05-09-2016, 02:13 PM
1452873761-103461.pdf (Size: 158.29 KB / Downloads: 137)
Abstract
This paper makes an effort to provide a framework for good governance in India by
identifying its essential features and shortcomings in its working and emphasizes need for
innovative approaches. No theory of governance could be intelligible unless it is seen in
the context of its time. India’s democratic experience of the past six decades has clearly
established that good governance must aim at expansion of social opportunities and
removal of poverty. Good governance, according to the author, means securing justice,
empowerment, employment and efficient delivery of services. The paper deals with these
subjects in detail and also analyses administrative and political faultlines. It identifies
criminalization of politics and corruption as two major challenges. It also highlights
shifts in meaning and content of national values of the freedom movement particularly
those of nationalism, democracy, secularism, non-alignment, and mixed economy and its
impact on the nitty gritty of administration as well as on the intellectual build up of the
organs of the Indian State. The paper lists several areas of concern that need to be
addressed energetically and calls for synergy of efforts between government, the market
and the civil society. Innovations are generally taking place. There are, however, two
areas that need special attention by innovators, namely, economic empowerment of
women and livelihood programmes based on local resources and upgraded skills. The
need is to formulate a national strategy that accords primacy to the Gandhian principle of
‘antodaya’ without sacrificing growth and by making instruments of State accountable
for good governance.
Meaning
As a student of political science, one was taught that the essential features of the
State included: (i) a definite territory; (ii) population; (iii) government; and (iv)
sovereignty. The government is viewed as an agency or machinery through which the
will of the State is formulated, expressed and realised. While this traditional distinction
between the state and the government holds, the role of the government and nature of
governance have been changing from time to time and even at a given point of time there
is considerable variation when the form of government is a democracy or otherwise.
There is no accepted definition of governance. There is divergence of opinion
about the meaning of governance between the conservatives and the liberals, between
socialists and the communists. The World Bank, for example, has sought to take a
middle position be defining governance particularly as the traditions and the institutions
by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes (i) the process by which
governments are selected, monitored and replaced; (ii) the capacity of the government to
effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and (iii) the respect of citizens and
the state for the institutions that govern economic and social communications among
them.2
In recent years the word governance has become a very fashionable term and is
being used in a variety of ways and that covers a large number of organizations both in
public and private domains.3
For our purposes, however, we are confining governance only to public domain.
We are concerned here with that form of governance which serves the citizens by
safeguarding territorial integrity of the State and securing individual security, rule of law
and the delivery of services ranging from education, health to livelihood and food
security.
Context
No theory of governance would be intelligible unless it is seen in the context of its
time. In the beginning of the 21st century, it has become evident that those who want
minimal government are having an upper hand against the advocates of the paternalist
welfare state. But there is no run-away success in sight. One thing has emerged clearly.
An efficient, effective and democratic government is the best guarantor of social justice
as well as an orderly society. Similarly, there is also emphasis on the fact that the
administrative system has to be country specific and area specific taking in view not only
the institutions of governance and its legal and regulatory mechanisms but also its
market, its civil society and cultural values of the people. The government would,
therefore, have the singular responsibility to create an enabling environment where
development programmes get properly implemented and that creative minds do not get
stifled or their energies diverted from undertaking new initiatives or enterprises. The
principal response of the state, therefore, would be to facilitate, to enable, and to
coordinate. Neither the market nor the civil society can perform this role as effectively as
the government and thus they cannot become substitutes for the government.
India is not excluded from this global debate or transition from socialist order to
capitalist growth models. Fortunately, the Indian State does not have the monopoly of
the public sphere. The civil society is increasingly more concerned with public sphere
issues and government intervention is considered necessary to provide welfare schemes
to cover social safety needs, upgrade health-care to protect children, and help provide
opportunities for women and the minorities.
India’s political leadership, policy makers and business brains are actuated by a
strong desire to make the country an economic super-power in the 21st Century. The high
rate of economic growth coupled with comfortable foreign exchange reserves and rising
sensex figures have imparted in them a growing confidence. The world is also looking at
India with respect and considers India and China as ideal economic growth models. India
is aiming to have a high growth rate with focus on equity. Although these two objectives
are not always contradictory but the conflict arises when scarce resources are diverted to
meet the demands of the growing middle class or business houses by ignoring the needs
of the poor. The imperatives of democracy, however, are forcing Indian political
leadership to look deeper into the causes of poverty, inequality and suffering of the
common man. In this on-going debate, major shifts in national value system has
somewhat gone unnoticed and/or under-emphasised by academicians, media
commentators and India-watchers.
National Values
The concept of governance was decisively shaped by the freedom movement led
by Mahatma Gandhi and the aspirations of founding fathers of the Constitution. Every
nation is guided by certain values which are shared by the people and the government.
National commitment to such values greatly influence the content and the quality of
governance. These values in the Indian context at the time of the inauguration of the
Republic were those of nationalism, democracy, secularism, non-alignment and mixed
economy.
It may be recalled that these core values of nationalism, democracy, secularism,
non-alignment and mixed economy were forcefully articulated by national and state level
political leaders, academicians and journalists in the context of building a new India. The
most eloquent expression of these values were made in debates in Parliament and
legislative assemblies, in periodic letters to CMs from India’s first Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru, in academic journals of politics, economics and history, in newspapers
and at times through statements of business captains, and occasionally in judicial
pronouncements.
The meaning and context of nationalism that had flourished during the freedom
struggle got narrowed down in physical terms as a result of the partition of India at the
time of independence. The meaning of nationalism today relates more to further
strengthening of a trillion dollar gross domestic product economy and less to cohesion
among states or integration of princely order that Sardar Patel so magnificently
accomplished.
Another historic decision was taken to make India a secular state notwithstanding
the partition of India on religious lines based on the two-nation theory. Though there is
no State religion, the Constitution went on to make a special provision to protect religious
and educational institutions of minorities. A uniform civil code became a directive
principle for the State in order that minorities could pursue their religious codes in respect
of marriage, inheritance and other property rights in the meanwhile. Religion always had
a major place in our private lives. Politicisation of religious, ethnic and caste ties have
reached unprecedented levels. Today communal and sectarian approaches are more
prominent in our polity and also in public policy at national and state levels.
India decided to take an independent stand between the two super-powers i.e. the
United States and the Soviet Union, and provided leadership to the non-aligned
movement. However, India gradually tilted towards the Soviet Union. In today’s unipolar
world, India has moved towards the United States. In fact, the meaning of nonalignment
has undergone such changes that it is no longer recognizable in its old form.
For the last sixty years, our ideological frame of reference was determined by
public choice. It is another matter that it was not always real. But it was fashionable to
be left or left of the centre rather than being a rightist or a conservative. Socialism was
preferred over capitalism and minimal state. The mixed economy which in ideal terms
would have meant an equal role for the private sector and the public sector
overwhelmingly yielded in favour of the latter. The belief in the state apparatus as a
major instrument of social and economic change gave the public sector the primacy of
position and placed it at what was picturesquely described as “commanding heights of the
economy”. Since 1991 we have slowly moved towards the capitalist path.
A bold and magnificent decision was taken to introduce one person one vote
system in the country. The universal suffrage paid rich dividends and the subsequent
devolution of power to grassroots levels has helped consolidate the gains. Democracy is
at the heart of governance in India. However, in its working, democracy has revealed
several inadequacies. The chain of accountability from the civil service to legislature and
political authority is weak; follow-through at higher levels of administration is poor; and
limited oversight by Parliamentary committees is part of the problem. Criminalisation of
politics and increasing role of caste and religion in electoral politics are major concerns.
The performance of the civil service, the primary agency of implementing development is
often undermined by overstaffing, low salaries, graft and political interference. Many
people wonder as to whether it was appropriate to expect that a constitution largely based
on the colonial model of Government of India Act of 19354
would ensure good
governance in a democratic set-up?
In the initial years of the Republic, the executive functioned with considerable
autonomy in as much as district officers regularly heard petitions ad grievances,
intervened in the maintenance of public order particularly in case of ethnic and
communal disturbances and enjoyed considerable discretion in implementation of land
reforms and community development projects. The hold of politicians and specially
ministers began with demands for allocation of scarce resources in favour of ruling elites
and powerful interest groups. The State gradually started shedding its neutral stance in
favour of the demands of the ruling party or coalition groups. The ‘neutrality’ of the civil
service came under stress with ministerial instability since 1960s in the states. The
fragmentation of the authority at centre characterised by coalition governments since the
late 1980s has only deepened and extended this process.
But election after election common people are asserting their voice, changing
their representatives in a manner that has ensured change in government in the states and
also at the Centre. This phenomenon supported by the civil society groups, the media
and an active judiciary has ushered in demands for accountability of the executive.
Democracy has really moved beyond periodic elections towards ‘good’
governance.
Good Governance
Citizens all the world over look up to the nation-state and its organs for high
quality performance. When good governance is guaranteed, citizens go about their
personal business and pursuits with enhanced expectations. On the other side of the
spectrum, bad or indifferent governance not only restricts opportunities of success but it
can even degenerate into sectarian conflicts and civil wars. In such an atmosphere
personal accomplishments as well as social achievements get severely restricted.
Good governance helps create an environment in which sustained economic
growth becomes achievable. Conditions of good governance allow citizens to maximize
their returns on investment.
Good governance does not occur by chance. It must be demanded by citizens and
nourished explicitly and consciously by the nation state. It is, therefore, necessary that
the citizens are allowed to participate freely, openly and fully in the political process.
The citizens must have the right to compete for office, form political party and enjoy
fundamental rights and civil liberty. Good governance is accordingly associated with
accountable political leadership, enlightened policy-making and a civil service imbued
with a professional ethos. The presence of a strong civil society including a free press
and independent judiciary are pre-conditions for good governance.
What is ‘good’ governance in the Indian context? The central challenge before
good governance relates to social development. In his famous ‘tryst with destiny’ speech
on 14 August 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru articulated this challenge as ‘the ending of poverty
and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunities’. Good governance must aim at
expansion in social opportunities and removal of poverty. In short, good governance, as I
perceive it, means securing justice, empowerment, employment and efficient delivery of
services.
Securing Justice
There are several inter-related aspects of securing justice including security of life
and property, access to justice, and rule of law.
Threats to Peace
The most important public good is the supply of security especially security of
life and property. The responsibility of the Indian nation-state to protect the life and
property of every citizen is being seriously threatened particularly in areas affected by
terrorism (Jammu and Kashmir), insurgency (north-eastern states), and naxalite violence
in 150 districts of India’s mainland. The Indian nation-state is aware of complexities of
the situation and the need is to show greater determination and relentless in support to its
6
instruments of law and forces of democracy and social cohesion to defeat the elements of
terror, insurgency and naxalite violence.
Access to Justice
Access to justice is based upon the basic principle that people should be ale to
rely upon the correct application of law. In actual practice there are several
countervailing factors. Some citizens do not know their rights and cannot afford legal aid
to advocate on their behalf. A related aspect is fairness of access as some people
involved in the legal proceedings and large number of criminal prosecutions are not
voluntary participants. The most severe challenge relates to complexity of adjudication
as legal proceedings are lengthy and costly and the judiciary lacks personnel and logistics
to deal with these matters. For example, at the end of 2006 over 4 million cases (42.42
lakhs) were pending in high courts and over 25 million (2.54 crore) in the sub-ordinate
courts in the country. Systematic solutions are, therefore, needed for strengthening
access to justice. At the same time ad hoc measures are required to provide immediate
assistance to the needy citizens.
Rule of Law
The concept of good governance is undoubtedly linked with the citizens’ right of
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This could be secured in a democracy only through
the rule of law.
The rule of law is expressed through the axiom that no one is above the law. One
has to clearly understand that the rule ‘of’ law is different from the rule ‘by’ law. Under
the rule ‘by’ law, law is an instrument of the government and the government is above
the law while under the rule ‘of’ law no one is above the law not even the government. It
is under this framework that rule of law not only guarantees the liberty of the citizens but
it also limits the arbitrariness of the government and thereby it makes government more
articulate in decision-making. The rule of law as Dicey postulated is equality before law.
This is secured through formal and procedural justice which makes independent judiciary
a very vital instrument of governance. It is widely appreciated that human factors i.e. the
quality of political leadership, the executive and judicial officials play important roles not
only in upholding supremacy of rule of law and in efficient delivery of service but also in
shaping traditions, customs and institutional cultures that are integral part of the liberal
democratic machinery.
In our constitutional system, every person is entitled to equality before law and
equal protection under the law. No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to the procedure established by law. Thus the state is bound to protect
the life and liberty of every human being. In the majority opinion in Keshvananda Bharti
vs State of Kerala that “rule of law” and “democracy” were declared as the basic
structures of the Indian constitution not amenable to the amendment process under article
368 of the constitution.5
It flows therefrom that the courts have the final authority to test
any administrative action on the standard of legality. The administrative or executive
7
action that does not meet the standard of legality will be set aside if the aggrieved person
brings an appropriate petition in the competent court.
A necessary corollary of this phenomenon is called ‘judicial activism’. A large
number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are filed in High Courts and the Supreme
Court against the apathy of the executive. This has served us admirably but it has also
highlighted the need for circumspection and self-restraint on the part of the judges in
performance of this task. It s being increasingly felt that PIL is being misused by people
agitating private grievances in the garb of public interest, in settling political scores and
seeking publicity than espousing public causes and defending the deprived.
Fortunately, in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club vs Chander
Hass, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in an order in December 2007 cautioned
‘against judicial activism’ and issued ‘an unequivocal message to the judiciary’ to
restrain itself.6
Another matter of significance in the context of good governance relates to the
fact that there are virtues of ‘judicial creativity’ but this phenomenon must not stifle
‘executive creativity’ particularly of officials working at grassroots level for they are in
day-to-day contact with citizens and interact with them in myriad ways.
Empowerment
An empowering approach to poverty reduction needs to be based on the
conviction that poor people have to be both the object of development programmes and
principal agency for development.
Our experience shows that when poor people are associated with public
programmes, they have consistently demonstrated their intelligence and competence in
using public funds wisely and effectively. The involvement of poor women in microfinancing
institutions of SEWA in Gujarat or in self-help groups in Andhra Pradesh and
Tamil Nadu has clearly established that they not only understand financial systems but
also repay their loans on time. In short, the poor women have demonstrated that they can
outperform all other customers in profitability.
Our Constitution is committed to two different set of principles that have a
decisive bearing on equality. First, is the principle of equal opportunities to all and the
second, the principle of redress of educational and social backwardness. The social and
political climate has radically changed in the country from what it was in 1950 or 2000.
However, notwithstanding, an increasing role of the market and the NGOs as institutions
of modernization and progress in the country, the State continues to have a leading say in
transformation of society to make it just and equal. The question is, not only of the
extent to what reservation in Government employment can really change things for the
better, but how it could, in order to benefit the socially, educationally and economically
backward ones.
8
Our preferential policies in government employment was initially confined to
persons belonging to scheduled castes and schedules tribes. After acceptance of Mandal
Commission Report by the Government of India in the year 1990, this got extended to
eligible candidates hailing from other notified backward classes as well.
One of the advantages of affirmative action has been improvement in the
distribution of opportunities among the dalits and backward classes. Ordinarily children
of poor and lower status parents get lower level jobs and consequently lower salaries and
income. The reservation of jobs at all levels has ensured that the children of dalits and
backward class parents are selected for All-India services like the IAS and the IPS. The
advantage, however, has not as yet percolated to the entire community of poorer and
lower status parents.
In providing these protectionist regulations in government employment no special
care was taken for the poor students since the Constitution only recognized “educational
and social backwardness” and not economic backwardness as a norm to be applied in
formulation of preferential policies in government employment.
The Supreme Court in a landmark Judgment (Indira Sawhney & Others Vs. Union
of India and Others) delivered on 16.11.1992, while upholding the reservation of 27% of
vacancies in the civil posts and services in the Government of India in favour of other
backward classes (OBCs) provided for exclusion of socially advanced persons/sections
among them commonly known as “the creamy layer”. The Supreme Court further
directed the Government of India to specify socio-economic criteria for exclusion of “the
creamy layer” from the OBCs. Subsequently, the children of persons holding eminent
positions in Government and also of rich farming families were made ineligible from
reservation in services. Recently, the Government of India have stipulated that sons and
daughters of persons having gross annual income of Rs. 2.5 lakhs per annum and above
would be excluded from reservation of services.
In the scheme of affirmative action that the Constitution provides, the State has
been authorized to make special provision not only for the advancement of socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens, for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes but also for women and children. Significant measures have been taken in this
regard during the last sixty years. One such step relates to reservation of seats for women
in local bodies.
Today India has 3.3 million elected representatives in Panchayats in nearly half a
million villages out of whom over one million are women. Assuming that for every
elected office in the village Panchayat system there are 3 contenders, we have over 10
million stakeholders of democracy – an arrangement that secures democratic continuation
in India. Direct elections have also brought into the village national life and
consciousness about strengths of democracy and the need for democratic behaviour in
terms of the Constitution of India. The print and electronic media in particular have
strengthened this process.
9
Sensitively enough in the era of growing role of the private sector, the State is
demanding the private sector to adopt affirmative action policies. The developments in
this area would lead to greater empowerment of the people and would also have a
positive bearing on social responsibility sensitivities of the private sector. We have to
keep it in view that exclusion will sooner or later destablise the system.
We have more than 200 million people below the poverty line. This poverty line
indicates that the income of the people below poverty line is not high enough for
adequate nutrition. There is high concentration of persons below poverty line in the large
and poorer States of the North and the East. The need is to identify persons below
poverty line correctly and computerise the list. It would be possible to then to give
economic advantages to them. This economic criteria will naturally cut across religion
and caste lines, among rich and poor States, and also between rural and urban areas.
The crucial issue is how to enhance educational opportunities for poor students.
How to impart skills and to upgrade merit of poor students through better educational
opportunities? How to provide long term credit to poor students through public sector
and cooperative credit institutions?
Empowerment of the poor people would create new demands and pressures on
services and these would be in nature of quality. An effective administrative system alone
can manage these new demands.
We are living at a period of time that encouraged by affirmative action
incorporated into the Constitution about Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes several communities are demanding similar facilities. Recent
happenings have shown signs of degenerating into street conflicts and civil wars. All
these constitutional steps of empowerment are within a frame. The need is to look at the
frame itself now and to take such corrective measures as would be necessary to allow the
fruits of affirmative action reach those who need it.
A significant threat in terms of empowerment could come if moves are made to
take a religious or sectarian view of secular, political and economic action. We must take
into account the presence of extremist elements among different religious groups, i.e. the
Hindus, the Sikhs and the Muslims, who are occasionally nourished by the communal
violence that they stir, in our task of maintenance of peace and order in the country.
Employment
Generation of gainful employment for the youth is the most challenging task
facing India’s political economy.
India’s working age population is over 50 per cent. This share will continue to
rise and reach 60 per cent in 2050. A fast-growing working population will ensure more
workers, more saving and hence more investment. This mechanistic view of growth
10
assumes that demography is destiny and that economic policies and programmes play
little or no role. But population growth by itself does not add to prosperity, unless young
people are educated and new jobs are created. If we fail to generate employment and
equip the youth with good quality education and skills, India’s demographic dividend
could become a demographic liability.
The history of economic development clearly demonstrates that development of
non-farm sector is tied to modernization of agriculture and its improved productivity. The
increasing application of modern technology also frees labour to move to urban areas for
gainful employment in non-farm sector.
In this background, employment growth accelerated to 2.6 per cent during 1999-
2005 but the average daily status unemployment rate increased further to 8.3 per cent in
2004-05 as more persons entered market-seeking employment. This trend continues.
The need is to prepare the youth with such education (we have more than 300
million illiterate children adding to the enormity of the problem) that would help them
acquire vocational skills and mastery over new technology, including internet. This
would make the youth employable in the job-market and also help those who want to
work on their own.
In addition, there is an imperative requirement to pay special attention to
generation of employment opportunities in agriculture, expand area of coverage of rural
employment guarantee schemes, accelerate the pace of implementation of Bharat Nirman
schemes and several other programmes. Similarly, it would be essential to encourage
private sector partnership and support movement of self-help groups and micro-financing
institutions.