Historical background of beneficiary participation and local self- governing institutions with special reference to Assam
3.5. Summary of the chapter
This chapter traced the historical background and the development of panchayati raj institutions in India during the pre-colonial, colonial and the post-colonial period in India and Assam. The chapter discussed how ‗community development programs‘ (CDPs) and
‗national extension services‘ (NES) were adopted in India after independence. The Government of India appointed various committees including the Balwantarai Mehta Committee. The chapter also discussed the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution of India. This Amendment provided the constitutional safeguards to the panchayats in India. It enhanced participatory spaces for the marginalized sections of the society through reservations and regular elections. Gram sabhas were created where villagers can take part in the decision making process. The chapter also highlighted various state level executions made in accordance to this Amendment. The chapter also traced the historical development of panchayats in Assam.
The chapter discussed in detail various social accountability mechanisms identified by the international and national agencies like the United Nations Development Programs, the Department of Rural Development (Government of India), Comptroller and Auditor General of India, State Institute of Rural Development and the National Institute of Rural Development . Some of the social accountability mechanisms as the chapter discussed are social audit, participatory planning, gender budgeting, use of score cards, participatory expenditure tracing and surveys. Drawing lessons from states like Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh, the chapter tried to examine the social audit that took place in Assam. The chapter examines the beneficiary participation in local self-governing institutions in Assam vis-a-vis other states. Social audit was institutionalized by the Mahatma Gandhi National Employment Guarantee Act in 2005. Various scholarly works, government documents and relevant Acts were discussed in this chapter to understand the practice of social accountability and the challenges of beneficiary participation in India.
The chapter discussed how the civil society organizations like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan initiated participatory reforms. The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan in Rajasthan pioneered and revolutionized the movement for social accountability through their demands, protests and mass mobilization. The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was effectively involved in social audits in the state of Rajasthan. The civil society organization collected and cross-checked scheme implementation-related documents and verified them through field
visits in the worksites. In Andhra Pradesh, social audits were conducted mainly through government initiatives. Government-appointed field assistants implemented the development schemes in the state with the help of civil society organizations.
To sum up, social accountability mechanisms such as social audit is crucial to address the
‗lack of responsiveness and accountability in the public delivery system. Social accountability mechanisms as we discussed allow ordinary citizens to have access to information, voice their needs, and demand accountability. Social accountability practiced in some parts of India enhanced the ability of citizens to engage with the public officials in a more informed, organized and constructive way. Theoretically, the effects of application of social accountability mechanisms such as social audit are crucial from a development perspective. Social audit execution, for instance, can improve public service delivery with well-connected and need-based policy design. ‗Information asymmetries and lack of communication‘ between the beneficiaries and the policy makers contribute to policy failure.
Existing governance gaps reinforced by political calculations for vote result in policy failure to target the beneficiaries with development benefits. Scholars documented the reforms that can be made in social accountability mechanisms such as social audit or participatory planning.
These mechanisms would be effective development innovation if they could become ‗means to increase and aggregate the voices of the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (Malena et al, 2004: 5).‘ However, SAMs such as social audit and participatory planning are deterred to prove their credibility to bring a development change to favor the marginalized sections of society (Malena et al, 2004: Rajsekhar, Lakha and Manjula, 2013; Joshi and Houtzager, 2012; Berenschot, 2015; Sadanandan, 2012).
Despite efforts, the social audit process proved to be ineffective due to the clientele politics.
One of the most critical challenges of social audit in India as the chapter discussed is the lack of participation of the beneficiaries and the failure of gram sabhas to conduct social audits.
Studies point out that only 1,20,841 gram panchayats (GPs) (51%) out of 2,34,594 gram panchayats were covered for social audit during 2014-15 in different states in India (CAG report no 8, 2016).13 This chapter also reveals that in many places the process failed because the social audit process was highly influenced by the political elites in the village.
13 Citing the CAG report, The Financial Express, dated 29th April, 2016 published a news on social audit in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act entitled ―MGNREGA: No annual social audit in majority of states, finds CAG‖.
Marginalized beneficiaries like poor workers under the scheme were excluded from the social audit process (Rajsekhar, Lakha and Manjula, 2013). Exclusion of primary stakeholders, the real beneficiaries (laborers) proved to be a great disadvantage for the social audit process and this resulted in one-sided verification of the facts. Participatory mechanisms like social audit failed in this case primarily due to patronage politics and lack of direct participation of the beneficiaries.