Can Powerful Mayors Govern Better?

Long ago, when New York University professor Shlomo Angel and his team were engaged to upgrade a slum in Jerusalem Village in Bangkok, they asked the dwellers about their primary concerns. The houses in the slum were made of wood, and the cooking was done using open stoves. One of their main worries was frequent fires in the slum.

The team then decided to build a fire-protection system, using water from a canal. When the team was discussing this with the slum dwellers, an elderly man asked, “But, what about the mangoes?” Angel and his team could not figure out what mangoes had to do with the fire-protection system. But, this elderly man was the only person in the slum who knew that the main pipe from the canal cut through a big mango tree.

This is just an example of how complex civic problems are and cannot be solved without localised information. Most urban policy experts seem to recognise this. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has been arguing for long that a mayor should have more powers. Let's us know why.

In the slum in which Angel and his team were engaged, more participation from dwellers was necessary. But, mere participation was not enough. Intelligent participation was necessary. Remember that not a single person in the slum other than this elderly man identified the problem.

Cities can, of course, invite more participation from citizens on urban planning. But, it is quite possible that people with lust for power will seize the power. They need not be as perceptive as this elderly man, but are more than willing to merely run the show. Even if they have technical expertise, they may have access to localised information. Even if they have localised information and technical expertise both, it is quite possible that power lust, short sightedness or parochial motives drive them. Moreover, people who are quite able may have other things to do. Participation in urban governance is time-consuming and costly as urban planning is a complex affair than what people assume.

Mumbai, unlike other major cities of the world, does not empower its mayor. This is not because empowering the mayor does not make sense. Often people who have power are not willing to give up their influence. If power is not clearly demarcated, there will be no accountability. If the mayor does not have much power, it is difficult to make him accountable for local problems which he and his subordinates understand better than a chief minister, or the prime minister.
Even though the Mumbai mayor does not have much power, the civic woes of the city are often blamed on the mayor. And it is the same story, whether in Maharashtra or in other cities of India.

The BMC's website says that the mayor's main responsibility is “the decorative role of representing and upholding the dignity of the city”. Often this is what mayors do when they have sufficient authority. For example, certain tasks like garbage collection are easier than investing in public infrastructure or roads. Many such projects may take decades and mayors who are in power for a short period often do not have much of an incentive to undertake them despite great opposition. Often rural voters who elect the chief minister do not empathise with the problems of urban residents, though Indian cities like Mumbai are vastly populated and face problems that demand greater expertise.