Echo T Calling: Towards People Centric Governance

Author

ECHO T CALLING

आनभद्रा: क्रतवोयन्तुविश्र्वत्:

Let noble thoughts come from everywhere in the World: Rg. Veda

Four seasons fill the measure of the year; there are four seasons in the mind of man; said famous English poet John Keats. For a bureaucrat, there are many seasons in the professional life to wade through the brook and tramp through the snow. With nearly four decades of experience of being a public servant, having served the society from village to the international level, and enriched by interactions from the grassroots to the topmost level, I am privileged to, somewhat, understand nuances of the governance.

While in service, most of the civil servants look like mute spectators to happenings around them. Thus, people often question the very credibility of bureaucracy. The reason is simple. Due to restrictions on the ‘freedom of expression’ during the service, silence is said to be golden. It is, therefore, seen that wisdom dawns on a bureaucrat only post-retirement. The same is the case with me and for that, I seek your indulgence. I think now is the time to share my perspectives on a wide range of topics. On some of them, my views may even challenge conventional wisdom. This is done just to facilitate thinking differently.

The primary purpose of any administrative structure is to provide an enabling environment leading to ease of living (EoL) for all citizens. The term EoL encompasses several components, which are meant for improving the overall quality of life of the people.

This book is a kaleidoscope of views, thoughts, and random observations on various hues of topics touching people’s lives, even impacting it. I am sure; my thoughts on various subjects will throw some new insight, kindle debate, and allow fresh approach to deal with issues raised.

Governance

In the context of our country, governance especially, good governance, has a historical significance and the term is as old as our civilization. In our ancient scriptures, there is mention of Raj Dharma which can be equated to good governance that we are talking of in our times. "Raj Dharma" means there is no separate rule for the King and his people, but both have to abide by the same set of rules and regulations.

A king should always protect the interest of his people and promote their welfare. It is written in Kautilya’s Arthashastra- "In the happiness of his people lies the King’s happiness, in their welfare his welfare, whatever pleases himself, he shall not consider as good, but whatever pleases his people, he shall consider as good." This quote captures the essence of good governance.

During the independence struggle, Mahatma Gandhi also talked about "Ram Rajya", another poignant concept etched in the Indian ethos. In deference to the so-called public opinion, the king Ram left his pregnant wife Sita in a forest, despite her passing through the ‘Agni pariksha’ and he himself being convinced about her innocence. In this case, the public opinion was that of a single person, a washerman quarreling with his wife being suspicious about her character. Ram once again sacrificed his personal life for upholding the probity or integrity in public life.

Earlier, Ram, for the sake of ‘Raj Dharma’ of king Dashrath, accepted the exile for fourteen long years to honor the promise given by his father to Queen Kaikeyi. Ram didn’t bat an eyelid before denouncing his creature comforts on each occasion for the sake of ‘Raj Dharma’. Keeping these instances in view, one gets the impression that Ram did justice to neither himself nor Sita, his wife and nor to his unborn children. He may be criticized by some for it, but for him, ‘Raj Dharma’ was supreme. That is the reason, even later, people talk about his rule.

Such were the exacting standards of "Ram Rajya. These days one can’t even think of coming anywhere closer to such high moral values and public probity. It goes without saying that Gandhi Ji’s construct of Ram Rajya", is an administrative and political ideal without having any religious connotation.

Having said so, a quick check on the ground reality of governance in modern India is an eye-opener. As a welfare state saddled with the task of development, both the union and state Governments take up a large number of programs ranging from ‘public distribution system for food grains’ to construction of ‘dignity housing’. Provisioning of proper financial and other resources for the implementation of such programs and schemes is ‘sine qua non.’

In their anxiety to cover all the sections of society at the same time, Governments often end up spreading public resources too thin, leading to dilution of accountability on the one hand, and time and cost overruns on the other hand. Mature leadership in the country is aware of the relationship between the inadequacy of financial resources for a program with less accountability, and time and cost overruns.

Of late, recognizing the limitations on account of unsustainable fiscal gap, many political parties and leaders now engage people on social issues and campaigns involving limited expenditure. They also know that such public campaigns can engage people for a while but cannot be a substitute for their expectations for improved standards of living.

Therefore, competitive polity results in an announcement of attractive populist schemes without any clue to the availability of resources. At the implementation stage, due to a lack of resources, accountability gets watered down. In addition, our planning, designing, and service delivery mechanism is less than optimum. In fact, the delivery of social and developmental programs in India needs an overhaul.

The efficacy of our delivery mechanism for developmental activities may be assessed from the fact that even the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi remarked in 1985 that only 15 paisa of every rupee meant for the welfare of people reaches them. Some basic analysis of what happens to the rest of 85 paisa reveals high establishment costs, and inexplicable transmission and distribution losses, a euphemism for leakages and pilferage.

Several attempts had been made to improve the system but with limited success. This fact is well known, experienced by all of us, but unfortunately not addressed adequately. There is a dire need to improve the system, but the concerning part is the lack of political will and the administrative resolve to challenge the status quo, as it suits well-entrenched vested interests.

It may be recalled that the independence movement was mainly for two reasons, namely, establishing ‘swaraj’ (self-rule) and ‘surajya’ (good governance). We have achieved ‘ swaraj’ in 1947 for which all of us are grateful to courageous freedom fighters. However, the other component, ‘surajya’ is still a work in progress. Surajya still looks a distant dream. In our country, good governance remains an issue of concern since independence.

Several scandals had broken out in India from time to time. However, it took center stage during the 1990s after the Bofors scandal and subsequent developments, which shook the foundation of the Indian establishment. Taking a cue, the then, Planning Commission highlighted the issue of governance. The ninth five-year plan (1997-2002) document released in 1999 had a chapter on implementation and delivery mechanism, thus reckoning for the first time issue of the governance deficit in India. In this chapter of the plan document, a review had been done, identifying the weak spots in the implementation of plans and to find solutions to the weaknesses. It also raised the issue of accountability and transparency in the implementation of plans.

The tenth five-year plan (2002-2007) document had a more specific chapter titled "Governance and implementation". It defined the role of center and state in the implementation of the plan and their duties in providing opportunities to the people and businesses. The chapter also describes the people’s participation in political, social and financial activities. It stressed that the policies or programs implemented should be non-discriminatory, transparent, socially sensitive and accountable to the public. This approach also fell short by not fixing accountability for not achieving the intended objectives.

Subsequently, several attempts had been made by various stakeholders to varying degrees of success, introducing elements of good governance. Somehow, most of these success stories remained confined locally and failed to propagate elsewhere. On a more in-depth analysis, one finds that these success stories are led by a protagonist (an individual or a group) in a specific context. The same formula doesn’t work elsewhere in the absence of either the protagonist or a different situation.

By bringing in systemic changes in our mindset, approach, accountability, and proper implementation can lead us to good governance. This could be achieved only when each one of us follows our ‘dharma’, irres pective of worrying about the short term consequences. Again, one can’t restrain oneself from quoting Mahatma Gandhi. Be the change yourself that you want to see in others, very aptly said, Mahatma Gandhi. Wake up and arise, my fellow citizens, as the entire world is keenly watching us whether we can or cannot achieve ‘surajya’, a pre-requisite for sustainable development.

Modern technology and governance methods are expected to improve human life and material well-being. However, this depends on the parallel moral progress of man. As good governance has not yet been incorporated as a way of life by all of us, the country is groping in the dark in search of ‘surajya’ since independence in 1947.

Yeh Jo Public Hai Sab Janti Hai (Public Knows All)

Irrespective of their socio-economic and cultural background, the Indian public is very mature and politically enlightened. Recent trends in Parliament and Assembly polls have shown that the Indian electorate in increasing numbers is moving away from caste, money, and religious considerations. People are well aware of Governmental programs and schemes and their implementation on the ground level. Naturally, on various aspects related to governance, people have experiences to share as it touches their lives.

Similarly, governance is such a subject that each one of us has an opinion on the way it is perceived and experienced. Our perspective gets shaped based on personal as well as secondary experiences, including those portrayed by the public opinion makers in media. As most of these professional opinion-makers have committed ideologies and biases, their inputs need to be assessed carefully. To untie the knot, let us first understand from a different perspective what governance is all about.

In simpler terms, governance relates to processes of interaction and decision-making among the constituents of an entity. This is accomplished through either laws or social norms or exercise of power or any combination of them. The entity governed could be a geographical territory, a market, an organization, or a network. Governance is often hierarchical and could be exercised through both formal and informal means. Often enough, remote-controlled governance is experienced through a layered administrative structure with little or no accountability. Administrative machinery, unfortunately, quickly adapts to it, regretfully perpetuating it further. This ‘remote control’ could be political, financial, or ideological.

The presence of certain selfless conscience keepers (whistleblowers and other frontline warriors) is a must for responsive governance. This breed is currently in short supply in our system for fear of transfers, remote postings, and other forms of mental and physical harassment. Some of the whistleblowers turn out to be blackmailers and extortionists. It is the common man who bears the brunt. He, therefore, cannot abdicate his responsibility in the belief that such things do not affect him. It does, and it will. We have to search for the modern-day equivalent to ‘Rishis of yore’, who dared to admonish even the king if found wanting in performing his ‘Rajya dharma.’

Governance as a function of Individuals, Institutions, and Processes (IIPs)

Governance, in the most generic form, is a function of individuals, institutions, and processes. Individuals with character, robust yet humane processes, and institutions with integrity make all the difference in determining the quality of governance, even enhancing it.

As the integral parts of governance, individuals, processes, and institutions grow on each other. Weak, incompetent, and indifferent individuals have the potential to destroy even the best of institutions. On the other hand, a reputed institution attracts capable individuals, who may further add to the brand value of the institution. Similarly, processes codified or informal are essential and integral to the outcome.

It is a fact that personal responsibility is absolved to an extent, by following the prescribed processes. Accordingly, many individuals and institutions tend to think that mere adherence to processes by them is the ultimate objective and can yield desired results. Such is certainly not the case. Processes followed without the end objectives in mind are like aimless wanders, who do not know their destination. Often, governance gets afflicted by ritualistic processes without caring for the purpose. To achieve intended results, processes should, therefore, be goal-oriented, nimble, or agile enough, and capable of meeting various challenges on time.

It is difficult for any institution to prescribe flexible processes. It is for the man behind the desk to take the right call. To achieve this, the only option is to empower individuals manning those institutions to exercise their discretion. This needs inherent confidence and faith in the individuals, a complete antithesis to the contemporary public administration. Unless faith is reposed in individuals, the desired results will not be forthcoming.

Cumbersome processes often obstruct achieving desired results and are even capable of distorting the system. Most of the time, governance is often carried based on spurious data, unrealistic targets, and inflated and unreliable reporting of achievements. To