the city more liveable?
Worldwide, those cities have marched ahead which had visionary leadership and where mayors led the process of city improvement from the front. It has been said about mayors of New York that their administrations use business methods to improve everything from city services to long-term planning. In the wake of stiff competition to find resources, and the need to excel in improving civic facilities, mayors the world over focus on issuing urban prospectuses and attending conferences of businesspeople. Seoul's mayor made his policy intentions clear and initiated the transformation of urban space from accommodating cars to space for people, representing a new paradigm for urban management in the new century. The mayor of Greater London has the authority to hire talent and expertise from outside - city-level agencies have leaders appointed by the mayor which remain cutting-edge as far as performance is concerned. Transport for London is a typical example of a corporatised agency with an independent board appointed by the mayor which very effectively manages the city's huge transport issues.
The minister has referred to a city challenge process to identify cities that will be eligible to be in the smart cities list. The prime minister is reported to have said that there should be competition among city authorities to assess their preparedness and capability to undertake this ambitious task. It looks as though initiatives taken by cities to ensure good governance, progress in implementing the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, status of urban reforms and preparedness for reforms as well as revenue generation initiatives will figure in this list of eligibility criteria.
The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission had given cities the opportunity to implement reforms and make a difference. States have repeatedly been advised to focus on municipal cadre restructuring and capacity development. Finance Commissions have gently guided the states on to the path of making local bodies account for performance and decide on devolution of resources. Naturally, those states and cities which paid attention to these much-needed requirements are likely to be ahead in the race.
But what is critical and important now is whether our cities will and can move in the direction of smart governance through smart governments. This would mean steadily moving in the direction of improving the credit rating of cities, and strengthening and bringing about visible improvements to service levels of basics like water supply and waste management. All these become highly relevant because the Centre - alone or even with the states - is not going to be in a position to find the type of resources required for making our cities smart. So, it will be a question of how each city wants to plan its agenda; what proportion of the needed resources it will be able to raise itself, working with private or institutional partners; and what proportion will be found from within the city.
That is why strengthening and empowering the elected systems of city bodies has to be a priority. This will be a challenging and at the same time a difficult decision for state leaderships - because there will have to be a very delicate balancing of power equations between the state and the cities - and the faster the decision, the better. Citizens will gain, as they can hope to participate more effectively in the smart city planning process and also demand more accountability.
The writer is former secretary in the Union urban development ministry
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
