|
Open Page
Decline of basics of good governance
|
Disruptive political practices and partisan enforcement of laws abetted by "committed bureaucracy" with the active connivance of the intellectuals trading in law have been responsible for the people losing faith in the system and becoming gradually nonchalant towards good governance.
|
THE `NEGLECTED basics of good governance,' by P.K. Doraiswamy (Open Page, January 8), makes it appear that the foundation of good governance is the maintenance of law and order and safe and sound fiscal policies. No doubt, they are the keystones of governance, but failure, according to him, is "as building a house without a mason to lay the foundation and concentrating only on plans for interior decoration." The gravamen of his charge seems to be the denigration of the functions of the district officials (read IAS) and the gradual replacement or edging them out by the politicians, resulting in the "premier civil servants distancing themselves more and more from those jobs" which according to him "not being promising enough from the job satisfaction or career point of view." Coming from the pen of one who recently lamented the "orphaning of the services", it makes curious reading. Further while frowning on political coalitions, he favours a coalition of bureaucratic constitutional authorities for stemming the rot.
Major culprits
The major culprits are the politicians, plurality or multiplicity of laws and the "steel frame" distancing itself in the sphere of governance. The neglect of the basics of good governance is not a sudden phenomenon. It has been overtaking the polity right from the day "we the people of India" adopted a Constitution to govern ourselves. The gradual decline in the heritage of trust in the institutions of good governance commenced even before we got Independence.
What are the basics of good governance? It is judged by the results i.e. providing "roti, kapda aur makan" (food, apparel and shelter). It requires peace and security on one side, enough resources on the other and strategies and policies to be laid out to achieve this and tools to implement the policies. The trinity that was enjoined by the Constitution to achieve this — the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary — are in fact the masons to lay the foundation. The services are only the tools in the hands of these.
The makers of the Constitution in their eagerness to provide a model edifice borrowed ideas from all over the world without assessing the suitability, acceptability and adaptability to the "genius loci." Lord Balfour commented, "Constitutions are easily copied, temperaments are not. It matters little what other gifts a people may possess, if they are wanting in those from this point of view are of most importance. If for example they have no capacity for grading their loyalties as well as being moved by them, if they have no natural inclination for liberty and no natural respect for law, if they lack good humour and tolerate foul play, if they know not how to compromise or when, if they have not that distrust of extreme conclusions which is sometimes misdescribed as want of logic, if corruption does not repel them, and if their divisions tend to be either too numerous or too profound, the successful working of British institutions may be difficult or impossible." Therein lies the seed of neglect of the basics. Ambedkar was conscious of the drawbacks of the Indian psyche and said "Constitutional morality is not a natural instinct. It has to be cultivated. Democracy in India is only a top dressing on the Indian soil." Thus the edifice was faultily designed by the masons and the country is facing "Goldilocks dilemma" even after half a century.
Obstacles
Major obstacles to good governance are disruptive political practices and lack of social discipline, which are the legacies of freedom struggle. P. N. Dhar cites the reply of Jawaharlal Nehru in his book Indira Gandhi when Nehru was asked about the impact of the strategies adopted during the freedom struggle on the governance of India: for "a country which for a whole generation practised a certain technique of opposition to the government it is not easy to shift over to make people think differently. It may be their own government, but people still have the habit of opposing the government. Secondly they are apt to adopt the technique, not rightly I think, but some variation of it, just to press on some complaint or something, which is sometime apt to be nuisance." The strategies euphemistically called the "civil disobedience movement" termed by Ambedkar "the grammar of anarchy" were refined by successive generations of politicos and vested groups and have become, instead of nuisance, the wreckers of governance.
Mutual trust
Harmony and well being of the body politic depends on the mutual trust and commonality of goals by the organs of the government. Unfortunately we do not find it. The Legislature became the hand maiden of the Executive, when both of them came from the same political group and willingly placed in the IX Schedule a few hundred laws to preclude judicial intervention and pronouncement thereby nullifying and voiding the checks and balances introduced by the Constitution makers through the Judiciary "to temper the extreme conclusions." The Executive ignored the advice of Sardar Patel who said, "for every executive action, there must be legal sanction and judicial justification." Later on judicial activism led to making laws, as they did not halt at interpreting laws only. Judicial pronouncements in cases such as `Royappa vs. Tamil Nadu', `Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India' resulted in the `emergence of many facts of law providing constraints on governmental action.' Frankfurter, a U.S. Judge, opined "Judicial power is not immune against human weaknesses and must be guarded against encroaching beyond its proper bounds; and it should be restrained by self-restraint." Thus in their eagerness to play their role, the governing trinity by their acts of omission and commission allowed the emergence of "neglect of the basics of good governance."
Civil Services
The role of Civil Services in all these is also not edifying. The civil service — generalist, specialist, tax collectors and law enforcers, police — failed to maintain itself a "steel frame." It developed the characteristic of an "eel" and committed harakiri by abandoning its "principled neutrality" and became "committed." It committed "fratricide" of colleagues in various spheres and "patricide" by abjuring what R. Venkataraman called "bureaucratic tradition" and "bureaucratic ethos" at the behest of politicians from whom they seek succour. Many in their commitment forgot the dictum of Patel, "to be clear about where politician begins and administrator ends." The top echelons — the uniformed variety or the ununiformed — failed to protect the lower echelons from vindictive political vendetta and intimidation and interference in their discharge of duties. While commenting on the flyover and desertion of a polling booth, Mr. Doraiswamy refrained from commenting on the transfer of four Returning Officers who acted as per rules and regulations in vogue. It is this turning of "Nelson's eye" that orphaned the services. The common man is in contact at the lowest level of administration and if there is malfeasance at that level, the blame should be squarely placed at the top. Yogah Karmasu Kausalam — the motto of the premier service is based on integrity and in the words of Mr. Venkataraman "is regarded as exceptional." They should strive, if they want good governance, to retrieve their twin role: (1) counsellor and (2) caretaker of the people's welfare.
Corruption is all pervasive and no society is free from it. But the enormity of its size and the cavalier manner in which it is treated has accelerated the common man's distrust in the system. As a developing economy becomes the fertile breeding ground for the vermin and caterpillars of the commonwealth, the services as the custodians of good governance have to act, coordinate, cooperate and evaluate the efficacy of the laws and performance. Simply advocating more stringent laws becomes in the words of Bacon "the snares we lay to entrap ourselves." Prevention, if not elimination of corruption, is the hallmark of governance.
No political or administrative theoretician has come up with methods "to flushing out the cholesterol of partisan politics" especially in the field of maintenance of law and order. Disruptive political practices, and partisan enforcement of laws abetted by "committed bureaucracy" with the active connivance of the intellectuals trading in law have been responsible for the people losing faith in the system and becoming gradually nonchalant towards good governance.
VIP constituencies
What should be done? Legislature should be accessible only to those who have been adequately scrutinised. The present day electorate is "willing to suspend its disbelief in the tall claims and promises of the candidate as it is seduced by shibboleths and influenced by the three M's — money, muscle power and mendacity." The candidate wins at the cost of good government. The grant of constituency development fund is only a pseudonym for political bribery to the vote-bank of the party. Expenditure of public funds is the responsibility of the government and its agencies based on accepted policy decisions. Diverting funds to VIP constituencies should be looked into by the Election Commission and it should be held sufficient to disqualify the candidate. The duty of the MPs and MLAs in the words of Mr. Venkataraman "is to point out things gone wrong, or administration has been amiss, or there has been delay or the administrative action has not been consistent with approved policy." It is not for the government to abdicate its responsibility and for the legislator to convert himself a development officer.
The media also has a role in ensuring good governance. While exposing drawbacks, it is also its duty to ensure there is no victimisation of upholders of "basics of good governance." Especially maintenance of law and order needs the active and cooperative propagation of facts. Most of the conflicts escalate in stages and undue publicity gives incentives to commit breaches of the peace. Quick in squelching rumours, condemning deliberate atrocities and highlighting just and correct actions, and extending support, the media can help the growth of good governance.
The role of the Collector
The pivot of government is not the Secretariat but the district. The chief executive of the district (the Collector in Southern States and District Magistrate in other States) has enough magisterial powers to deal with disruptions of law and order and social indiscipline. As a district head he coordinates all governmental activity in his charge and has a say in the functioning of the police. The desk in the capital if functions only as a buffer and bulwark against political interference and vendetta, not only a semblance of good governance, but also increasing the confidence in the system could be achieved. He should be encouraged to be judicious in the use of police, enforcement of law with adequate intolerance of malfeasance of the officials and become the instrument of good governance.
We have seen many a phoenix rise from ashes of anarchy, lawlessness and bankruptcy, thanks not to the civil services and politicians but by their own resolve. The public alone could ensure good governance and for this they are to be educated. Adult franchise adopted by the founding fathers of the Constitution has provided power. But they require the wisdom to use the power to their benefit. The role has to be undertaken by the media — print, electronic and visual aids. The basics of good governance must be communicated and made to expect them from the government. R.H. Tawney suggested a further remedy by saying "the practical thing for a nation which has stumbled upon one of the turning points of history is to consider whether what it has done hitherto is wise and if not, wise to alter it."
A.T. THIRUVENGADAM
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
|
