Dr Rao VBJ Chelikani
Resident Welfare Association (RWA) elections often suffer from excessive conflict, mirroring political struggles despite the fundamental difference in their community-centric, apolitical nature. While RWA elections focus on managing local amenities and neighborly relations through specific, agreed-upon bye-laws, the adoption of intense political culture has introduced unnecessary tension and litigation. As generational shifts occur, the goal is to move toward collaborative governance and, potentially, democratic innovations in leadership selection that foster consensus rather than division.
It is sad to hear that beyond tension and groupism, there are conflicts, violence and intervention of police, and even resorting to Courts during the elections in RWAs, here and there. But, they should not go the way of political elections; though the same procedure, the spirit is different. Even in the noblest sense of the term, politics is the art of managing human relations by adopting policies, and elections are meant to decide who should have the power to do so. The frustrated Opposition plays the role of opposing everything till the next elections. While they focus on macropolicy, civic infrastructure, and ideological governance for thousands or millions of citizens, RWA elections select some of those who are living together to manage their shared local amenities, immediate neighbourhood harmony, and their private properties within a distinct, limited group of residents.
Core differences between RWA and political elections are: The Political Elections take place to select Municipal, State, National candidates to exercise power and to enjoy power, privileges, prerogatives and many advantages and exemptions. Whereas RWA Elections are within a community of neighbours within that specific colony, building, or gated community, residing within the geographical constituency boundaries. They are governed by the Bye-laws they have previously agreed upon. The political elections are centralised by the State or the national Election Commission, and the main actors are the political parties, who make and unmake the candidates. Campaigns rely heavily on mass media and public rallies. The political parties have the power to remove the elected representative from his job if he disobeys the party whip. Whereas in RWAS, the candidates and the voters are immediate neighbours who interact daily. Anonymity is virtually non-existent. Candidates and voters rarely know each other personally. Maintenance fees, security deployment, water supply, parking management, waste disposal, and clubhouse amenities are the main issues in RWAs. Regarding the funding and expenditures, the candidates fund out of their own pockets with nominal budgets restricted to flyers, WhatsApp messages, or small community coffee meets. The RWA ideology is driven by apolitical, community-centric, and managerial competence rather than by party lines or philosophical leanings.
However, there is a different set of issues in RWA elections, which also create tensions and groupism. But the political culture of the political parties is strongly influencing the minds of the people at present, and they are acting as if they are in a political party. In RWAs, we don’t have much coercive power, but we have enough room to influence, persuade and put moral and social pressure. As an association or a Cooperative Society, we have an Election Officer or an observer from among the members to conduct elections. But, it is regrettable that none of the RWAs have in their bye-laws any internal committee to reconcile the disputes among the neighbours and eventually to seek mediation, before going to civil courts and to the advocates.
Let us hope that these are initial problems, and when years pass, as the residents are bound to belong to a new generation, the problems also change their nature. Even political parties are being viewed differently by the younger generations.It is the 4th tier of governance, after the Union, State and Municipalities, where there is direct self-governance, in which the political parties do not select the candidates to be elected by the members. Among the RWAs, as the time passes by, the organisational problems would be less; but personal relations among those who live would become more intense, and there would be more cooperation outside the frame of the Society or Association. Still, there will be problems, but they will be like the problems in a big joint family.
An RWA is a good unit for experimentation in elections. Though this is a voluntary association of a few committed people, the un-imaginative registrar who registers the existence of a civil society organisation, cannot allow any innovations in the hierarchy of the association. In France, for example, one man can set up an association. Similarly in the mode of elections, the civil societies can and should have other forms of knowing the will of the members as to who should be the managers and which decision to be made. For example, instead of the candidate soliciting the voter, the voter might invite any one of their members to be the candidate. Similarly, instead of a resolution being passed by majority, it might be passed unanimously or with consensus.
1. Thanks to social media, a secure and simple digital/email voting system is available on short notice, and it can be done as often as needed. Unlike political voting, which strictly mandates one vote per citizen in person, RWA rules frequently allow proxy voting. If a property owner lives out of town, they can legally authorise another resident to cast their ballot. Problems arise when e-mails are not allowed.
2. Proportional vs. Unit Voting: In many high-rise apartment complexes, voting power or eligibility can sometimes be tied to the ownership of a physical asset, e.g., one vote per apartment unit, regardless of how many family members live inside it.
3. Voluntary Nature of Roles: Elected RWA members are unpaid volunteers balancing their executive community roles with regular full-time jobs and family chores. When they lack discipline and refuse to clear all doubts of the resident voters, or when the members lack democratic discipline, problems arise in the General Assemblies.
4. Dispute Resolution: If a dispute breaks out during an RWA election, the grievance is taken to the local Registrar of Societies under cooperative laws and, in all other cases to the Civil Courts, which is laborious, no doubt. They need to have internal Reconciliation Committee written into their bye-laws and to the Mediators approved by the Legal Services Authority of India in order to settle disputes between those families that are bound to live together.
5. At the initial stages, there are no proper election procedures, as the builder, promoter, or the land owner, as resident-owner, dominates the scene, or there is an unquestionable majority of the same group belong to the same caste, region, religion or professional group sympathies.
6. This is a basic school of participatory democracy. Apart from the initial years, over a course of time, all residents would by turns occupy the posts of office-bearers and thus, all become the rulers and the ruled. Any resident owner can contest without needing wealth, muscle power, or party backing. Thus, there would be no irresponsible criticism of those who are on the managing committee. Both winners and losers swim in the same pool, walk the same parks, and face the same power cuts. No candidate uses an RWA post as a stepping stone to lifelong power, as it is never going to be a career.
7. Still, in a community, there will be people with strong personalities commanding influence and deciding things, and there will be people who follow them implicitly. But they are not powerful people; they are influential people. In the same way, there will still be people who differ with the decisions of the Managing Committee, but they do not distrust or hinder the proceedings. They wait for their turn to change things as much as could.
8. As crucial decisions require voting by the entire General Body, the residents have more power than a standard political voter enjoys. The decisions are taken as much as possible by unanimity. If there are people who disagree with the proposal, they express their reasons, warn them, but in the end, they vote in favour of the proposal or let the majority make a decision, which the president would call a consensual decision. If there is a likeminded group disagreeing over parking management, rarely the same group would agree on issues regarding festival celebrations or waste segregation. The alliances are fluid.
9. In RWAs, the results of the elections are immediately visible in hours, rather than stretched over five years. One can walk into an officebearer’s flat or bloc and demand accountability for a broken promise or amenity, as the issues are concrete and not policy matters. In fact, they meet everyday. The bye-laws are simple and visible, unlike the rules and regulations of the state legislation.
10. Prior to the elections, it is easy to maintain, explain and show financial transparency, as a major part of the collection and spending of the funds is more or less on fixed items.
 and their Elections ){kind=link}
0 Comments