Good Governance: Serving the People
Good governance implies service to the people. Government’s task is to govern in a way that optimizes the development and welfare of its citizens. Measure of Good governance is how far the government is able to improve the quality of life of its people. Good governance requires building institutions for a capable public sector to enhance administrative effectiveness. It also implies that goals must be set out as clearly as possible. The government agencies should follow the policies that seem most appropriate to achieve these goals. When goals are clear, and performance is regularly monitored and measured, then the goals are more likely to be achieved. Good governance also leads to greater efficiency and effectiveness in delivering public goods and services and reducing corruption. The spirit of good governance lies in ethics and morality. It is adversely affected with the erosion of values, moral deviation, corrupt behavior and actions.
In a modern society, public administration has mainly three goals to achieve -to serve public interest, to establish rule of law and to reflect people’s expectations in governmental works (United Nations, 1961). The Standards and Techniques of Public Administration, published by the United Nations (UN) in the 1950s says, “the quality of public administration of a country largely depends on the honesty and integrity of its administrators” (The Standards and Techniques of Public Administration, published by the United Nations (UN),1951).However it is a well-known fact that ethics is not just a set of moral values, in the long term they are essential behavioral traits of an organization, that strengthen the organization’s ‘Brand Equity’ and help ensure stable, sustainable growth. This ethical code, however, also encompasses the traditional ethical ideas of personal integrity, honesty and mutual respect- concepts which deserve considerations in governance framework as well.
No country can remain insulated from the outside world where at every step one or the other ethical dilemmas confront us. One has two options either we wrestle them out of our lives or ultimately be a slave of these dilemmas which would then make us work the way they want. All these factors are impacting the Indian society, posing grave challenges and also offering new opportunities to those who are associated with the governance of the country. In the matter of interface with the citizen there is an enhanced accent on transparency and right to information. With the changing role of the government, the public services are under pressure, which calls for the very restructuring of the public service processes, procedures and the delivery mechanism. Building a more responsive governmental system requires working on mechanisms that increase openness, provide a large number of incentives for participation in public affairs and minimize the gap between government and the citizens wherever possible. To enhance the capacity and capability of the government, the need is to redefine the role of the government and its functions, keeping in view the changes in the overall socio-economic environment. The focus should be, to serve the public effectively and ensure efficient and cost-effective administration. The term ‘governance’ gained currency in India with the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991.The decade of the 90s saw increasing use of the term to explain the failures of development and the policy makers accepted that governance is critical to the alleviation of poverty in the country. The governmental response to these concerns was to focus on administrative reform. It was the Eighth Five Year Plan (1992 – 1997) that pointed out the need to re-examine and reorient the role of the government as well as the process of planning. As a part of re-orientation, the plan indicated the need to restructure public sector, create right type of institutional infrastructure for people to participate and increase the role of voluntary agencies, panchayats and cooperatives. The Tenth Plan (2002 -2007) explicitly stated that governance is at the forefront of the development agenda. The Approach Paper to the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) stated that ‘all our efforts to achieve rapid and inclusive development will come to naught, if we cannot ensure good governance in the manner public programmes are implemented and equally, in the way government interacts with the ordinary citizen. The National Human Development Report (2002:124) laid down the following agenda for building state capacities, strengthening public service delivery mechanisms and creating effective institutions for decentralization.
• Devolution of Power to manage local affairs and decentralization of decision – making.
• Civil Service Reform aimed at improving transparency, accountability, efficiency and sensitivity in public administration at all levels.
• Enforcing incentive/disincentive structures that truly reflect social values and norms.
• Procedural reforms covering all aspects of government’s interface with public.
• Empowerment, particularly of women, the marginal and the excluded.
In a country like India, which has the largest number of poor people in the world and also ranks high on the list of most-corrupt nations, good governance involves fighting corruption, improving bureaucratic and political accountability and promoting people’s participation and public-private partnerships. Widespread corruption is the most-quoted example of poor governance in India. The planned model of development pursued since the 1950s which vested vast discretionary powers in bureaucrats and created the ‘license permit raj’ aggravated the corruption problem. To move files even at the lowest levels of bureaucracy required speed money. In an economy, where licenses were required for producing virtually anything, shortages became the order of the day and this created even more opportunities to demand and receive bribes. The poor were particularly badly affected as they often did not have the money to grease the palms of corrupt government servants without which they were unable to access even the most basic necessities of life such as food, employment, health care or education.
As corruption flourished, successive governments took various measures to try and stem the problem. The Anti-corruption Laws (Amendment) Act 1964 was enacted with a view to make the anti-corruption laws more effective and to ensure speedy trial of cases. The Central Vigilance Commission came into being in 1964. Conduct rules of public servants were reviewed and loopholes plugged. A Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted in 1988 incorporating various corruption-related provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Lok Ayuktas were set up in different states to address the corruption problems at the state level. In 2002 India ranked as the 71st most corrupt country among 102 countries surveyed by Transparency International. India’s score of 2.7 out of 10 was even lower than the 2.9 in 1999, indicating that the corruption problem is only getting worse. The critical role of State in the delivery of public goods and services can be realized only through an efficient, effective and responsive administration delivering quality public service. Measures for administrative reforms have, therefore, acquired urgency as the framework for an effective administration capable of quality service needs to be achieved. High quality and effective public services are a vital part of a modern state as people are entitled to expect that services which are often central to their lives, should be responsive, sensitive to their needs, easy to use, flexible and efficient.
Initiatives for Good Governance in India
In recent years, the government, both at the central and state levels, has tried to improve the quality of governance. Andhra Pradesh has set up a Centre for Good Governance with the effort being to use Information Technology to improve the quality of services, particularly for the poor and marginalized. This followed the Conference of Chief Secretaries held in November 1996, which adopted “an agenda for an effective and responsive administration”. The action plan included initiatives to make administration accountable and citizen-friendly, ensuring transparency and right to information, taking measures to cleanse and motivate civil services.
One of the important initiatives in this regard has been the publishing of citizen’s charters by a large number of government departments and enterprises. These charters, modelled on what the UK government under the former Prime Minister, John Major did in the 1990s, seek to provide citizens with information on the service they can expect from a government department and the redressal mechanisms that are available to them in case of grievances. But often these charters have been prepared in a top-down fashion with little involvement of staff within the department. As a result, government employees are by and large ignorant of what these charters are all about. The departments have also not taken steps to publicise these charters with the result that citizens are not able to use them in any useful manner. For instance, more than 30 nationalized banks have published citizen’s charters but copies of these are not available to the public on demand. The basic premise behind the charters has been to treat the users of public services as ‘customers’ thereby improving delivery through contractualization of public services. However, these charters were, at the most, soft contracts with more or less moral connotations without any legal consequences and could not have any significant impact in improving delivery of public services in India. Therefore the Twelfth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) called for further improvement in delivery of public services in 2009. In response, since 2009, around twenty states/UTs in India have enacted Right to Service Acts (RTS) or popularly called Public Service Guarantee Acts to ensure time – bound delivery of public services to its citizens. Under the Act, government servants are liable to deliver notified services in a stipulated period failing which they are liable to be penalised. Thus, by setting up standards of service delivery and through a system of rewards and punishments, the increasing demands for transparent, open and accountable government are premised to be met.
Local Self-Government
The passages of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts in 1992 were important steps to improve governance through greater people’s participation and accountability. These amendments which gave legal sanction to the establishment and functioning of local bodies like panchayats, bringing them under the control of village councils or gram sabhas, have helped poorer sections of society demand greater accountability of government service providers. The reservation of one-third seats for women in panchayati raj institutions has enabled even women in areas with strong feudal traditions to have a voice in decision-making. This is not to suggest that panchayati raj has been a success throughout the country in terms of enforcing greater public accountability. States like Kerala, which have a higher rank in terms of social development, have clearly been able to use panchayati raj to benefit its poorer citizens than more backward states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
E-governance
More recently, the spread of e-governance initiatives have had a positive impact on the quality of governance though their number and spread is still limited. In the Dhar district of Madhya Pradesh, some 30 info kiosks run by local soochaks, or operators, make available over a dozen government services, records and certificates to people in around 600 villages. The villagers pay between Rs. 5-20 for the service, a pittance compared to the cost, time and bribes that would have been necessary to obtain the records form the district headquarters. Similarly the computerization of land records in several states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Himachal Pradesh has made it easier for people to obtain key documents with ease.
Public-Private Partnerships
The latest initiative of the government to improve the quality of governance appears to be to promote greater public-private partnerships. Since the 1980s various NGOs have been involved in efforts to improve the quality of public services by mobilizing the community to participate in and demand a greater say in the delivery of government services. Often international lending institutions such as the World Bank have made such NGO participation mandatory for extending financial support to government schemes. But now the government, in keeping with the prevailing spirit of promoting private enterprise, is seeking to redefine the nature of public-private partnerships by giving a much bigger role to private entrepreneurs in the delivery of government services. In January 2003, the Prime Minister’s Office issued a directive to a large number of ministries asking them to buy services form the private sector. For instance in the case of education, instead of utilizing scarce funds to construct a single school building, the government will spend the same amount in leasing several buildings for schools to be run by the private sector, with the fees for students being paid by the government to the private service provider. Similarly, in the case of health, the government will provide vouchers to households below the poverty line to allow them to avail of services form empanelled health care organizations run by the private sector, including NGOs. According to The Economic Survey 2002-03, “there is considerable scope for improving the delivery of social services, such as health care, by promoting community and private sector participation. What is required is a change in the paradigm of the public sector ‘providing’ public goods and services, without necessarily ‘producing’ them itself.”
Innovative as this approach may be, it remains to be seen if it could improve the quality of governance. Unless widespread problems like corruption are tackled, there is every possibility that the same problems that plagued the delivery of services by the public sector could impair the functioning of public-private partnerships. Several new laws also have in-built provisions to increase the scope of citizen participation in governance. The Electricity Act of 2003 provides for consultations to be held with citizens groups on regulatory reform including tariff fixation. Similarly, the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and subsequently new act of 2019 provided for the active participation of consumer groups in enforcing the provisions of the Act. The end objective of these provisions remains the improvement of transparency and accountability in decision-making.
In recent years, a number of civil society initiatives have used a variety of tools to try and improve the quality of governance. Some of these initiatives include:
• Voter Awareness Campaigns: Catalyst Trust- Chennai, Lok Satta- Hyderabad, Public Affairs Centre (PAC)- Bangalore
• Capacity Building for Advocacy: National Centre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS)- Pune
• Public Interest Litigation: Common Cause- Delhi, Peoples Union of Civil Liberties - India's oldest and the largest human rights organization (PUCL)
• Jan Sunwais: Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)- Rajasthan, Parivartan- Delhi
• Campaign for Effective Citizens Charters: Praja- Mumbai, Lok Satta- Hyderabad
• Public-Private Partnerships: Disha- Ahmedabad, Proof- Bangalore
• Community-Media partnerships: Express Citizens Forum- Pune
As a result of both government and non-government efforts to improve the quality of governance, there is a slow but definite change for the better. The pace of change will depend a lot on the pressure that people are able to bring on the system to change. After all, as the old saying goes, people get the government they deserve. As a parliamentary democracy India has some of the finest organizational structures of governance. It has two houses of parliament, legislatures in different states and over 200,000 local self-governing institutions. These bodies direct and oversee the functioning of the executive at different levels and geographies. There is an independent judiciary and a free press that provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure accountability. However, the problems of poor governance continue. The numerous public bodies that are mandated to carry out various programmes and spend public funds perform poorly. Laws that are among the finest in the world are often not enforced. Public audits carried out by bodies such as the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) routinely point out glaring examples of wastage of public funds and corruption with no follow-up action. Commissions of inquiry are set up to investigate everything from riots to financial scandals only for the reports to gather dust.
The Core Element of Governance
Accountability, the core element of governance seems to be missing at many levels. In a country like India, which has the largest number of poor people in the world, good governance has to mean being pro-poor and gender conscious. It involves improving bureaucratic and political accountability, fighting corruption, promoting people’s participation, ensuring equity, transparency, and adherence to rule of law and making effective and efficient use of the nation’s resources. The poor record of most public agencies in the area of prompt and effective redressal of public grievances is a major cause of public dissatisfaction, and the subject of criticism by elected representatives. It is noticed that many of the government departments and their subordinate offices, which have substantial public interface, where large numbers of public are required to go daily, do not display the required orientation to the needs and circumstances of the public, especially the weaker sections of society, women and the handicapped.
State governments have instituted systems of time bound redressal of citizens grievances which are often monitored through computers and through programmes like e-Seva, Dial your Commissioner, Collector and Superintendent Police in Andhra Pradesh. The district officials are required in many States like Tripura to visit villages and blocks together periodically in order to listen to the grievances of the people, and redress them, on the spot. Janta Darbars are also convened by ministers.
The progress in respect of disposal of public grievances is being monitored in the Central Government by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. The Directorate of Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat deals with cases of individual grievances for central agencies with a large public interface, and has the power to call officials and the concerned files, so as to give a binding order. Central Ministries like Railways, Posts and Telecommunications have set up Lok Adalats to deal with complaints in presence of the consumers. There are social audit panels of eminent citizens which look into the quality of services of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. There is an Ombudsman for the commercial banks. The Central Manual of Office Procedure provides for the fixation of time limits for dealing with public grievances, while the code of conduct rules provide for disciplinary action in case of discourteous behavior of negligence in grievance redressal.
A demonstrable and effective way of ensuring prompt redressal of public grievances would be through the establishment of independent Public Grievances Committees, consisting of eminent citizens. Such committees can be authorized to inspect the adequacy and functioning of grievance redressal systems in various public offices, and report to the Cabinet Secretary (Central Government) and Chief Secretary of State Governments, of actions to remedy the system and to take firm steps against negligent officials. It is also possible to set up independent watchdog committees at district level to report to state government on the working of grievance redressal systems. The Himachal Pradesh Specific Corrupt Practices Act makes the omission on the part of an officer to discharge his statutory or bonafide duty a corrupt practice.
Governance & Polity • 1 month ago
Leave a comment
More articles from Governance & Polity
