I.

Local government means the operations of corporations, municipalities, district boards,

and other bodies which are entrusted with the execution of functions relating to and
concerning the residents of a given area or locality.
These functions do not concern the community as a whole, but embrace only a portion of
the total population and territorial area of the State. The essence of all such functions is
that they are purely local in character and need local solution in deference to the
requirements of the people inhabiting that locality.

The extent of the territory covered and the number of persons ruled over do not make any
difference in the nature of local government. The Local Government Unit of Monkayo
exercises its authority over a vastly greater number of people and considerably more
extensive area than any other municipalities in Compostela Valley Province. And yet all
are the units of local government performing more or less identical functions and
occupying the same constitutional position.

Sidgwick says that the term local government in a unitary State means organs, which
though completely subordinate to the central legislature, are independent of the central
executive in appointment and to some extent in their decisions, and exercise a partially
independent control over certain parts of public finance.

As regards the constitutional relationship between the central government and local
government, the latter derives its powers from the former and is subordinate to the
authority that created it. But though a subordinate body, yet it has certain independence
of action within the sphere assigned to it. It can make its own rules and regulations, or by-
laws, to perform its functions and to control its finances.-‘

This brings into prominence the question of the functions of local bodies. According to
MacIver the State seeks to fulfill three types of functions. In the first place, there are some
functions which concern and affect the whole community and are of national importance.

All such functions must belong to the national or central government. There are other
functions which are of a universal character, but which for their efficient fulfillment, or on
other grounds, may be assigned to the provincial governments.

Lastly, there are functions which are of peculiar concern of the locality, for example, water
supply, sanitation, maintenance of hospitals and libraries, running of public utility services,
like supply of electric energy, tramway or omnibus transport. These services have
reference to the local needs and it seems reasonable that the locality should have direct
and fairly complete control over them.

The efficient performance of all these functions requires local experience and knowledge
of local details. As Laski put it, “Local Self-Government offers the best opportunity to the
people to bring local knowledge, interest and enthusiasm to bear on the solution of their
own local problems.”

It is not, however, possible to rigidly separate the functions of local bodies. “Local
interests,” as MacIver says, “merge into national interests in variant degrees,” particularly
with the emergence of the Welfare State there are hardly any matters of local concern
that are not matters of national concern.

Subjects like education and health, for example, are local in character and require local
solution, but they are really of national importance and the central government cannot
remain unconcerned about them.

The control of local government over subjects which vitally concern the locality can never
be absolute in this era of conscious, consistent and sustained process of economic and
social planning.

The problem of local government is, therefore, not to draw sharp lines between the
functions of central and local governments. The real problem, as MacIver says, “Is to
assure at once the reality and responsibility of local government.”

So long as the local body does not exceed its powers or is not found guilty of some flagrant
piece of negligence, the central government should not interfere in its performance.

Dr. Colasito rightly remarked that “So long as the local authority does its best and keeps
within the law, however mistaken that may be, the central government has no right to
interfere, even on the request of the persons suffering the consequences of the mistake.”

II.
II.
The institution of local government is at its best in countries which are governed on
democratic lines. It is the experience of many countries that all matters of a local concern
are ultimately best administered by a properly organised system of local government.
Local government means the regulation and administration of local affairs by the people
inhabiting the locality through representative bodies composed mainly of elected
representatives.

These local assemblies of citizens, says De Tocqueville, “constitute the strength of free
nations. Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it
within the people’s reach; they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it.

A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal
institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.” This foundation aspect of local government
is described as “grass-roots” democracy, a phrase which has become popular.

Local bodies serve as a training ground in the art of self-government and the experience
and knowledge acquired in local governance can best be utilised for the wider affairs of
central government. Laski says that the institution of local government is educative in
perhaps a higher degree than any other part of government.

It cultivates a sense of civic duties and responsibilities and inculcates among citizens a
corporate spirit of common administration of common interests. “Whoever learns to be
public spirited, active and upright in the affairs of the village,” says Bryce, “has leant the
first lesson of the duty incumbent on a citizen of a great country.” Local institutions train
men not only to work for others but also work effectively with others.

The citizens develop common sense, reasonableness, judgment and sociability, the
qualities of moderation, accommodation and social dependence, which are so essential
for the success of democracy.

It is a process of political socialization. De Tocqueville especially argued that local

government was valuable because it associated citizens with each other and with the
government. It fosters in the citizen “a sober love of the laws of which he is himself the
author.”
When all problems of administration are not central problems the obvious inference is
that those functions of government which affect mainly or solely the inhabitants of a limited
portion of a country should be placed under the special control of this section of the
community.

Local knowledge brings about a closer adaptation of administrative activity, for there is a
consciousness of common purposes and common needs. “Neighbourhood,” says Laski,
“makes us automatically aware of interests who impinge upon us more directly than upon
others.”

The central government is very often indifferent to these interests, and if it interests itself
in them at all, its transactions are subject to red-tapism which unnecessarily delays the
plans requiring immediate execution.

Moreover, an administration which is not local is unresponsive to local opinion. It is, thus,
“bound in the nature of things, to miss shades and expression of thought and sentiment
the perception of which is in a real degree urgent to the success of administration.”

The central government, in other words, cannot grasp the genius of the place. Being
government from without, it fails to evoke either interest or responsibility from the people
it seeks to control. It may well evoke indignation, but it does not succeed in eliciting the
creative support of citizens.

It is a matter of common knowledge that what is done by our common counsel in the
solution of our common problems gives us a degree/of satisfaction which is unobtainable
when it is done for us by others from outside.

Both John Stuart Mill and De Tocqueville argued that local institutions of government
promote virtue in their citizens. The small unit of government, which they hold, fosters
civic morality by linking the exercise of political power with the consequence flowing there
from.

A citizen of a locality feels that he is a trustee of the public good. He delegates his authority
of governing himself to his fellow citizens and assesses whether they are deserving or
unworthy of that trust.
If they betray the trust reposed in them the confidence is withdrawn and others who are
deemed worthy of the job are entrusted with it. It is a continuous process of responsibility
and vigilance which is the essence of a democratic arrangement.

Moreover, central government inevitably aims at uniformity and not variety. Local
problems need variety, because they are peculiar to the needs of a particular area.

Uniformity is usually cheaper, “because it is almost always easier to make a single

solution and apply it wholesale than to make a variety of solutions and have them
piecemeal.” But uniformity is only a mechanical solution of all problems.

Problems peculiar to a particular locality are not standardised in character. They must be
individually solved with reference to the conditions which demand their solution.

Local government aims at division of governmental functions and it lightens the burden
of the central government. If the central government is overloaded with work, it becomes
incompetent and it would do things tardily, expensively, and above all inefficiently. At the
same time, centralisation means the presence and functioning of a strong bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy may create and provide for conditions of an effective and efficient
government which is, no doubt, the nature of a good government, but a good government
is no substitute for self-government.

Unless local bodies are entrusted with active powers, the central authority will not merely
stifle all local initiative, but destroy also that well-spring of local knowledge and local
interest without which it cannot possibly exercise its functions. Local government,
therefore, is necessary for efficiency and responsibility.

Inaugurating the first Local Self-Government Ministers’ Conference (India) in 1948, the
Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, observed: “Local Self-Government is and must be the
basis of any true system of democracy. We have got rather into the habit of thinking of
democracy at the top and not so much below.

Democracy at the top may not be a success unless you build on this foundation from
below.” It is only through local government that self-government becomes real. To put it
in the words of Bryce, “The best school of democracy and the best guarantee for its
success is the practice of self-government.”
Economy is secured by local government. Local functions are performed by local
authorities out of funds raised locally. Equity demands that services rendered exclusively
or mainly to a limited population, who live within a certain area, should pay for them.

The incidence of such services should not be shifted to others who expect no gain there
from. As the inhabitants of the area have to pay for the local services, it is natural for them
to demand proper control over those services. It has the results.

In the first place, participation in the work of local bodies tends to develop among the
people a sense of mutual interest in their common affairs and trains them to work for
others honestly and efficiently. Secondly, the people entrusted with the management of
local affairs will manage them more efficiently in order to keep their bill of costs as low as
possible.

Finally, by making responsibility widespread the institution of local government

encourages a spirit of self-help and self-dependence. The institution of local government
is, as such, a great advancement in the realization of true citizenship. Burke has cogently
said, “To be attached to the sub-division; to love the little platoon we belong to in society,
is the first principle, the germ as it were of public affections. It is the first link in the series
by which we proceed towards a love to our country and mankind.”

The vigorous development of local government is the only means of realizing the welfare
purpose of every progressive State. Welfare services require a flexible technique to cater
for individual cases.

The local bodies, on account of their nearness to the people, their wider representative
character, their natural familiarity with the details of the situation, and their intimate
knowledge of the means and wants of the inhabitants are eminently suited to evolve such
a technique. The State has really found in them its most effective instrument for social
amelioration.

Soviet Russia was the home of socialism, both national and local. The town Soviets,
which were the Russian prototypes of Indian Municipal Committees, besides exercising
the usual municipal functions, regulated also the entire political and economic life of the
local community.
Commerce, industries, retail trade, cooperation, housing, land partition, criminal justice,
recruitment and mobilization, protection of the revolutionary regime, supervision and
application of the national progress, etc., all came under its jurisdiction.

The Soviets also supervised and controlled all the organs and institutions of government
functioning within their area, and would voice the dissatisfaction of the local community
with any of them when necessary. They acted in the dual capacity of agents of the central
government and the representative bodies of the local community.

Compared with local bodies of advanced countries, the functions of municipalities in India
are less extensive principally in three directions, namely, police, trading enterprises, and
the big group of social services comprising health, housing, sickness and unemployment
insurance. Some of these functions are not even legally permitted to the municipalities.

Apart from the legal restrictions, the main difference between Indian municipalities and
their foreign prototypes is that in respect of legally permitted functions, like education or
water supply, the actual standard of development here is very low. Then, the government
of the local bodies in India is neither local nor is it self-government.

They have not the means to extend their activities even if permitted by law. Their own
resources are not sufficient. They have to depend to a large extent on the financial help
of the State governments through grants-in-aid, loans, etc. The authority that pays must
also control and direct.

The autonomy of the local bodies, accordingly, vanishes under all encroaching control
and direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Control of the State government is
ubiquitous and a minor lapse may mean supersession of a local body. The action may
even be politically motivated.

Critics of local government assert that local home rule narrows/the outlook of the people
and breeds local patriotism. Such an attitude stifles the life of the community. What is
political virtue in the local context becomes parochialism on the national stage.

The good local citizen of nineteenth and twentieth century France or Germany was often
the bad national citizen. It is further pointed out that devolution of authority to local bodies
not only multiplies administrators, but also results in divided responsibility. The obvious
result is inefficiency, delinquency, waste and incompetence.
The officers of local bodies succumb to all sorts of local influences as they are “locally
selected and locally directed and locally controlled.” Devolution of authority also deprives
local bodies of central direction and advice.

With scanty resources at their disposal, and a meagre source of information and
knowledge at their command, local bodies cannot perform their functions adequately and
effectively, and if they do, they do it tardily and inefficiently.

What the critics of local government say is true to a great extent, particularly in a country
like India where the vision of the people is blurred by the barriers of localism, regionalism,
caste and religion.

To love one’s home and locality is the natural instinct of man and there is nothing wrong
in it provided it does not inhibit men in performing their higher duties towards their country
and its people as a whole. It is our membership of the State which bestows upon us the
benefits of devolution of authority and the privileges of working for others with others living
in our neighbourhood.

Once this becomes the norm of the political behaviour of man, local government fulfils the
purpose of common consciousness of common good. It binds the people living in different
areas in a community of feelings and interests and in these feelings narrow localism finds
no place.

Willoughby suggests a concrete reform. He says that local officers should be appointed
by the State or provincial Government, but a local advisory council in each area,
consisting of the eminent and trustworthy citizens, may be associated with them.

The advisory council should be given the responsibility and duty of advising local officers
with local problems, to bring to the attention of their superior officers all cases of lapses
on their part and failures to perform their duties properly and diligently, to suggest to such
authorities proposals which they deem advisable, and to protest against the action of the
government where they believe that their areas are not receiving equitable treatment.

But this is not the real solution of the problem. Nor does it advance the cause of local
government which aims to inculcate the spirit of intelligent and creative citizenship.
Whatever be the defects of local government, “grass-roots” democracy forms a vital
element of democracy for the modem State. The absence of healthy local political roots
is a disaster. Robson has cogently said, “Democracy on the national scale can function
in a healthy manner only if it is supported and nourished by democratic local government.”

De Tocqueville relevantly argued that local institutions have a special role to play in the
preservation of liberty and independence and decentralization of political power is the
necessary component of democracy.

Local democracy gives many people a voice in matters touching those most immediately.
It associates citizens with one another, with the process of government, and with the rules
of government of which they are in part the authors.

Access to the government broadens popular participation and fosters public virtue in the
participants and energy in the people. “Popular government,” as Carl Friedrich says,
“includes the right of the people, through their majority, to commit mistakes.”

The decisions, which local people make, may seem unwise from the standpoint of experts
and technicians, but the citizens “will discover it in time and they may learn a vital lesson
in self-government.” Local government is the best school of citizenship.

Such homilies as “democracy stops beyond the parish pump” and “charity begins at
home” indicate that “grass-roots” democracy “holds a special place in American folklore
and they are accustomed to thinking of dispersed power as more democratic and more
conducive to liberty than concentrated.”
III.