Localising politics and power must be a global governance priority

The world, India included, must push power to the lowest levels of governance to avoid popular alienation from the political process

The Trump-era disruptions may be a good time for each country to examine its own economic policies and reform those that have outlived their utility. Many commentators, including some in this paper, have urged India to rethink its protectionist mindset and be open to lower tariffs and more competition. One cannot disagree with this opinion, but it begs a more basic question: Was the world working just fine before Mr Trump ruined it?

 

My view is that you cannot fix broken global economics by looking only at economic reforms. No country lives in a world where only economics counts; we live in a political economy, and trying to reform economic policies without reforming political systems — and regularly — will only lead us to another cul-de-sac.

 

To see Mr Trump’s victory as some kind of isolated event is to fool ourselves. The same set of economic and political forces has brought parties like France’s National Rally (led by Marine Le Pen, now debarred from contesting elections), Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland (AfD, led by Alice Weidel), and Nigel Farage’s Reform Party in the United Kingdom to the fore. If political systems were truly working for the people, why would they seek out more extreme voices to register their cries of disapproval?

 

It is politics, and political ideologies and systems, that need to be fixed. Without that, economic reforms may not deliver as well as economists believe they will. And the reason is simple: While economic policies do get tweaked with every government change or when a crisis forces a shift, political systems have remained unchanged for half a century or more in most countries (in our case, more than three-quarters of a century). When technology and information (real or distorted) are such a big part of our lives, and these changes happen in months if not weeks, how can we expect political systems created in the 19th and 20th centuries to work today? It’s like trying to run today’s computers on the 8088 chip or MS-DOS. Can the liberal ideologies that evolved after the Second World War be sustained in a world where people are as worried about culture and identity as they are about jobs? Why would there not be a revolt against illegal immigration and citizenship if these concerns are not addressed?

 

The popular revolt against Left-liberalism and woke elitism has happened because people no longer believe they can control their own lives or what impacts them. So, the first and most important change we need to make is to enable people to decide at local levels what is currently decided by someone else at higher levels of government.

 

The most important political change the world needs today is a very hefty dose of decentralisation of power. Economic and political decision-making must be pushed to the lowest levels possible, and it does not matter if some of the resultant local decisions appear less liberal or inclusive. If some sub-national regions want no “foreigners”, so be it. If others welcome them, so be it. People learn what works and what doesn’t fairly quickly.

 

India’s political system is biased towards centralisation, partly because at the time of Independence, when hundreds of princely states and British provinces had to be integrated into one country, fears of balkanisation were rife. Today, that threat is minimal. But it’s not about the Centre concentrating all power in its hands; states do the same, which is why issues of local interest are often ignored. Delimitation and language issues seem big when looked at from a state-level perspective, but at the level of the average district or town, it means nothing. The town of Hosur in Tamil Nadu’s Dharmapuri district benefits from its proximity to Bengaluru, not Chennai. Noida is becoming the next Gurugram and a startup hub not because it is part of Uttar Pradesh, but because it is part of the Delhi ecosystem and the National Capital Region. So, should decisions about Hosur and Noida be made locally, or should they be dictated by the perspectives of Chennai and Lucknow?

 

Political and social problems can be solved more easily in local areas. For example, India has many Hindu-Muslim tensions. If you aggregate them nationally, they will be insoluble. If they are dealt with locally, they can be sorted out through compromises. Would it not be easier for the two communities living in a growth region to work out amicable solutions so that both can benefit economically, rather than allowing national or state-level politicians to take charge of the narratives and animosities?

 

The point is that in a large and complex country like India — or the US or the European Union, for that matter — one-size-fits-all policies may not work. They can work only in small, monocultural societies with a high degree of mutual trust. Ergo, most decisions must be taken locally, a few more regionally, and very few nationally.

 

I live in Thane, India’s largest district, which had a population of over 11 million in 2011. Even after the carve-out of a new district (Palghar) from Thane, Thane’s population today may be back to 10-11 million. That’s a population bigger than Portugal, Sweden, or the Czech Republic. Thane has six municipal corporations, and two of them (Thane City and Navi Mumbai) are big business hubs, with Mumbai’s second airport set to open later this year in Navi Mumbai. Should most of Thane’s population be governed by state or Central fiat, or locally?

 

The average Indian district has a population of around two million, which is bigger than 84 countries in Worldometer’s 2025 population projections. Where should decisions concerning these mini countries, with different cultures, natural and human endowments —and varying requirements of state support — be made? Can a Food Security Act designed for populous UP be the same as that for Manipur?

 

I am a great believer in the idea of charter cities, which is a compact between the state and the city, where the latter has huge leeway to make policies to attract investment and jobs. The only limitations on their power — just to name a few areas — would be the conduct of monetary and fiscal policy, issues of citizenship, internal trade, internal security, broad welfare policies, and external relations. These jobs are best done by the Centre and the states.

 

Without decentralisation, without making cities, district administrations, municipalities, and village councils more self-sufficient and autonomous, we are not going to boost growth with jobs. We are not creating enough jobs precisely because the laws that deter entrepreneurship and job creation — over-regulation, bureaucracy, and corruption — are made in Delhi and state capitals, which are often run by rural politicians, and not in Madurai, Durgapur, or Thane and Navi Mumbai.

 

We need to put local governments at the centre of decision-making, not at the bottom of the power equation.

 

The author is a senior journalist