Open House: Do you believe one-year term should be replaced with five-year tenure and that the Mayor be elected directly

It would not be a better system to have a mayor directly elected for five years because, under the present system, micromanagement of wards becomes easier while there can be changes in the top post. This system offers stability for residents of all wards. Moreover, a direct election for the mayor would lead to infighting and rifts amongst political parties, which would not be conducive to Indian democracy.

Saikrit Gulati, Chandigarh

Electing mayor for a year stupid system

Though the term of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation is five years, the mayor is elected for only one year. This is a very stupid system, as a year is not a long enough period for anyone to learn about the mayor’s office and set up the working of the office in his own manner. This is why we have so many pending development projects in the city.

SK Khosla, Chandigarh

Short-term reduces misuse of power

A term limit may reduce the potential misuse of power by incumbents who may stay in office for too long. A one-year tenure is sufficient for the mayor to be in power, and if he is able to perform all the duties in accordance with the law and for the benefit of the city residents, he may be elected mayor for another tenure.

Charu Malhotra, Mohali

Current mayor’s tenure too short

The one-year tenure of the mayor of Chandigarh Municipal Corporation is not enough for the planning and implementation of schemes. If elected directly, the tenure will be for five years, automatically. Just like the General and assembly elections in the country, people would have to vote smartly; otherwise, the five year tenure could be a disaster.

Bharat Bhushan Sharma

Five-year tenure is optimal for mayor

It is never too late to make amends, and more so when in Chandigarh’s neighbourhood of Panchkula, the practice of direct election of mayor for a five-year term co-terminus with the corporation has been yielding optimal results due to continuity and stability sans yearly one-upmanship bargaining for the grab.

Lalit Bharadwaj, Panchkula

Solution to horse trading

Horse trading in recent years during the annual mayoral election has been a cause for concern for the city. I believe the system needs to be switched to a five-year term for the mayor, as a year is not long enough for a mayor to finish many development projects. The pros, such as the stability of a five-year tenure for the mayor, outweigh the cons.

Vijay Shukla, Chandigarh

Longer term will see More development

The demand for direct election and a five year term for the city mayor is good, as it would give the MC and mayor the opportunity the opportunity to grow and develop their city. With a five year tenure, the mayor would have ample time and opportunities to deal with all sorts of problems and also to focus on new development projects.

Rudhav Dhingra, Chandigarh

Step towards efficient admn

Direct elections of mayors would be a step towards efficiency in urban governance. As Indian cities grow in population, the pressure for better urban governance increases. However, Indian urban governance in its current form is fraught with inefficiency and mismanagement. This is a result of the restricted executive powers that mayors of Indian cities enjoy.

Sanjay Chopra, Mohali

No need for longer tenure for mayor

There is no need to increase the tenure of the mayor from one to five years, as the work to be finished within one year will be lingered on for five years. A five-year tenure can be best described as “jack of all trades but master of none,” as there will be stone-laying ceremonies for more and more projects, and the completion of none will be there.

Savita Kuthiala

Longer term May not bring desired results

The prevailing method of electing the mayor from among the parties in majority makes him responsible and answerable to the people who elected him. Moreover, members from other categories are also given due representation as per the provisions during the tenure. A direct election for the mayor, and that too for five years, may not bring the desired results due to party politics and leg pulling.

Surinder Paul Wadhwa, Mohali

Three-year term long enough

The tenure of the mayor should be for three years, as one year is too short a period to carry out developmental work. A five-year term will be too long as there will be lethargy and complacency in the workplace. We have seen that the governments hardly do any constructive work during the first three years. The real work starts only when the elections are due. Long-duration tenures are demotivating, and they give opportunities for corruption.

Dr Anil Kumar Yadav, New Chandigarh

Long term will Give more time to mayors

The one-year term for the mayor just gives five individuals the tag of an ex-mayor of the city. This system does not provide adequate time for anyone to learn their job and implement any significant development work in the city. Moreover, the direct election process for the mayor would lead to more chaos than good for the residents. The term for the mayor should be increased to five years so that it gives them enough time to focus on development projects in the city.

SS Arora, Mohali

Mayor should be elected directly

The elections of the city mayor for a one-year term encourage the horse trading of councillors every year. This affects the functioning of MC, and as a result of this, the residents of the city have to suffer. The mayor of the city should be elected directly by the residents for a five-year term. In the absence of an elected body in UT, the administration should give more power to the mayor and provide him with adequate funds to carry out development projects in the city.

Col Balbir Singh Mathauda (retd)

Five-year term will bring accountability

The five-year term will certainly make the mayor more accountable. Moreover, unlike the one-year term, elections for mayor will be held once every five years. This will be prosperous and fruitful, as during elections a lot of money and time are invested in campaigning and conducting elections, which would not be plausible yearly. A five-year term will help the residents be fruitful and fertile, leading to a calm, cool, comfortable, and composure environment.

Arpita Anand, Chandigarh

One-year term not long enough

The mayor of the city should be elected for a five-year term so that the councillors have enough time to focus on the development instead of worrying about the next mayor elections. A five-year term would be enough for a mayor to fulfil his duties and complete a lot of development projects in the city.

Avinash Goyal, Chandigarh

Need mayor to be accountable

A mayor elected for a five-year term will be more beneficial for the city for long-term projects, which are subject to the authenticity and accountability of the post. Judicious use of funds, timely completion, and transparency in work without any delay are the needs of the hour.

Abhilasha Gupta, Mohali

Five-year term Will give office stability

Replacing the one-year term with a five-year term and directly electing the mayor would give the office greater stability and legitimacy. However, the impact of such a change would need to be carefully considered, particularly in terms of accountability and transparency.

Prithvee Yakhmi

Longer tenure Will be cost-efficient

The fixed tenure of 5 years will solve many problems and reduce the cost of governance. The mayor can be removed for any wrongdoing with a 2/3rd majority or with a court order. There must be a minimum qualifications for all councillors and mayors, such as graduation for councillors and postgraduation for mayors, with no criminal record, including loan default.

KC Rana, Chandigarh

Short tenure for mayor insufficient

A five-year tenure allows for continuity and the execution of comprehensive urban development plans. Direct elections ensure that mayors are directly accountable to the electorate, fostering greater transparency and responsiveness. This shift could enhance governance, empower local leadership, and better address the evolving needs of urban populations. Adopting these changes would mark a significant step towards more robust and effective municipal administration.

Devanjana, Chandigarh

Long term will make Mayor people-oriented

The one-year term should be replaced with a five-year tenure and direct election, because once a candidate is elected, his interests and ideas come into execution; however, with different departments having different responsibilities, the process of taking permissions and issuing documents takes several months. With direct elections, the mayor elected would be more people oriented and honest towards his people.

Parisha Khatri, Chandigarh

Curent system proving beneficial

The current system of electing mayors from councillors for one year has been proving beneficial for the city. Every mayor elected for a year tries to do his best, especially for his ward. This led to the development of at least five wards in the five-year term.

Wg Cdr JS Minhas (retd), Mohali

Direct election of mayor need of hour

The city residents witness horse trading every year when the councillors have to elect a new mayor. A direct election for the mayor of the city would solve this problem, as it would put the responsibility on the residents to choose a capable mayor. This will also prevent petty politics in the MC from interfering with the development of the city.

Kumar Gupt, Panchkula

Five years Good for long-term planning

A five-year term for a directly elected mayor could ensure stability and long-term planning, fostering a stronger connection with the electorate. The direct elections would empower citizens, making leadership more accountable and responsive to public needs. This shift could enhance governance, allowing for the implementation of comprehensive policies that transcend short-term interests, ultimately benefiting the city’s development and aligning with democratic principles of direct representation.

Sahibpreet Singh, Mohali

Longer term would strengthen governance

Adopting a five-year term for a directly elected mayor strengthens governance by providing the time needed to execute long-term initiatives and respond effectively to community needs. This change fosters political stability, encouraging thorough policy development and consistent leadership. Direct elections empower residents, enhancing civic engagement and ensuring the mayor’s accountability to the electorate. Aligning with international standards, this approach promotes efficient, visionary leadership and cultivates a resilient, forward-thinking urban environment.

Gurpreet Kaur, Mohali

5-year term will enhance stability

Implementing a five-year term for a directly elected mayor enhances stability and strategic continuity in governance, allowing for comprehensive planning and the successful execution of long-term projects. Direct election by citizens increases democratic participation and accountability, ensuring the mayor is directly answerable to the electorate. This model not only aligns with global best practices but also strengthens local democracy, fostering a deeper connection between leadership and community aspirations, thereby driving sustained progress.

Gurdev Singh, Mohali

Long term to Promote strategic governance

Shifting to a five-year term for a directly elected mayor promotes strategic, long-term governance and accountability. This change enables the mayor to undertake significant projects, ensuring they reach fruition, and it aligns with international standards. Direct elections enhance democratic engagement, giving citizens a stronger voice in choosing their leader. This stability and empowerment drive more effective, visionary leadership, fostering community trust and sustained urban development.

Amanjot Kaur, Mohali

Long-term projects Will be implemented

Switching to a five-year term and direct election for city mayors fosters accountability and stability, ensuring mayors can implement long-term projects and respond directly to the electorate’s needs. It eliminates political manoeuvring, giving mayors the time needed to see policies through to fruition, thus enhancing governance and public trust. Direct elections empower citizens, reflecting democratic values and making local leadership more responsive and representative of the community’s aspirations.

Gaganpreet Singh, Mohali

Mayor’s post is ceremonial in nature

Vesting the executive powers of the municipality with the mayor would be a very positive move. The mayor has a largely ceremonial role. This is an anomaly. In a democracy, executive power should vest with a person or a body that is democratically accountable. However, this does not necessitate that the mayor be directly elected. After all, we do not directly elect the Prime Minister or Chief Minister. Still, they enjoy wide powers and are democratically accountable. There is little evidence to suggest that directly elected mayors are better.

Capt Amar Jeet, Kharar

Term should be fixed for three years

The term of one year is too short. One requires time to settle down and understand things in a new role. Thus, a term of at least three years would benefit the city the most. The term of three years will be enhanced to five years, subject to satisfactory performance.

NPS Sohal, Chandigarh

Question for next week

During General Election, voters in Chandigarh had to stand in long lines under the scorching sun for hours. What steps should be taken to avoid long queues in areas that hold the majority of votes?

Suggestions in not more than 70 words can be sent to openhouse@tribunemail.com