Patricia Mukhim
The basis of good governance is responsiveness of the administration, transparency and accountability. But these are mere words that don’t actually translate into action. A very good example is the delay even in getting a Schedule Tribe certificate from the Office of the District Administration. While people can fill their forms online, they still need to get the signature of the official concerned because we have not graduated to electronic signatures. It is in fact a painful task to have to enter a government office to get any kind of work done. If you have no connections and don’t know anyone be sure you will have a hard time getting even what is due to you. Such is the kind of government we are used to for decades. The reason is because there is no system of penalising officers for undue delay in discharging their public duties.
Good governance is still a far cry in Meghalaya yet good governance is the basis for sustainable economic and social development. Hence the need for a more robust Citizens’ Charter. This is an initiative to push government to solve the problems which a citizen encounters day in and day out, while dealing with the organisations providing public services. The Citizens’ Charter declares the standards for various services offered. If the services provided fall short of those standards the public can complain and get their grievances addressed. The Citizens’ Charter was first implemented in the United Kingdom by the Conservative Government of John Major in 1991 as a national programme with aim of improving the quality of public services.
In India the Citizens’ Charter was initiated in 1997. There was a directive that for the formulation of the Charters, the government agencies at the Centre and State levels should constitute a task force with representation from users, senior management and the cutting edge staff. Until April, 2006, 111 Citizens’ Charters had been articulated by the Central Government Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations and 668 Charters by various agencies of State Governments & Administrations of Union Territories. The aim of the Citizens’ Charter is to (a) to make administration accountable and citizen friendly (b) to ensure transparency (c) to improve customer service (d) to adopt a stakeholder approach. (d) To save time of both administration and the citizen.
The fundamental objectives of a Citizens’ Charter are to empower the citizen in relation to public service delivery by adopting certain measures. The establishment of the Consumer Protection Forums in the districts and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at the State level to function as an appellate court has helped many aggrieved consumers to redress their grievances. However, lack of awareness about the function of these public institutions has resulted in a very dismal number of complaints coming to the Forums and much less to the State Commission. One deterrent for consumers is to have to employ legal counsels since the defaulting companies/commercial establishments/individuals use lawyers to fight their cases. While educated people represent their own grievances, the uneducated find that a huge challenge. And despite the fact that the adjudication process is tilted towards the consumers, the fear of a legal wrangle and injudicious delays puts consumers on the defensive. The Consumer Courts are just one example of providing relief to citizens. But there are several areas of governance where people just don’t know which doors to knock and how to access government services.
Now what are the salient features of a Citizen’s Charter? They comprise (a) Agreed and published standards for service delivery (b) Openness and information about service delivery (c) ‘Choice’ and Consultation with users (d) Courtesy and helpfulness in service delivery; and (d) Provision of redressal of grievances.
In terms of standards the Charter should lay out explicit standards of service delivery so that users understand what they can reasonably expect from service providers. These standards should be time‐bound, relevant, accurate, measurable and specific. The actual performance vis‐à‐vis the standards adopted must be published and independently validated. The tendency among organizations to develop targets and standards based on their own convenience as opposed to the needs of the citizens is to be avoided.
Information and openness: A key attribute of good service is the availability of relevant and concise information to the users at the right time and at the right place. The Charters should contain, in plain language, full and accurate information about services available, levels and quality of service to be expected, available channels for grievance redressal etc. Handbooks, guides, posters, websites are some of the channels through which information can be provided to citizens.
Choice and consultation: The Charter should provide choice of services to users wherever practicable. There should be regular and systematic consultation with the users of the service to fix service standards and to ascertain quality of service delivery.
Courtesy and helpfulness: The Charter can help embed a culture of courteous and helpful service from public servants. In addition, small initiatives such as ‘name badges’, ‘May I help you’ counters etc. can go a long way in building customer confidence.
Grievance redressal and complaints handling: There is a strong link between the provision of quality service and effective handling of complaints. Firstly, by facilitating and responding to complaints, the causes for complaint can be reduced. Secondly, by identifying ‘trends’ in complaints, the service provider can resolve systemic and recurring problems.
The Meghalaya Citizen’s Charter lists out 20 Departments which interestingly includes Printing and Stationery Department (as if this Department is of any great public welfare), the Home Police Department, and Health Department etc. The Citizens Charter for Health says (a) To maintain minimum (?) standards of service at all institutions (b) To upgrade the skills of doctors nurses, doctors and other cadres from time to time (c) to ensure preventive, promotive and curative services to all peoples (d) to tackle all kinds of communicable and non-communicable diseases (e) to tackle outbreaks of epidemics (f) to undertake construction and maintenance of the buildings of the Department (g) to oversee postings, transfers and deployment of staff in the Department (h) To procure and maintain logistic (medicines, equipments etc) hospital infrastructure at district level.
There is no Citizens’ Charter on key Departments like Education, PHED, PWD and Power. Without a Citizens’ Charter how do we know the objectives of Education in Meghalaya and how can citizens redress their grievances? Most of us are supplied contaminated water or no water at all. Where do we get our grievances redressed? And what about our roads? Has anyone travelled towards Union Christian College, Umbir and Mawlyndep? The road is or whatever is left of it is beyond any description and has caused many a slipped disc but who cares? And without a Citizens’ Charter how can we address this outrageous Government apathy? Of course the previous government must take the blame for this. And then what about Power and the ridiculous outages? Short of taking the MeECL to the Consumer Court there is no other redressal forum.
The State has created a web-based application under the Meghalaya Public Grievance Redressal & Monitoring System (megPGRAMS) with the URL http://megpgrams.gov.in and seeks online registration of public grievances. The problem is that the last person in the villages who suffers the most can’t access this service because she is not tech-savvy and there is no one at the BDO’s office to register her complaints. Forget about registering complaints the villagers are considered intrusions into the even keel of life of the babus and they are treated with disdain for daring to lodge a complaint against them.
While crafting out the Citizens’ Charter the Government of Meghalaya should have consulted members of the public who are at the receiving end. But obviously this exercise is yet another “sarkari” duty that needed to be completed because a compliance note has to be sent to the Central Government. Hence this is the weakness of the Meghalaya Citizens’ Charter, whose existence I suspect many of us may not even be aware of. The Social Audit Act becomes meaningless if we don’t have a robust Citizens’ Charter.
Will civil society groups take up this matter and will the MDA Government go through the present Charter and bring the other important Departments in its ambit?