Back Better accountability of public service agencies...
Listen to the `voice of people'
Tejendra Khanna
| Public service agencies can be subjected to external audit to assess their degree of `people-friendliness'. Unless the `voice of the people' is made an essential part of the governance matrix and punishments and rewards are meted out, based on collective user-feedback, no real improvement in the quality of service delivery is likely to be achieved, says Tejendra Khanna. |
Quality of governance
However, as a matter of practical reality, public perception about the quality and efficacy of governance to which they are subjected and of which they are meant to be the beneficiaries is, by and large, negative. Public functionaries are seen as self-seeking persons who tend to misuse the public authority vested in them for promoting their own self-interest.
In other words, there is a disappointing sense, among people, of being short-changed at the hands of public functionaries, instead of being served by them with honesty, courtesy and efficiency.
Citizens who call at public offices for obtaining legitimate services are generally dealt with rudely or discourteously. Quite often, `speed money' is solicited and, furthermore, vested powers are not properly used to provide legitimate service/redress, even though the functionary has the required authority to settle the matter brought before him. ``Passing the buck'' upwards or laterally is a device that is often used to shirk responsibility, particularly in the absence of any proffered pecuniary advantage or external political pressure.
When it comes to making cost-effective use of public funds for advancing the public weal, public service organisations usually show a low level of efficiency. Paucity of funds is routinely cited as an alibi for poor performance, but the reality is that available funds are grossly misused. Besides, the practice of `padding' project estimates to enable giving of `kickbacks', the bulk of available funds goes into paying staff salaries, organisations are heavily overstaffed and work culture is poor. Absenteeism, malingering and shirking responsibility are common place. Attempts to enforce better discipline and job-compliance can provoke industrial action by staff associations and unions who have got accustomed to having their way unquestioned, over the years. In other words, not only are financial resources not put to cost-effective use, but the human resource in public service organisations is also not efficiently deployed. Poor monitoring, internal surveillance and control virtually allow unscrupulous functionaries a free hand to indulge in fraud and malfeasance.
User feedback
One of the glaring failures of the present system of working of public service agencies is that practically no importance whatsoever is attached to user-feedback on the quality of service being provided. Performance appraisal of the functionaries working in the agencies is undertaken on the hierarchical principle, that is, superiors write the appraisal reports of subordinates.
If the two enjoy a good relationship, good ratings are awarded even though public perception regarding the quality of service delivery by the functionary concerned may be extremely unsatisfactory.
A modality which can be used to make persons in authority in various public service organisations more conscious of the need to tone up their functioning qua the people is to subject their organisations to periodical external audit to gauge their degree of `people-friendliness' on a rising scale of `1 to 5'. If public service agencies can be systematically subjected to external evaluation or audit to assess their degree of `people-friendliness' and the findings made public, legitimate pressure can be brought to bear on persons in authority to improve their performance and restore primacy to the service-ethic.
The question then arises as to what can be some relevant criteria for gauging `people-friendliness'?
First, anyone approaching a public service agency for seeking a service or for registering a complaint or grievance would, understandably, like to be treated with honesty, courtesy, and efficiency. As far as the need for honesty is concerned, it is self-evident that public authority is not vested in functionaries to enable them to reap personal pecuniary benefit. Public service organisations are not trade marts where services are meant to be sold. Courtesy is not meant to be reserved just for the well-to-do or the well-connected. It has to be extended to all citizens irrespective of their station in life. Furthermore, efficient use of vested authority to provide a legitimate service to anyone who seeks it, is another basic requirement for generating a positive image both for the agency and for the functionary who is exercising authority.
Grievance redressal
Second, people would like to see that an efficient grievance redressal mechanism functions in each public service agency. Since, despite the efforts of the agency to carry out its assigned tasks, some problems will inevitably surface, the agency should always be willing to receive feedback from users about where their service delivery is falling short of requirements and then take prompt and diligent action to overcome the deficiency. People can put up with difficulties if they find that genuine efforts are being made to deal with problems but are bound to be disappointed and critical if they see that no finger is being lifted to do so.
Third, people would like to see that public money allocated for various projects and programmes are being well spent and `padding' and `kickbacks' are not the order of the day. Transparency in award of public contracts, proper scrutiny of cost-estimates, compliance with quality specifications by the executing agency and timely completion of projects to enable benefits to flow to the people should not only be ensured by the agency itself but people should be invited to exercise general surveillance over such activities.
Making a copy of each contract available for public inspection and scrutiny at a designated reading-room type location in government offices or on the agency's Web site can be useful modalities for bringing about transparency. If any critical feedback is received from alert citizens or citizen groups from the standpoint of safeguarding the public interest, such inputs should be carefully taken into consideration and promptly acted upon, on merits. An open and freely accessible database of the inputs received and actions taken thereon by the agency, should be maintained on an updated basis. Fourth, people would like to be involved more actively in consultative processes to elicit their suggestions and ideas on what policies, programmes and projects should be taken in hand to promote their welfare.
As civil society is becoming better educated and more aware of ground realities, its members would like to have the opportunity of interacting with public authorities, on an on-going basis. If public service agencies invite people's suggestions on their proposed policies, before giving them a final shape, they are likely to enjoy greater legitimacy and popular support than otherwise. The difference between the `top-down' approach to development and the `bottoms-up' approach is that in the first case the initiatives and policies are formulated at higher levels whereas in the latter case, they are based on `felt-needs', as perceived by the intended beneficiaries themselves.
Enforcement mechanism
Fifth, people would expect from a people-friendly governance system that if persons manning that system do not conduct themselves with basic honesty courtesy, and efficiency, they will not be allowed to continue in their positions and misuse the powers vested in them.
Hence, accountability and enforcement mechanisms have to be strengthened. Interminable delays in weeding out corrupt, arrogant and inefficient public functionaries, who contribute to sharp deterioration in work-culture and work-ethics in publicly funded organisation, must no longer remain an acceptable option.
Swift punitive action against defaulters based on summary procedures, while respecting the principles of equity and natural justice, will have to be provided for. It is clear that if people's inputs, which are critical of the functioning of particular officials, are not attended to and taken to their logical conclusions, the complainants will feel that their interventions are futile and are not worth their effort. In such a situation, further stagnation and decline in ethical and performance standards is bound to set in.
To develop a positive attitude among public officials on their obligation to deal with people with honesty, courtesy and efficiency, a system of getting `user-feedback' through exit polls can be instituted. If adverse feedback is consistently received from a large number of people about a person holding public office, the latter should be issued three quarterly warnings.
In the event of his failure to heed such warnings, the defaulting person ought to be dealt with firmly and, if necessary, relieved of his public service appointment, on grounds of his demonstrated unsuitability.
While the actual criteria of `people-friendliness' of public service organisations can be further refined and elaborated, there is an imperative need to institute a credible system of independent, non-governmental external audit of all public service organisations and their individual public-dealing offices to gauge their degree of people-friendliness.
Extension of public budgetary support can also be linked to the concerned agency enjoying a high rating for people-friendliness and upon its undertaking a written commitment to effect improvements in areas where deficiencies have been pointed out by the auditing body. The audit body itself has to be manned by independent persons of unimpeachable ethical and professional credentials so that its findings command high credibility.
Whatever other reforms may or may not be put in place, unless the "voice of the people" (vox populi) is made an essential part of the governance matrix and punishments and rewards are meted out to functionaries in public service organisations, based on collective user-feedback, no real improvement in the quality of service delivery is likely to be achieved.
(The author, formerly Lt. Governor of Delhi, and Chief Secretary to the Punjab Government, is Chairman, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.)
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line