Governance Betrayal

Most keenly watched speech of the Prime Minister this 15^th August was specifically noticed for his comments on OROP. In exact words, the PM said “The issue of One Rank One Pension (OROP) has come before every government, each one has considered its proposal, and each and every government has made promises on it, but the problem is still pending to be resolved. After my assuming office as Prime Minister I have not been able to do this by now”.

Through the honest confession of helplessness in inking a decision on OROP, the most decisive leader of “Team India” belittled both the glory of the Red Fort and the occasion of 15^th August that signifies liberation. The red stone mammoth, must have wailed in humiliation when this lament came from no other than a leader, armed with a historic majority of 282 parliamentarians with practically no opposition. The reiteration of his in-principle commitment to OROP while was appreciated, the criminal delay in its implementation has left the nation to debate the compelling reasons behind sluggishness in policy implementations.

The surrender to “due process” by a man, who is convinced of “minimum government and maximum governance”, is not music to any ear that craves for responsive governance. It is definitely though a rude provocation to inquire into why implementation process in government is so painful, fractured and time consuming. The OROP issue surely is not a singular example.

The sordid treatment given to high profile 26/11 attacks is another in recent memory. The then Union Home Minister P Chidambaram termed the attacks, “a game-changer” “Zero tolerance” on terrorism, and assured of adequate resources for a “swift and decisive response” in future. Five years after this, Amir Khan, writing for the Indian Express in November 2014, reported that the Bombay High Court expressed displeasure for not carrying out changes to weapon policy even after the experience of the 26/11 terror attacks that left many police personnel dead as they were not adequately armed. A sense of betrayal thus is the common man’s conclusion.

Why this state of affairs?

One answer came from the man himself. On an earlier occasion the PM said “When I came to Delhi and noticed an insider view, I felt what it was and I was surprised to see it. It seemed as if dozens of separate governments are running at the same time in one main government. It appeared that everyone has its own fiefdom. I could observe disunity and conflict among them”.

No wonder, the judicial forums in the country are clogged with litigations borne out of indifference and inaction on the part of the Government (s). In terms of numbers, as on 01.03.2015 there were 61,300 cases pending before the Supreme Court - the highest judicial forum. Attributing this to growth, largely to transparency and an informed citizenry of recent times would be a fallacy. Let us face it; something somewhere is terribly wrong in the process of Governance.

Where does the malaise lie then?

The malaise probably is not with the vision and directions of the leadership. The rot lies with rusting institutions or implementation agencies that lack a system of accountability. There has been a remarkable growth in internalisation of the paradigm that procrastinating a decision or opting for a “group insurance” by forming committees is a safe, sustainable and profitable idea. The sense of urgency and responsibility, much needed in the current phase of development therefore has evaporated from a bureaucracy that is cushioned with security of job, tenure-linked promotion and secured pension.

In the fast changing world, where tweets shape news, decision making needs to be smarter, for India to attain and maintain a competitive edge over peer nations. For smart governance we need smart system that encourages performers and penalizes lousy souls. Sadly today’s “meritocratic bureaucracy” promotes only unblemished seniority in terms of number of years of attendance in office. The senior most bureaucratic position is occupied by virtue of an over rated rank, secured “once upon a time”. The methodology of seniority by the rank at the time of entry is designed to frustrate any attempts to count real life accomplishments that made a positive difference in the lives of citizens in the process of elevation in the career. Thus it is ensured that the soaring eagle of bureaucracy is the loyal rule book follower and not the one who is a continuously inquisitive, innovative and passionate learner.

The creamy Indian Administrative Service that leads shaping of decision making, oblivious of changing needs of the society is singularly keen in securing its own fort than open new vistas. With few exceptions, it has become more of an “Indian Hopping Service” having mastered the art of quickly slipping out of scene at the time of reckoning accountability. The result without a coordinated approach to setting objectives and standards, and no means of measuring public satisfaction, government initiatives are operated on an inconsistent basis with limited emphasis on improvements. The citizen expectation that their Bureaucracy will ensure professionalism and responsiveness in efficiently serving political governments is almost at its nadir. No wonder, secure jobs fail to earn positive appreciation by the general public.

On the political front, this loss of control over the implementing agencies can be detrimental to highly competitive politics that has been seen to be overthrown over trivialities like “price of onions” leave apart serious issues. The imperfections in arriving at intelligent and workable policy options towards quenching public demand by the bureaucracy apart from impacting public good, has the real threat of marring political careers of achievers in politics, who have a long road ahead.

The Road ahead

The structure and working of bedraggled bureaucracy therefore needs a ruthless inspection. The principles taught to a beginner in economics, in this context if put to practice holds a promise. On the global scale, the human development of recent decades achieved through competition in markets is indicative of the virtue of Competition. Competition has been central to the growth of markets, fostering innovation, productivity and growth. This in turn has lead to creation of wealth and a concomitant reduction of poverty. The resource-less nation known as a little red dot on the world map called Singapore is a practitioner of this idea of healthy competition. Any one returning from Singapore can vouch for its success that transformed a nation into the shortest span of time in recent history. In a unique successful implementation, Singapore bureaucracy ensures that only the best reaches the top. And let us not be surprised to take note that a junior in reality has an opportunity to supervise his one-time boss.

Another way forward is to take learnings from the Dubai Government Excellence Programme (DGEP).  The DGEP recognises and rewards exceptional government employees, departments and initiatives on a yearly basis. Distinguished Team Performance, Distinguished Administrative Initiative, Distinguished Government Employee, Innovators are specific category awards amongst others to recognise and encourage a bureaucracy to be responsive, responsible and accountable. Measuring progress has become something of a positive obsession for the Dubai Government. The DGEP has become a widely admired and followed programme, not only within government circles, but has also interestingly attracted interest from the private sectors. Much to its credit, the DGEP won the United Nations Public Service Award in 2007.

Home-made prescription towards transforming the Indian bureaucracy is contained in the recommendation of Administrative Reforms Commission that essentially argues for infusing competition. It is time to dust it. To translate “Maan ki baat” into “Kaam ki Baat”, taking the bull by the horns is the key. The bureaucracy then will be seen to be run dispassionately by passionate professionals whose identity is merit and not those three letter suffixes after names, and who in the words of our man at 7 Race Course Road are not an assembled entity, but an organic unity, an organic entity, a harmonious whole- with one aim, one mind, one direction, one energy. 

Published on 13th Sep by a friend who picked it up from here for a surprise birth day gift.

http://epaper.centralchronicle.com/index.php?pgno=4&date1=2015-09-13

Rewiring Democracy: The Vote that failed.

An Old piece written for elections post NOTA.

For anyone who is concerned about the quality of governance in India, the recent Supreme Court judgement on “none of the above” (NOTA) option on the ballot paper is largely perceived as a game changer. The first reactions then were an immense sense of déjàvua watershed moment. The future of how we govern ourselves appears redefined or so that we expect. A huge optimism is building up in that the coming general elections will be far promising than the previous once as political parties are likely to act responsibly realising the consequences and embarrassment in the wake of significant use of this option. Some even argue that unprecedented voting in just concluded 5 assembly elections was because of this new button on the ballots. The provision did attract voters in all the states that went to votes. Possibly these were those who otherwise never stepped out to vote. The percentage of voters who chose this option in four states are Chhattisgarh (3 percent), Rajasthan (2 percent) and Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (1 percent) each.

The important question, though, is not if NOTA is a game changer but what kind of democratic values the biggest democracy wants to showcase and what role will we citizens play in shaping that identity. Seen from that perspective, there’s only one relevant question: Are we citizens content at politician bashing at every available opportunity renewed through the new weapon of NOTA or do we aspire to find some solution?

The Supreme Court in enforcing NOTA though was not intending to inject anything more dramatic than what is already contained in Rule 49(0) of the Election Rules. Through its pronouncement, it just conferred the right to vote in “secrecy” interpreting the right to expression as the fundamental right of speech and expression under the Constitution. Seen on the world map, NOTA on the ballots is not a new concept in democratic countries. At least 13 other nations follow the practice of "electronic abstention". Notable amongst them are France, Brazil, Greece, Ukraine, Spain, Chile and Colombia. Russia had such an option on its ballots but was abolished in 2006. Bangladesh introduced this option in 2008. Pakistan introduced this for the 2013 elections but later the Election Commission of Pakistan rejected this.

As the euphoria continues, 2014 election armed with NOTA is expected to be lot more interesting. So much so that it will throw open both our maturity as well as our deep rooted helplessness. Time only will tell the worth of the words of the ruling:  "When the political parties will realise that a large number of people are expressing their disapproval with the candidates being put up by them, gradually there will be a systemic change and the parties will be forced to accept the will of the people." The core idea or the philosophy behind the judgement thus appears to be an attempt to prevent further de-legitimisation of the Indian democracy. And NOTA is expected to give it the right push.

NOTA’s promise to clean the system or its absence, it will not be an exaggeration to conclude that India’s future is at stake. Trust deficit looms large with few days passing by without some protest. Somewhere the institutions have been dented. And hence there is a larger question that haunts our present day democracy that has seemingly reached an abyss. Do we intend to be “just counted” or will the system of democracy “count on us” to clean the mess we perceive and sometimes believe to be in.

Those who care about democracy and good governance should not find solace in NOTA. Instead they should resolve to Promise to Vote to marginalise the non-worthy sending the same message to the Politicians in a positive constructive way. The mind-set that is Voting is a right should graduate to a mind-set of Voting is a privilege that is to be used carefully and judiciously as a state of an ideal setup is nothing more than an idealism. Let us not cheer about our newly acquired power to show our no confidence much, because the kind of laziness we show while going to vote if is any indicator and if we continue the lethargy all neutral votes will go for the “none of the above” and the remaining would be divided into party cadets defeating the very purpose. The greater good is the idea of voting in large numbers to the best possible rather than pursuing a negative vengeance. The eagerness to vote would be the game changer and not the feeling of vengeance to an institution that is passing through a phase of a huge trust deficits. Elections are meant to elect and not reject. In a democracy each one of us counts and must stand up to be counted. To give up is to accept defeat of the good over evil, disdain over hope.

M V Rajeev Gowda, in a recent article “Don’t cripple clean politicians” convincingly argues “As more sections of society actively contribute and participate, the political system will undergo a transformation. Then, the much-celebrated NOTA and 'right to reject' will become mere footnotes in history. We will see inclusive, empowered parties, citizen candidates and positive politics”. Those who win the elections on such a positive vote will dispel the negativity that brings undue cheers to NOTA. The politicians are intelligent and would eventually serve what we demand and this is the essence of democracy. Till then it’s only the elite who will rule in the name of the people through various hues of vote banks.  It is time to check mate political shortfalls like trust deficits, democracy deficits and governance deficits, through citizenship engagement and not otherwise. Let the expression “clean Politician” become a reality and not an oxymoron.

Of the various academic researches on waning political participation, the Michigan model (1960) emphasizes the importance of partisanship or enduring party loyalties in voting behaviour. According to this model, strong partisan feelings contribute to electoral participation. Voters go to the polling booth to express their preferences towards parties and make their favoured parties win. Therefore, the more intense electoral competition between rival parties is, the more people go to vote.  We can make this competition more meaningful when our enthusiasm is not drained by the feeling of helplessness that we feel about the control we have over our political masters.

Public engagement can begin with staying informed about what is going around in our neighbourhoods and the policies that are important for personal benefits. In the information age, not being aware has consequences. The politicians to be fair enough do not deserve our revile when we compare the efforts they take in galvanising groups in contrast to the laziness we show in stepping out to vote. They in fact work harder than we do in expressing solidarity when it means business. It is high time we stop make a farce of our democracy. We shouldn't wait for some magical power to end all our miseries. We are the ones who have the power to bring about a change. Democracy in other words is vox populi, or the voice of the people. Let silence, callousness or helplessness not snatch the power that lies in the hands of this one-billion-plus country. “Clean Politicians" The words no more will be an oxymoron, if we Promise to Vote for self as well as our children’s future.