Along with administrative reforms, the quality of elected and permanent officials must be improved
Administrative reforms, meaning reorganization and streamlining of public service bureaucratic structures and procedures, have been on our public agenda for years. These reforms are necessary and in some cases overdue. However, in the evolution of our polity we have reached a stage where these reforms will not work unless they are widened to cover the political component of the executive both in the state and Central governments. This is essential because of the primacy of the political leadership in the government’s decision-making processes.
Governance, the creation and execution of policy, is a difficult task. It requires knowledge, acquired skills, a mature approach and prudence which comes through experience. In almost all liberal democracies, political leaders occupying top leadership (ministerial) positions have prior experience of working in different organizations – local self government, cooperative societies, party organizations, or non-government agencies including corporate bodies in the private sector. Through personal involvement in running the affairs of these organizations, the prudent leader internalizes the experience of real-life decision-making situations. This enables him later in life to judge what is important, who can be persuaded and what will work. He thus develops a pragmatic approach and also a willingness to understand and appreciate different viewpoints.
There is a feeling in some quarters in our country that since the permanent civil servants and experts provide technical details and advise on alternatives, the political leader in government can make do with very little or nil knowledge and experience. This explains why illiterate housewives, innocent film stars and inexperienced scions of political families are suddenly parachuted into government leadership positions. Compare this with what happened in the US recently: when Sarah Palin was nominated as the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate last year, questions were raised about the adequacy of her qualifications and experience for the high office as she had only been the mayor of a small town and Governor of a small state.
Newly-independent India in the 1950s and 1960s had wise and sagacious leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, C Rajagopalachari, BR Ambedkar, BC Roy, Lal Bahadur Shastri, GB Pant and many others who steered the affairs of the state ably. They were knowledgeable and experienced leaders who came from various professions and had the best interests of the nation in mind. Today, a large number of politicians come up on the basis of caste, religion, family pedigree, ill-gotten money, even criminality. Many elected officials are ill-prepared for the leadership positions they come to occupy in government. There is no prior experience in public office, no sense of history, no commitment to the basic liberal values enshrined in the Constitution. Naturally, most issues of governance are politicized and administration is vitiated by political interference in the pursuit of personal agendas and/or in support of the vested interests.
These tendencies have their impact on the permanent civil service as well. For objective and professional advice the top civil servants must be selected on merit, competence and expertise. In many mature democracies government leaders select advisers and key functionaries who show independence of mind and are capable of articulating viewpoints different from those of the leader. In our country the preference is for “yes men” who often anticipate their political masters’ views and tailor their advice accordingly. Any official showing independence of mind or articulating a different point of view is subjected to frequent transfers and/or faces marginalization in his career. It is, therefore, not unusual to find government officials, including intelligence and security advisers, engaged in political management for the ruling party – in neglect of their assigned responsibilities.
In this scenario accountability is given a go-by, and nepotism and corruption are allowed a free run. Earlier, probity in governance was a major issue and anti-corruption agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation and state vigilance organizations were set up to deal with this problem. Now, no one even mentions “corruption” and anti-corruption agencies are used to settle personal or political scores.
Achievement of excellence thus becomes a casualty. Hence, in spite of various studies and availability of numerous reports and recommendations on administrative and police reforms, no credible measures have been taken to implement these proposals or improve the system.
What is the solution? The widespread public anger against the entire political class that followed the Mumbai terror attack is a pointer to the deep dissatisfaction against the “management style” of the political leadership in government. But this anger will remain incoherent and meaningless unless it is shaped into a constructive form to deal with the current crisis in authority. And the only instrument that is available to the people at large is the process of selection of our political leaders through elections. Our citizen-voters must remember that democracy is not average citizens selecting average leaders. Democracy is about average people having the wisdom to select the best prepared (for law-making and governance).
In this connection there is also the responsibility of our political parties, mainly the two national parties (Congress and BJP), to bring about a qualitative improvement in the political leadership in government. Along with their agendas for governance and development, they should offer candidates (for election to the national and state legislatures) with the appropriate background and experience in public affairs. There is a tendency among our political parties to select candidates on the basis of their ability to win, often to the exclusion of the important criterion of “suitability”. This prompts them, for example, to select “greenhorns” (from political families), illiterate persons on the basis of caste and community, film stars who have no interest in governance affairs and even persons with criminal background. Some of them end up as government leaders in due course. Persistent public pressure as seen during the Mumbai terror attack and an unmistakable signal by our citizen-voters that they can no longer put up with undesirable elements in our politics will gradually force the political parties to fall in line.
The author is a former Secretary to Government of India
Questions were raised about the adequacy of Palin’s qualifications and experience for the high office as she had only been the mayor of a small town and Governor of a small state
Today, a large number of politicians come up on the basis of caste, religion, family pedigree, ill-gotten money, even criminality. Many elected officials are ill-prepared for the leadership positions they come to occupy in government
