Localizing governance in India: pros and cons

Governance is localized in the wake of the state being a mere enabler. This has serious theoretical consequences in our conceptualization of governance especially in the developing countries where the Weberian hierarchy-driven public administration is well entrenched due presumably to a long colonial rule. Contrary to conventional public administration, the governance discourse seems to have set in motion processes whereby questions are raised over the applicability of the traditional model of governance in which citizens become mere 'recipients' and not 'instigators' of decisions affecting their life. Change is visible everywhere. In India, two definite forms of local governance - Bhagidari in Delhi and panchayati raj in West Bengal - have become prominent showing the growing importance of citizens in public administration and the gradual decline of the governmental institutions in framing and executing rules and regulations for public. These models approximate to the Gandhi's conceptualization of villages being 'an organic whole' of the masses drawing on their voluntary participation in governance. Inspired by Henry Maine, the Mahatma put into practice a new scheme of participatory governance in which the role of individual is as important as that of the collectivity which is also a departure from the conventional liberal point of view.