PERSPECTIVE ON PANCHAYATI RAJ SYSTEM

Panchayati Raj Institutions can be approached in two ways-normative and empirical. The
normative political thinker attempts to construct an ideal model of Panchayati Raj according
to his or her own vision and aspirations. The empiricist, in contrast, is interested in studying
the concept of Panchayati Raj in operation, in identifying the gap between the ideal and the
real that emphasizes more on the practical version of an institution. Although these two
ways of studying an institution is quite different, but they contribute a lot towards
crystallizing the real image of Panchayati Raj Institution. Also. The normative way is itself in
the process of evolution. For a long time, they have co-existed and supplemented each
other. The normative thinker would warn the empiricist against succumbing to the
temptation of idealizing the real, while the empiricist would in turn help the idealist keep his
feet on the ground.
There are identifiable variations, more of emphasis than of nature, even with regard to the
normative concept of Panchayati Raj. Four of the most important of these variant
viewpoints are summarized below. Probably the most widely publicized is the Sarvodayite
or, perhaps more accurately, the Jaya Prakash Narayan concept of Panchayati Raj. Based
upon Gandhian thought as reinterpreted by Vinoba Bhave, this viewpoint has its most
ardent, consistent and systematic spokesman in Jaya Prakash Narayan, the former Socialist
leader.' There are a few aspects of this view- point which deserve careful attention.
Firstly, it is based upon the assumption that the parliamentary system of government is
unsuitable for India.
Secondly, there is a distinctly revivalist strain in the plea J. P. Narayan makes for the
reconstruction of the Indian polity.
Thirdly, the model of "communitarian" democracy proposed as an alternative to the existing
parliamentary model is not merely a structural model of local government; rather, it is a
structural model for the Indian polity in its totality which moves from its base upwards until
a new polity in the form of an inverted pyramid emerges.
Fourthly, the Panchayat is the exclusive popular base of this pyramidal structure in the
sense that it would be the only directly elected institution and would serve as the
foundation for the rest of the structure which would employ the principle of indirect
elections through a series of electoral colleges.
Fifthly, the Panchayats are to be responsible to the Gram Sabhas, the sovereign assembly of
villagers at the grass roots level. And finally, communitarian democracy of the type
envisaged here is to be partyless democracy with emphasis on the principles of unanimity
and consensus.
From the point of view of the concept of Panchayati Raj, the points that deserve
recapitulation from this image of a reconstructed Indian polity are:
(1) the sovereign character of the Gram Sabha;
(2) the pivotal importance of the Panchayat as the exclusive popular base of the pyramidal
structure of Indian polity;
(3) the emphasis on the autonomous, self-sufficient and self-sustaining character of the
Panchayat;
(4) the responsibility of the Panchayat to the Gram Sabha and
(5) the partyless character of Pan- chayat elections and politics.

While Jaya Prakash Narayan's plea for the reconstruction of Indian polity has so far only
generated academic debate, the points with regard to the conceptual image noted above
are being eloquently canvassed. Jaya Prakash Narayan's thesis, apart from its intrinsic merit,
does raise several questions which are basic to the concept of Panchayati Raj:
(i)What type of formal linkage should obtain between the Panchayati Raj institutions and
higher echelons of power at state and national levels?
(ii) What place should be assigned to Gram Sabhas in the scheme of Panchayati Raj?
(iii) Can Panchayats be treated as the basic unit in Panchayati Raj structure?
(iv) Should Panchayati Raj be organized on a partyless basis?

Another normative approach to Panchayati Raj can be called the local government
viewpoint which contains the conceptual image of Panchayati Raj as a charter of rural local
government. This viewpoint lays emphasis on the self-management of affairs at the rural
local level by villagers. These powers are to be exercised, however, within the confines of
minimum and legitimate state level control. The important points of emphasis for advocacy
of this approach are written below :-
(1) Great stress is laid on the autonomous character of Panchayati Raj institutions which are
visualized as power systems at the rural local levels, though the need for minimum controls
from above is not ruled out.
(2) The functional jurisdiction of Panchayati Raj institutions should not necessarily be
confined to traditional civic functions and the new developmental functions. Some
advocates of this viewpoint would like Panchayati Raj institutions even to take charge of
revenue administration and perhaps ultimately also the maintenance of law and order.

As far as the issue of the role of Panchayati Raj institutions is concerned, two variables can
be identified in this context-one bordering on the extreme and the other on the moderate
side. The extremists want Panchayati Raj institutions to play essentially an agency role; the
moderates favour the granting of power and responsibility to Panchayati Raj institutions,
but with adequate safeguards. The broad perspective on Panchayati Raj system was
developed by the Balwant Ray Mehta committee which tells the concept of democratic
decentralization. The conceptual image of Panchayati Raj when projected on this
background, is based upon two assumptions-first, that Panchayati Raj is an extension of
community development, both in its objectives and program, and second that Panchayati
Raj Institution should primarily serve as a development mechanism rather than as a power
mechanism.
Let us now look at the concept of Panchayati Raj from the angle of empirical angle. There is
a paucity of empirical data on this subject, because only a few field researches have been
conducted on Panchayati Raj. Furthermore, Panchayati Raj Institutions in several states are
barely five to six years old, and in the other states are younger still.
In the first place, Panchayati Raj institutions have, by and large, been playing an agency role
and, as such, have not become nerve centres of thought and initiative at the rural local
levels. This is to some extent in- evitable in a system of centralized national planning, plan
priorities and schematic budget.
Secondly, Panchayati Raj institutions have developed an identity as power mechanisms
rather more than as development mechanisms.
Thirdly, as a power mechanism, Panchayati Raj has tilted the scales in the direction of a
monopoly of power by the new overlords (Pradhans and Sarpanchas in the Rajasthan
context) rather than the dispersal of power and a desire to share and exercise it
institutionally.
Fourthly, Panchayati Raj has aggravated factionalism within the villages in spite of the
incentives given to encourage unanimous elections (which often are artificially contrived)
and the policy under which village level politics is partyless politics (which frequently means
only that the parties participate on an informal and covert basis).
Fifthly, the emergence of power factions has resulted in the division of Panchayats into
"political favorites" (i.e., Panchayats dominated by the majority faction) and "political exiles"
(i.e., Panchayats controlled by minority factions).
Sixthly, Panchayati Raj institutions have never been associated in any real sense with the
process of planning from below, and this raises a number of significant questions.
Seventhly, while a sort of neo-traditionalism appears to be an important aspect of the
emerging rural leadership, it cannot be denied that the traditional mould still provides a
strong base that will probably persist for quite some time.
Finally, the problem of the relationship between officials and non-officials has proved to be
most baffling of all, and has adversely affected the performance of Panchayati Raj
institutions.