It may be noted that the social sector development in the State has a long historical basis to it: a complex set of social, political, economic and cultural factors - working cumulatively as well as in parallel - underlie this development in the State. By articulating the demands for education and health care, and organising large sections of the population around demands for such services, these movements played a central role in generating a demand from below, as it were, for these services, and the provision of these services by the State has, more often than not, been in response to such demands from below.

It is interesting to note that while the left movement in the State, thus has played a major role in its social sector development, its attempts at instituting a process of decentralisation of planning and governance in the State, in the post-independence period in particular, have not met with much success, at least till recently. There were repeated efforts, largely initiated by the left-led governments in the State, to introduce legislative measures for political and administrative decentralisation at various times. Political fragmentation and instability were perhaps partly responsible for this. Unlike in the case of other progressive moves spear-headed by the left movement - like say, land reforms, social sector advances or the public distribution system in the State - the moves towards decentralisation did not become a mass movement, and hence in the absence of popular pressure from below, could not be sustained.

Our discussions above would point to two important characteristics which any move towards decentralisation in Kerala today should fulfil in order to be effective and sustainable: First of all, it should not remain as just a legislative move, but should take on the characteristics of a mass movement so that enough popular pressure may be built up from below for it to be sustained. Secondly, it has to reorient the process of development in the State in such a way that while sustaining and consolidating the earlier gains in the social sectors, the problems in the productive sector have to be solved effectively. This note is a modest attempt at making a few preliminary remarks with respect to these two issues in the case of the latest attempt at decentralisation in Kerala.

The latest move towards decentralisation in the State is the People's Campaign for Decentralised Planning, or People's Planning in short, was initiated in August, 1996 by the Left Democratic Front(LDF) government which assumed power in May 1996. This campaign perhaps can be seen as part of a longer term democratic intervention to institute and sustain the process of decentralisation in Kerala. Its immediate genesis perhaps can be traced to a short lived attempt, in the late eighties and early nineties, to bring in decentralisation by a coalition of left parties which came to power in 1987.

First of all, in terms of extent and nature of decentralisation of the planning process, this experiment has perhaps gone much farther, compared to any other attempt at decentralisation in the country.

Secondly, the exercise recognised the need for capacity building at various levels: each phase in the campaign was preceded by training and orientation sessions for various functionaries - elected representatives, government officials etc. - and volunteers.

Thirdly, the campaign has been successful in drawing different sections of the population and different institutions and organisations into this exercise.

Lastly, the experiment functioned largely in the campaign mode, largely relying on existing organisations, functionaries, volunteers etc rather than creating fresh organisational and bureaucratic structures for the purpose.

The crucial question now facing the experiment is perhaps is its longer term sustainability. As noted above, certain aspects of the experiment - its ability to generate a spirit of enthusiasm and motivation, its ability to bank on the legacy of collective social movement in the State - appear to facilitate such a sustainability of the experiment. That would obviously depend on the ability of the experiment to gain legitimacy - social, political and economic - among the people. This is particularly so since the experiment has to face a degree of apathy, or even hostility, from certain established institutions and agents - like the bureaucracy sections of the political class, commercial banks etc - which already have a degree of legitimacy. And this would require - apart from extending and consolidating the gains from the experiment - a degree of institutionalisation, viz. creation of institutional mechanisms to ensure transparency both in constituting these local body institutions and in their functioning.

The long term sustainability of these local body institutions would also depend on their economic legitimacy  in the sense of their ability to make a perceptible difference to the general level of living of the population, of the deprived sections in particular. This, in the context of Kerala, perhaps would depend on the ability of the People's Plan to reorient the process of development, so that while maintaining and strengthening (particularly in qualitative terms) the gains in the social sector, the weak spots in the real sector may be properly dealt with.

In sum in a context where there is a great deal of opposition - by the bureaucracy, by the political class - to the idea of decentralisation, the Abig bang   approach, adopted by the campaign for People's Plan, was perhaps necessary and has its advantages: it generated a spirit of enthusiasm and involvement from below. While broad basing and consolidating these obvious gains from the campaign, the longer term sustainability of this experiment would also depend on a certain degree of institutionalisation of the process for transparent constitution and functioning of the local bodies, as well as for instituting a process of integrated planning with a coherent strategy and policy frame.

* Professor at Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.