Space for an alternative

The split of votes among political forces in the local bodies elections points to the widening of political space that may help the emergence of an alternative to the two major Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu.

CHARGES of violence and rigging notwithstanding, the quinquennial elections to 13,735 local bodies in Tamil Nadu have been completed with a reasonable degree of success by the State Election Commission (SEC). In this massive exercise, held in two phases on October 16 and 18, over four crore voters were asked to make their choices from among 3,75,380 candidates to fill 1,14,819 positions in the various layers of local bodies. The members and heads of the councils of six municipal corporations, 102 municipalities, 609 town panchayats, 29 district panchayats, 389 panchayat unions and 12,605 village panchayats were elected through direct and indirect elections. (About 16,500 posts were filled without a contest and elections were not held in four panchayats reserved for the Scheduled Castes - three in Madurai district and one in Virudhunagar district - because Dalits could not file nominations.)

In a phenomenon unusual for the State where bitterly fought elections have resulted in landslide victories for one of the principal contestants, the results of the local bodies elections have satisfied not only the major contestants but also the smaller parties, even those that were not in any alliance. The ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) has come a long way from its disastrous performance in the civic elections of 1996. For the opposition Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which lost power in the Assembly elections in May, it was a comeback victory. The Congress(I), which headed a front, and smaller parties such as the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which fought the elections alone, have either maintained their 1996 performance or improved on it.

The AIADMK, which was in alliance with the Tamil Maanila Congress (TMC) and the Communist Party of India, won the mayorships of four of the six corporations. The DMK won two mayorships. Although the AIADMK lost in the prestigious election for the mayorship of the Chennai Corporation, its candidate N. Balaganga gave a tough fight to Mayor M.K. Stalin, DMK youth wing secretary and son of party president and former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. Stalin defeated Balaganga by a margin of a little over 5,000 votes in a multi-cornered contest. The DMK won the mayorship of Madurai too.

The AIADMK's triumph in the mayoral elections is significant for two reasons. First, it came at a time when the party's stock was low. Its general secretary Jayalalithaa was forced to relinquish the chief ministership following an adverse court verdict a few weeks before the civic elections. Secondly, the party has made inroads into urban centres that were hitherto considered DMK bastions.

This apart, the AIADMK has also won 169 seats in the six Corporation Councils (against the DMK's 172); 34 posts of municipal chairman (DMK 34); 945 seats in municipal councils (DMK 952); 198 posts of town panchayat president (DMK 143); 2,178 seats in town panchayat councils (DMK 1,902); 369 seats in district panchayat councils (DMK 134); and 2,582 seats in panchayat union councils (DMK 1,411).

The results show that while the AIADMK has an edge over or is on a par with the DMK in the urban centres, it has an impressive lead over the DMK in rural Tamil Nadu. The relative strengths of the two parties further down the line cannot be estimated because elections to village panchayats, the bottom-most layer, are not party-based. Political observers, however, say that the results have once again confirmed that the AIADMK remains stronger than the DMK at the grassroots level. The results also indicate that had the AIADMK-led front retained in its fold its Assembly election allies such as the Congress(I) and the CPI(M), it would have performed much better.

The AIADMK could not repeat its Assembly election performance because, unlike in May, there was no popular swing in its favour. Nor was there any polarisation of support between the two principal Dravidian parties. Both Karunanidhi and Jayalalithaa opted out of active campaigning; the campaign itself was dominated by local issues. As a result, the vote split among various political forces, providing space for smaller parties and independents.

The results show that this space widens with almost every layer down the line, giving rise to hopes of the emergence of an alternative to the Dravidian parties from below. The Congress(I), the MDMK and the CPI(M) were the principal beneficiaries of this process. The Congress(I) won three posts of municipal chairman and 20 posts of town panchayat president. The MDMK secured two municipal chairmanships and 13 posts of town panchayat president. The CPI(M) bagged one municipal chairmanship and 14 posts of town panchayat president, winning 199 seats in town panchayat councils. Interestingly, the Bahujan Samaj Party, which does not have a noteworthy presence in the State, won one municipal chairmanship and five council seats.

Many victorious independents were rebels who contested against the official nominees of their parties. Independents have a substantial presence, particularly in town panchayat councils (3,355 of the total 9,025 seats). This is a new phenomenon in Tamil Nadu politics.

Among the AIADMK's allies, the performance of the TMC was anything but impressive. However, it can take consolation from its victory in the mayoral election in Tiruchi and from its status as the third largest - a distant third - party in the elected bodies. It won only nine of the 25 municipal chairman posts it contested. The performance of the CPI was even worse. From 12 seats in corporation councils and two municipal chairmanships in 1996, its share has come down to five and two respectively. It did better in town panchayats and panchayat union councils, winning 83 seats each.

In the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the DMK in Tamil Nadu, the DMK gained the most, recovering a substantial part of the base it lost in the May 2001 Assembly elections. Its victory in the Chennai mayoral election, though by a reduced margin, was a morale-booster. The DMK greatly benefited in the northern districts by the return of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) to the NDA.

The PMK, however, lost heavily. It won 300 seats in panchayat union councils and 159 in town panchayat councils. Its performance in urban areas was poor; it won two posts of municipal chairman and seven (of the 81 it contested) town panchayat president posts.

The BJP derived the maximum benefit from its alliance with the DMK. It won six posts of municipal chairman and 22 of town panchayat president. Its performance in the case of municipal councils (102), town panchayat councils (246) and panchayat union councils (109) was also impressive. The party whose presence was confined to the southernmost district of Kanyakumari five years ago has now spread its influence to several districts across the State.

Interestingly, the Mayors of Chennai, Tiruchi and Tirunelveli face hostile corporation councils in which their political rivals enjoy a majority. Several municipal chairmen are in the same plight.

This round of elections saw greater participation of people in rural areas than in cities and towns. In most of the villages that this writer visited on the days of polling, large numbers of people participated in the electoral process with great enthusiasm. A rough estimate put the voting percentage in rural areas between 75 and 80 and in urban centres between 34 and 60.

In the elections to the panchayat unions and district panchayats, which were held on a party basis, political parties could not impose their candidates on people. Referring to this development, Dr. G. Palanithurai, Professor at the Gandhigram Rural Institute, pointed out that the distribution of the ticket by the political parties was challenged by local leaders in many instances. Even highly centralised parties such as the AIADMK and the DMK had to change their candidates following protests from their local units. This, according to Palanithurai, showed the growing awareness and assertiveness of the people.

A large number of women - women have 33 per cent reservation in local bodies - volunteered to contest. In several places, Dalits tried to assert their right to contest in the face of resistance, and sometimes violent opposition, from caste Hindu groups.

Another positive feature was the re-election of panchayat leaders who have proved their worth in the past five years. Among them are engineer-turned-panchayat president R. Ilango of Thiruvallur district and Ponni Kailasam, general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Federation of Women Presidents of Panchayat Government. Ilango, commended as a role model to leaders of other panchayati raj institutions in the country (Frontline, July 21, 2000), was re-elected president of the Kuthampakkam panchayat. It was a walkover this time for Ponni Kailasam at Anaikkuppam in Tiruvarur district. Both Ilango and Ponni Kailasam are associated with organisations involved in the work of empowering Dalits and women.

THE positive features notwithstanding, polling was marred by large-scale violence and electoral malpractices allegedly by hirelings of the AIADMK in Chennai on October 16. There was also violence on October 21, the day of counting. An armed gang stormed the counting centre at the Central Polytechnic campus at Taramani, destroyed property, and chased out the polling agents of the DMK candidate. Some polling officials ran out in panic. The counting process was disrupted for three hours. Similar incidents were reported from some other centres.

Karunanidhi said that there was an attempt to declare the AIADMK's mayoral candidate Balaganga elected. Counting resumed only after "the appropriate authorities" intervened at the request of the DMK leadership.

The election for the post of Deputy Mayor of Madurai also witnessed violence. On October 31, when the counting process was under way, a dispute arose over the validity of some votes. AIADMK workers allegedly forced their way into the council hall. Corporation Commissioner and Returning Officer Har Sahay Meena rushed out and the counting process came to an abrupt end. It resumed after some time and the DMK candidate was declared elected. The failure of the police to curb violence and organised attempts to rig the polls was criticised by the Opposition and the media.

Another notable feature was that the elections were not fought on issues such as the devolution of more powers and allocation of more funds to the local bodies. Issues relating to rural development, health and education also did not figure in the campaign. Expressing concern over this, G. Ramakrishnan, member, State secretariat of the CPI(M), said: "The crux of the issue is whether the State government is going to give more powers and funds to local bodies to enable them to function more effectively. These institutions' future rests on its positive response to this question."

Democratic forces were rightly concerned over the free play of money and muscle power in the elections. The results have generated some hopes about the emergence from the grassroots of leaders with integrity and proven abilities.