Dr. Rao V.B.J. Chelikani
I. In the past, human communities evolved into various forms, including tribal, hierarchical, caste-based, and religious communities. Buddhist literature, however, mentions Republican communities at the time of the Buddha, but provides no details about this noble experiment in human relations. Within the community, kinship has been the common bond with good neighbourly cooperation. As the communities expanded and multiplied themselves, all kinds of human relations were governed by hierarchical powers. Among them, political power became predominant as a matter of survival. Even among present-day societies, the system of political democracy is operating on the same logic. Power-based regimes by their very nature require unquestionable compliance and obedience in the interests of the stability of the community, society and the governments, in that order, leaving no room for the individual to be encouraged to question, experiment and to innovate, which are, however, essential for human progress. At the same time, usually, hard power generates a spirit of resistance and opposition to what is decided by the source of authority, and leads to manipulative competition to replace those who are exercising power. In the process, mutual vilification or attributing bad intentions to each other becomes the main preoccupation, neglecting common interest and common welfare. It is clearly visible when we observe the debates in our Legislative Assemblies in the states and in Parliamentary sessions at the national level.
In ancient times, the monarch and his family exercised power, and people never felt the need for resistance and opposition and never wanted to replace the king. Power was perceived to be natural and soft, not usurped. During the period of feudalism, several chiefs lorded over others and competed for power over others. In our many contemporary formal democracies, the representatives parachuted by the political parties are behaving like princes with their protocols, privileges, prerogatives and advantages that confer a certain superiority to them over the people who voted for them. In an ideal democracy, power is to be exercised by all so that there is no need for domination and oppression and consequent resistance, opposition and competition. But that is in an ideal direct democracy. But, since the 19th Century, out of necessity, when people were considered ignorant, we have adopted a Representative democracy, where we consent to the exercise of power by several intermediaries nominated by the political parties. Thus, it is not a rule by one single person, but, at the same time, it is not a rule by all. This has recreated the political conditions that existed in the feudal epoch, where the local chiefs considered themselves princes.
As a result, every ruling party is facing internal discord and external resistance and is opposed systematically in legislative assemblies and in Parliament. There is no cooperation for common good. For capturing power, ambitious individuals, unable to do so alone, as independent candidates are forming political parties which are looking like the small armies of the feudal epoch. The parties compete against each other, and their members keep changing camps to capture power. The candidates are delegates of the party, rather than representatives of the people of the constituencies. How they fight in the elections (sometimes outside also) need not be described here.
Some political parties, when they are in power, are not only content with political governance by controlling the whole state apparatus, including all organs of the state like the army, executive, judiciary and finance, but also want to impose their power to govern the whole society. Apart from some exceptions, most of the political leaders do not claim any distinction in any social vocations or professions. Logically, if the situation permits, they would try to form a totalitarian state with simplistic Fascist ideology. Luckily, but for short periods, they are not able to sustain absolute power for a longer period. Thus, we are losing the benefits of direct democracy at the Union, state and municipal levels, and the governments are unable to promote democratic values in society, and human relations are not leading to peace and sustainable development. The predominant political democracy is not allowing democratic values to permeate into our social, economic and cultural relations. The citizens do not participate directly in decision making and execution, even in political governance. People living side by side are not able to cultivate the art of living together harmoniously.
II. Whereas, in the Resident Welfare Associations, composed of the Apartment buildings, Colony Welfare Associations and Gated Communities, the residents directly participate both in political governance and social, economic and cultural governance. These institutions generate and exercise Social Power and identify and promote the growth of social leaders in all other spheres of human activity, which are not facilitated by the exercise of Political power. The RWA is a microcosm of the nation as its members belong to different religions, castes and political parties.
1. The RWA community members have the opportunity to directly influence decisions that affect their living environment. This participatory model enhances accountability and transparency, as residents can voice their concerns and make suggestions, ensuring that governance is reflective of the community's needs.
2. The RWAs foster a spirit of unity and belonging among residents by working together on local issues, by organising social and cultural events, and by maintaining at their own cost some shared spaces and utilities.
3. Within RWAs, conflicts can be addressed more amicably and efficiently through direct dialogue among members and with the intermediation of the neighbours. This local governance structure allows for personalised problem-solving approaches, and reduce the need for formal legal interventions, which are lengthy and antagonistic.
4. Participation in RWAs provides individuals with leadership opportunities, enabling them to develop skills in governance, negotiation, and conflict resolution. This grassroots leadership nurtures future leaders who understand the importance of collaboration and community-building. Here, the rulers are the ruled. While in politics elimination of the opponents is necessary to take decisions by majority, in RWAs the politics consist of enlisting the cooperation of all residents and taking decisions is by consensus and by unanimity.
5. RWAs offer mechanisms for continuous feedback on governance practices and community initiatives. Residents can assess the effectiveness of decisions and request adjustments based on their experiences, which creates a responsive and adaptable form of immediate governance.
6. By engaging in the RWA, the children become more socially conscious and the youth acquire social skills that are necessary in their workstations. Their involvement can galvanise community action on broader issues like social justice, environmental pollutions, and public safety, and expand their influence beyond just the boundaries of their immediate community.
7. They are secular urban micro-communities formed voluntarily by the settlers of expanding lower, middle and upper middle classes coming from diverse castes, religions, languages and regions. They want to live together to fulfil many of their common aspirations, fostering multicultural understanding and integration. This blending can lead to richer community experiences and promote harmony among residents from differing cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds.
8. The residents in RWAs as they are all qualified and professionals, have the potential to implement many innovative and sustainable initiatives in areas such as waste management, sanitation, greenery, energy conservation etc.
9. While individually, one might not act swiftly in response to issues that arise, the office-bearers of an RWA can simplify the process of decision-making by cutting through complex bureaucratic structures.
10. If RWAs become effective and efficient in fostering community-led governance, as the 4th tier of governance, they could serve as a model for larger political systems at the Union, state and municipal level governments to adopt more participatory methodologies, promoting direct democracy principles.
0 Comments