The historic election of a powerful mayor for New York City has reignited a perennial debate in Mumbai: does India’s financial capital need a similarly empowered leader to tackle its chronic administrative chaos?
As reported by TOI, the comparison is stark. Greater Mumbai, with a population exceeding 12 million, is run by a labyrinth of public agencies — including the BMC, MMRDA, Mhada, the railways and the airport authority — that often work at cross purposes. This fractured system leads to overlapping jurisdiction, a lack of accountability, inefficient service delivery and severely delayed infrastructure projects.
In contrast to the directly elected and powerful mayor of New York, Mumbai’s mayor holds a largely ceremonial role. The position carries a brief two-and-a-half-year term, with the occupant elected by fellow corporators rather than the public. Executive power rests almost entirely with the appointed Municipal Commissioner, leaving the mayor with limited influence.
The scale of the difference is immense. The NYC mayor supervises a staff of over 300,000 and controls a budget larger than that of many countries. “Not only do they supervise a staff of over 300,000 people, a budget of over $120 billion, a GDP of $1.3 trillion - that's bigger than 10 other countries. We're in the top 10 in the world. Considering 1 million kids in our public schools, 10 million people at any given time, 30,000 cops, it's a lot of power,” J C Polanco, a professor at the University of Mount Saint Vincent, was quoted as telling CBS News.
This disparity has prompted calls from across Mumbai’s political spectrum for a radical overhaul. Shiv Sena MP Milind Deora stated his belief that Mumbai needs a more empowered mayor with executive powers. “I personally would prefer the idea of a directly elected mayor, as it will raise the profile of the election and senior leaders will aspire to become the city's mayor,” Deora was cited by TOI, emphasising the need for a figure who can coordinate with the city's myriad agencies.
Echoing this sentiment, City Congress chief Varsha Gaikwad reportedly stated that only a directly elected and empowered mayor could pull the city out of its current mess. She argued for a mayor who functions as the city’s CEO, politically invested and directly accountable to citizens for coordinated planning and implementation.
Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Aaditya Thackeray also backed the need for greater executive powers for the mayor and more administrative authority for the BMC, saying “we should have elections that are free and fair. 1 real person, 1 vote.”
However, the proposal is met with both scepticism and caution. Mumbai BJP chief Ameet Satam contended that the mayor already possesses significant powers within the BMC's committee structure. Meanwhile, MNS's Mumbai president Sandeep Deshpande pointed to a failed experiment from the city’s past, warning of a return to “rampant mismanagement.”
This cautionary tale dates back 25 years. In 1998, the then Shiv Sena-led government introduced a ‘mayor-in-council’ system, shifting power from the municipal commissioner to the mayor. The experiment, however, swiftly unravelled. The period was reportedly marked by bungling, dubious decisions and tussles over lucrative contracts. The system was scrapped in 1999 after a review ordered by the new chief minister.
The debate, therefore, is not new, but the compelling example of a global peer like New York has brought it into sharp focus once more. The fundamental question remains whether Mumbai can learn from its own history and the models of others to design a governance structure that grants its first citizen the authority needed to truly lead the city out of its administrative morass.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
