The conduct of mayoral/municipal chairman polls in Tamil Nadu has yo-yoed between direct and indirect modes over the last 20 years.
The State government’s latest decision to revert to the system of direct election for Mayors of municipal corporations and Chairpersons of municipalities and town panchayats marks a U-turn on the part of the ruling AIADMK.
Barely 18 months ago, when Jayalalithaa was the Chief Minister, the ruling party had chosen to re-introduce indirect election.
Vaigaichelvan, spokesperson of the AIADMK, says the latest move will ensure stability in the administration of urban local bodies and “prevent the Opposition from resorting to horse trading” of councillors [of the ruling party].
In October 1996, when elections for urban local bodies (ULBs) took place in the State for the first time, after the enactment of the 74th Constitutional Amendment, the State government had chosen to have the system of direct election for chiefs of the ULBs. The explanation given then was that people must have a say in deciding who their Mayor or Chairperson should be.
DMK’s move
Chennai, which did not have a mayor for 23 years, had M.K. Stalin of the DMK as its first Mayor elected directly by voters.
Mr. Stalin was re-elected in 2001 but a change in law governing the post of Mayor ensured that he gave up the post within a year.
He chose to retain his position as a Member of the Assembly.
Till November 1973, the local body had Mayors who held the post only for one year through a rotation of representatives from different segments of the society. The election for the post was indirect.
In 2006 when the DMK regime decided to revert to indirect election, it came in for criticism as the change would reinforce “party politics” at the level of local bodies, leaving no scope for non-party individuals even to aspire for the post.
Also, critics had contended that the decision was made since the DMK did not fare well in some cities including Chennai during the 2006 Assembly elections.
Welcoming the latest development, M.G. Devesahayam, civil society activist, argues that regardless of intentions of the government, the mode of direct election, inherently, paves the way for “competent, suitable” mayors or chairpersons to make use of expertise or knowledge of professionals, who are outside the government, in urban governance.
