|
By Pradeep S Mehta
Establishing bodies to deal
with problems of poor governance will yield few results
unless Modi takes an overarching institutional approach to
the issue
Among several adrenaline-pumping
measures, three points of Narendra Modi in his scintillating
speech on Independence Day stood out. First, his ridicule of
the siloed approach of different departments of the
government. Second, rejuvenating the plan body by scrapping
it and giving birth to a new body with active participation
of the states. And third, to work in co-operation with the
opposition parties to carry the reforms agenda forward.
All three ideas need an
institutional approach if they have to be realised in their
true sense, and not just by establishing bodies to deal with
them. Institutions must not be confused with organisations.
Organisations are a part of an institutional framework for
achieving its objectives. For instance, the army is not an
institution but an organisation in the institution of our
security apparatus. Further, norms, regulations, traditions
and conventions are the weft that holds the warp of the
fabric of the security apparatus, and thus constitute the
whole of an institution.
Warp is the longitudinal thicker
core thread and the weft is the thread that is woven around
it to create various patterns in a fabric. If the core
thread is weak than the weft thread cannot hold on to the
designed fabric.
Let's take the example of our
civil services, which is an integral part of the institution
of administration, and responsible for delivering
governance, or not. The warp thread was inserted in the
Constitution by providing protection to civil servants, i.e.
the weft, from being victimised in the course of their
duties. The protection was strengthened by more weft
threads: laws, rules and regulations, to ensure their
independent performance. Accountability was fostered through
various measures including the ability of courts to question
them or by transfer to a cold desk. To be sure, transfers do
take place at the whims and fancies of the political class,
another inseparable feature of the institution of
administration.
The Supreme Court has recognised
the dangers of such political interference and, thus, had
recently directed the Centre and the states to set up a
Civil Services Board for management of transfers, postings,
inquiries, et al. It also suggested a fixed tenure for civil
servants. A similar earlier order on police services remains
unimplemented. As a result, the institution of
administration, implementation and internal security remains
vulnerable to the idiosyncrasies of the political class.
Let us review the internecine
battles between our different departments. Components of
skills building, which used to be under a large number of
ministries and agencies, have been brought under the human
resources development ministry. However, there could be
situations where a similar solution cannot be adopted.
For example, the Department of
Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) believes that our
preferential trade agreements (PTAs) are a losing
proposition, which is quite contrary to what the Department
of Commerce believes. Both are under one minister, yet the
differences exist. The problem is the lack of understanding
that the DIPP has in terms of the strategic gains of such
PTAs and the fact that our traders are unable to exploit the
advantages that exist. The absence of institutional practice
of dialogue between departments is to be blamed.
The second issue concerns
scrapping the Planning Commission and establishing a
statutory new body, which will be a hybrid think tank and
reforms agency. Partnering with states in this exercise is
the institutional approach required to make it a success in
our federal country, and not by creating a new body in a
top-down manner. States are quite enamoured with Modi's call
for co-operative federalism, and such a body will mean
business. However, the new body will have to continue to do
perspective planning and scenario building through a
multi-stakeholder approach. Continuous evaluation of the
programme by the Independent Evaluation Office will help
credibility, thus conforming to the institution of
accountability.
The third issue is that of
working with opposition parties, not only because the
National Democratic Alliance does not have majority in the
upper House, but even otherwise. Here the government can
take inspiration from Mexico, where the young President
Enrique Pena Nieto signed a Pact for Mexico with four major
political parties to get a consensus on vital policies and
reforms of national importance with a 95-point agenda in
December, 2012. The polity came together for the pact after
the realisation that political grandstanding has weakened
the economy for a decade. In 12 months, the pact has already
been able to pass six major reforms, which includes the
educational system, legal reforms, tax reform, electoral
reform and energy reform.
Every single reform was
vehemently opposed by vested interests, trade unions and
anarchists. But the government stood ground with the support
of the opposition. In each of the areas, we can see close
similarities with our own situation. Modi could steer a
similar pact for India with the opposition parties and in
partnership with states, where the implementation takes
place. Again, the institutional practice of positive
discussion helped in Mexico, and we need the same thing in
India.
We need to ask ourselves
difficult questions and dig deeper to figure out the root
cause of problems. To begin with, there is a need to start
looking at things in perspective, understand the difference
between institutions and organisations, and recognise the
vital role of institutions in good governance. An effective
remedy to the concerns that the country is facing today lies
in pulling up or reinventing institutions.
The writer is Secretary
General of CUTS International
(psm@cuts.org )
This news can
also be viewed at: http://www.business-standard.com/l
|
