By Sondip Bhattacharya
Elections and representative democracy is the beginning of installing a democratic government. This is the time when politicians and political parties give their caring eye and thoughtful ear to citizens. Till the time of the next mandate, the citizens have to silently accept the policies and decisions of the elected representatives. The citizens have to digest the inefficiencies and insensitive conduct of the IAS/IPS and the “babus” of the state civil services. This is the depreciation of a citizen to a voter. Democratic governance gets diluted to voter management as opposed to citizen empowerment and participation.
What governments do as governance is an outdated traditional approach. The modern view is to establish a democratic process of decision making in policies, programmes, and revenue expenditure operations. Democratic governance demands accountability and responsiveness from legislature, executive and judiciary. This needs a change in mindset of the bureaucracy more than that of the politicians.
The 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments were the revolutionary steps to widen and deepen democratic governance. The constitutional status provided to local self-government opened opportunities to nearly 32 lakh representatives to occupy seats in panchayats and urban bodies. The other backward classes, SC/ST got seats and recognition in grassroots governances. Out of this, over 10 lakh are women, thereby providing exposure to citizens who were denied participation. Today, no political party can claim that there is dearth of women political leaders for nomination to legislatures in states and Parliament.
This marks a revolution in people’s participation and involvement as opposed to a mere 5000 representatives sitting as legislators in state assemblies and national Parliament. The Right to Information Act further expanded participation in decision making. The Lokpal and the Lokayukta also facilitate accountability and participation. The establishment of national and state commissions in the area of women and child development, human rights, minority rights, consumers, and citizen related public services amplifies participative governance. The new Land Acquisition Act providing for adequate and fair compensation in cash and kind is a result of struggle, negotiation and consultation with stakeholders.
The political image of India is of a clumsy and fettered economy which otherwise has a potential to be a giant. This is the image which competitive and aggressive politics creates on the eve of national elections.
The political parties in their attempt to cut each other’s throat paint the picture of the economy and the society as it suits them and fits their campaign strategy. The BJP through its media management seems to be contented with this image of India so as to draw political advantage.
With scams galore dominating the UPA-II rule, governance is assumed to have hit the rock bottom on account of rampant corruption. The brakes applied by the Supreme Court as a result of NGO activism have halted investment and infrastructure proposals. Delays and procrastination in decisions has been the hallmark of UPA-II. At the same time, the Congress led UPA took measures to improve democratic governance which got sidelined with the media exposure on corruption and proverbial silence of prime minister Manmohan Singh.
The corporate sector views governance in terms of the time and speed in clearances of investment and infrastructure projects. The corporate sector expects governance from government and conveniently ignores similar responsibilities and duties from itself. For the urban middle class, it is management of cities.
The magnitude of urbanisation in terms of absolute numbers is a serious issue. Large cities have grown faster as compared to small and medium towns. The budget of Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation is larger than that of nine state governments. The failure of the small and medium towns to absorb immigration from rural areas heralds the collapse of the already oversaturated mega cities.
Governance traditionally, was revenue collection, law and order, civil supplies and general administration. Today, it is management in terms of housing, public transport, power, water supply and solid waste management. The steel frame of all India services falls short in terms of skills and attitude to deal with this dimension of governance. This demands the shift of bureaucracy from public administration to professional management. For the academic and intelligentsia, good governance is measured in terms of transparency, corruption index and people’s participation in planning. For the rest it continues to be regional pride and identity; caste assertion and majority nationalism.
BJP is using the entire energy to bring the issue of governance centre stage. This represents the sophistication of Hindutva politics. Hindutva and Ayodhya are skilfully put on back burner to project the achievements of BJP ruled states. What have replaced the Ram temple are issues of cow slaughter, cultural homogeneity, anti-conversion legislation and “saffronisation” of education calling it Indianisation. The turn to governance is not a departure from core ideology. It is an astute attempt and politically correct approach as the coalition politics does not sanction the core ideology.
The Indian voter is largely punitive. Hence, the anti-incumbency is a major factor influencing electoral outcomes. Onion prices a few weeks before poll could determine the results of elections as opposed to corruption and democratic governance. The Indian voter is also retrospective to some extent and recognises past achievements of government.
The prospective thinking has not percolated in sufficient doses in the Indian electorate. Hence, the fallout of the big picture of putting a political party or an individual as a saviour is not comprehended by the voter in context of democratic governance. Let us not miss the point that the Indian voter has yet to become a “governance” voter. INAV