Governance and security

By P.R. Chari

THE DRAMATIC events following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have completely deflected attention from the inadequacies of our governance processes in grappling with the perennial threats to our national security. The linkages between governance and security, or, in obverse, misgovernance and insecurity, however, remain unclear. Governance can be equated with ``ruling'' and exercising the police powers of the state. Among its synonyms the ``manner of governing'' captures much better the role of governance in democratic and plural societies, but this does not encapsulate its fuller dimensions. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Security (OECD) believes that: ``The concept of governance denotes the use of political authority and exercise of control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic development. This broad definition encompasses the role of public authorities in establishing the environment in which economic operators function and in determining the distribution of benefits as well as the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled''.

This brings us to the issue of security. Increasingly, the restriction of security to its military aspects, and equating it with the protection of the state's territorial integrity from external assault and internal disruption is being recognised as too narrow an understanding of this term. The end of the Cold War era, growing egalitarianism in the international system with a diffusion of the democratic idea, and globalisation of the world economy have forced rethinking on a limited conception of security. It is appreciated now that the non-traditional sources of insecurity such as demographic movements due to political or environmental or economic reasons, and environmental degradation constitute serious threats to national security. So are transnational threats such as international terrorism with its seminal links to arms and drugs smuggling, money laundering and organised crime; they provide a context for regional and international cooperation to ensure national security. Above all, human security or the security of the individual, in contradistinction to the security of the state, has acquired a new significance, necessitating larger resources to be allocated for socio-economic development.

The linkages and interactions between governance and security across Asia was the theme of a major conference held recently in Singapore between scholars from Northeast Asia, Southeast Asia and South Asia. It soon became clear that their understanding of these issues was quite dissimilar. For one, the approach to governance and its problems was different in countries that had authoritarian regimes and those at different stages of democratic working. The approach to the security issue was also dissimilar. In general, the greatest sensitivity to the human and non- traditional sources of security obtained in Southeast Asia, less so in Northeast Asia, and least in South Asia.

The indifference in India to the problems of non-traditional and human aspects of security is explicable from the nature of its ruling elite. Otherwise designated ``strategic enclaves'', it comprises an amorphous collection of retired civil and military officials, defence correspondents, right wing politicians and scientists in the nuclear and defence establishments. They are bound together by a common faith in a militaristic approach to national security and a `realist' foreign policy paradigm. Their influence outside the Government feeds a natural propensity within the governing structures to emphasise the military and dismiss the non-military and human aspects of security as well meaning, but naive and unrealistic. This mindset in New Delhi's ruling elite predisposes it to be equally dismissive of the linkages between security and governance. There is also an intriguing paucity of documentation of what exactly constitutes the ruling elite's understanding of the threat to national security. Apparently, the National Security Advisory Board has prepared a Strategic Defence Review; wisely, however, the Government has not published it for discussion after its bruising experience with criticism of the Draft Nuclear Doctrine.

The manifestations of poor governance are plainly apparent in India; they are exemplified by the wasteful use of scarce resources, an unresponsive administration at its cutting edges, pervasive corruption at all levels and, of moment to this discussion, little policy coherence to address the problems of national security. These manifestations of misgovernance include the lack of devolution and decentralisation of powers, unimaginative dealing with minorities of all descriptions, decay of institutions and a ruling elite basically interested in self- aggrandisement. Only the trappings of democracy, therefore, obtain in the country, not its substance, resulting in a patrimonial form of governance that reflects the feudal character of its governing classes. Indeed, the growing crisis of governance in India is evident from the steady crumbling of its democratic institutions, the increasing alienation of its minority populations from the state and the nexus that has encrusted between the corrupt elements in politics, bureaucracy and business with organised criminal elements. With the state machinery for maintenance of law and order becoming politicised, the citizen's personal security is prejudiced; assuring this remains the state's primary duty .

Why have governance and security deteriorated so rapidly in India over the years? The systemic answers are a growing polarisation of society along several divides - caste, class, community - which has affected both governance and security adversely. An externally inspired pattern of development has conspicuously failed, but has exacerbated these divides. This has spawned a greater centralisation of power, though the need of the times is greater devolution and decentralisation of administrative and financial powers to the periphery for successfully working the federal principle in India. All this is occurring simultaneously with an information revolution that has enabled the print and electronic media to reach vast segments of the population, spurring the associated revolution of rising expectations, increasing resentments and resultant violence. Above all, the steady criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of crime deserve far greater notice. In a recent conference, police officers spoke of their trauma in having to salute and provide guards of honour for Ministers with criminal records. More disconcertingly, the nexus between station house officers and politicians ensures that these basic units of police administration are not under the control of the Superintendents of Police in the districts. The criminalisation of politics has thus eroded the systemic capacity of the state to maintain law and order but permitted the entry of organised crime into its governance processes. Naturally, this corrodes the ability of the state to provide security, but creates a milieu propitious for low intensity conflict and high intensity crime.

Two issues need immediate redress if this dismal state of affairs is not to deteriorate further. First, a greater understanding needs promotion that India's essential genius lies in its tradition of tolerance, recognising multiculturalism as an operating principle of governance, which provides the context for a greater sharing of state authority with the people. Second, the compulsions of coalition and divisive politics wear away political will, flagging the need for some minimum consensus being sought by political parties on recognising the national interests. Addressing the reform of the deeply-flawed electoral financing process is urgent, around which this consensus could be garnered.

(The writer is Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Economic reforms and the law
Next     : Religion and civilisation - II