Subir Roy: How to save cities

VALUE FOR MONEY

Rain-ravaged Mumbai has highlighted the appalling manner in which even our best cities are run. For over a year now conditions in Bangalore have deteriorated rapidly. Clearly, our successful cities cannot cope with their growth and things will get worse as the economy keeps growing fast.

At the root of the civic crisis lies a systemic problem--a totally inadequate civic administrative system. The centre or multilateral agencies can occasionally fund piecemeal solutions, but there will be no real respite unless an adequate civic system is in place. Once that is there, a Mumbai or Bangalore can get all the necessary funding on its own and not have to rely on the exchequer.

Constitutional amendments have mandated devolution of powers to the third tier of government. But for urban bodies in particular, what powers you notify and actually pass on has depended on the sweet will of state administrations.

There are right now three different ways in which urban government is organised in the country. The most common is the one with a chief executive (municipal commissioner), appointed by the state government and a deliberative council made up of elected councillors.

Financial powers are delegated by the state government, to the council, its standing committees, and the commissioner, in that order. The commissioner prepares the budget and gets it passed by the council, but if he does not like some of the things that the council or committees want done, he can refer them to the state government.

The mayor under this system is elected by the councillors and the position gets rotated every year or two, making the mayor so ineffective that many citizens do not know who the current mayor is.

The state government does not micro manage but its overriding powers are enormous. So whenever things go wrong, everyone turns to the urban affairs secretary, his minister, or the chief minister, depending on the scale of the mess.

This system prevails in Mumbai and Bangalore, with minor variations, and both the cities are run by administrations perceived to be unresponsive. This system has worked well under individuals like N Laxman Rau and M R Sreenivasa Murthy in Bangalore, and S R Rao in Surat (the author of the historic turnaround after the plague), but they are the exceptions.

The second model is the mayor in council, which Mumbai experimented with briefly. Under it the council made up of councillors is typically elected every five years and the councillors elect the mayor, who appoints his executive team from among the councillors.

Here the mayor and his council wield executive authority just as a chief minister or Prime Minister and their ministers do. This system prevails in Kolkata and Chennai and the citizens in both the cities seem quite happy with what they have. Both the cities have experienced noticeable improvements in recent years and feel they have a responsive civic administration.

The third model, partly like the second, exists in Chennai with one key variation; the mayor gets elected by citizens along with councillors. The universal opinion in Chennai is that this makes for accountability.

As opposed to this, under the first system the mayor, who changes by rotation, is mistaken as the chief executive, whereas it is the municipal commissioner, usually on deputation from the state government, who exercises real power. The bane of the first system is a disconnect between power and accountability and an overlap of functions and powers between the state and local governments.

A highly successful municipal commissioner feels that the first system falls between two stools--officials have the responsibility but their powers to spend are circumscribed most often by standing committees, in which councillors with very narrow vision, often going no further than small-time contractors, rule the roost. They manage to elect similar mayors like the present one in Bangalore, who famously abolished parking fees!

All are agreed that the power to act and spend must rest on the same shoulders and the buck must stop there. Have a mayor as chief executive, elect her/him for four/five years, and pass on all the administrative and financial powers to him or the council from which he derives his authority. Such a mayor could appoint his top functionaries, as in a presidential system, and these tenure posts could even be advertised.

There is also a cultural prescription. Elevate the social perception of the position of mayor so that people with talent and high political aspirations seek to build careers by becoming successful mayors. During pre-Independence days, some leading lights of Bengal first became mayor of the Calcutta Corporation.

Today's role model can be Michael Bloomberg, founder of the eponymous firm, who is currently mayor of New York and aspires to become the state's governor.

N R Narayana Murthy, chairman of Infosys, who has spoken out against the civic structure in Bangalore, should campaign for a system change and then seek to lead the city. Prominent Mumbai businessmen who have complained bitterly against the city's collapse should do likewise.