By Kit Shangpliang
This is about the well-being of Meghalaya, therefore, the well-being of India entirely. With 2023 fast approaching and the state heading towards the election trail soon, many political aspirants are on the move. Public information has it, that some prominent government employees, serving now as we speak, will toss their hats into the electoral ring too. The question is: Is this legit? Is this right for us? Or is the breaking of rules acceptable by the electorate here in Meghalaya? Most of all, is the general public aware of the parameters of the ‘Conflict of Interests?’ All these apolitical concerns are what this write-up will attempt to provide clarity on.
After the ISBT cracks, the by-pass bridge let down and especially the debacle of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly dome, such public discourse is the need of the hour. It is both unfortunate and revealing that the dome debacle had to happen under the watch of the present PWD executive engineer-cum-political aspirant. While the engineer was supposed to act as the accounts manager on behalf of the State Government, could it be that his political construction caused him to neglect his official duties? Hence, the fallout of a conflict of interests?
Interestingly, another government servant, Director of Health Services crossing the line, allegedly behaving rudely with the students and faculty members of the Indian Institute of Public Health (IIPH) is unbecoming of a professional, more so and ironically, a political-aspirant. Media reports that his behavior violated the sacredness of the institution and a complaint was lodged to the Principal Secretary (Health), Government of Meghalaya.
The Meghalaya Services (Conduct) Rules 2019, published by the Gazette of Meghalaya, part II A, Rule 20 spelled as clear as day, “No Government employee shall be a member of or otherwise, be associated with any political party, or with any organisation which takes part in politics, or whose activities have political bearing, nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of. or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.” Which on record says ‘Published by Authority’ officialized by the recorded statement of the ‘Gazette of Meghalaya’, November 14, 2019.
That’s a non-negotiable ruling going by the November 6, 2019 notification, approved by the very government that believes in progressive leadership, a thing they preach and perhaps practise. Such direct and indirect political engagement reflects the blatant breaking of the government service rules by its own officers and employees. All said, let’s break this into pieces, for the sake of inclusive clarity. This write-up may hopefully spark some culture of integrity and call upon the public as accountability partners, to look carefully at the basic ideas of ‘Conflict of Interests’ and how to appropriate and connect such values with the already existing socio-cultural & religious ethics of the indigenous communities of the state.
A number of prominent members of the electorate and key citizens have expressed that the political career for government servants turned political aspirants in Meghalaya is a mere retirement plan, if not a hobby. Come to think of it, they have a point, simply, because such a retirement plan could potentially fetch more benefits and social relevance in their old age. Imagine how would a retirement plan add value to the economic and political well-being of Meghalaya with umpteen challenges that we have on all fronts. Such progressive awareness among the electorates around a similar notion is gradually gaining speed pan-Meghalaya, especially among the youth who form a sizeable voters’ population.
We have heard time and again that our State Government aspires to be like governments of other developed countries in terms of focused services and innovations backed by strategized branding. Great ideas, but how do we get there, if we have missed the basics? Of fair-play and nipping of conflict of interests’ issues in the bud. In most progressive countries there are increasing expectations from each and every valued citizen, business leader and civil society member that systems should deliver higher standards of integrity in the public services, civil services, public institutions, government-controlled corporations and government itself. In this context, conflict of interests in its various forms should become a significant consideration in the day-to-day work of those who occupy any position of trust.
Sadly, by the drill of the day in Meghalaya, that’s the integrity of the past assumingly embedded in a citizen’s conscience. Today, for all wrong political purposes, misplaced aspirants come along and play their part. These are things barely discussed, because they either prick our conscience or they can be wrapped under the carpet because of the political class’s perception, that there is lack of public awareness. However, what the political pundits seem to overlook is that, now, the public, especially of urban constituencies that may be impacted by such opportunism, are increasingly aware of the sad implications of ‘Conflict of Interests’. They may not be aware of every letter of it, but surely they are aware of the spirit of this notion, which is enough to turn the tables around.
Let us delve into why ‘Conflict of Interests’ is a thing that would be of equal or utmost concern for the voting citizen. Conflicts of interests in the public sector is particularly important because, if they are not recognised or controlled appropriately, they can undermine the fundamental integrity of officials, decisions, agencies, and governments. ‘Integrity’ is used in the public sector to refer to the proper use of funds, resources, assets, and powers, for the official purposes for which they are intended to be used. In this sense the opposite of ‘integrity’ is “corruption”, or “abuse”. Does that mean that the political parties at play are not aware of these notoriously grey areas of engagement or are they playing dumb to the perceived lack of public awareness on the subject? These are public questions that need public responses.
Looking at the present public servanthood vis-à-vis government officers transiting into mainstream politics from where they are now, be it an engineer, doctor, cop, chowkidar or bureaucrat – timing is key. The lacuna lies in the convergence and reconciliation of the two systems,
4 The open-ended nature of the service rules of the state government and the bending and breaking of the very same rules
4 The absence of definitive directions derived from the systems of the Election Commission of India
To check such breach of conflict of interests, there is need to plug the service rules gaps at the state level and for the ECI to consider firming its rules around cut-off year vis-à-vis government servants entering into mainstream politics. What this submission means, is that, the ECI may make it mandatory for any government servant who intends to join politics to have a cooling off period of 6 years, after he or she resigns or retires from the government job, after which, the government employee is free to engage or join mainstream politics.
Evidently, this opinion piece does not intend to loosely discourage political aspirants who are contributing government servants. It is intended to revamp the culture of integrity and to halt government officers, para-government officers and even army officers from exploiting their positions, subsequently and potentially leading to any quantum of corruption. It is imperative that a clear notification of cutoff year, hopefully based on constitutional provisions will have to be issued for electoral clarity.
Such pragmatic steps should also help ECI to augment their mandate and stance to uphold free, fair and ethical elections. Unless these steps are taken, the opportunistic affluents with political luring will strike at the right moment for more wrong than right reasons. And, evidently, there is no concept of allegiance whatsoever based on their opportunistic orientations. That in itself, is an obvious threat to the structure of political management. In the world of political spin-doctors, there are three or more ways that a political opportunist of this kind can scheme this:
1. To slyly take advantage of their official positions by introducing or officially propagating schemes during their tenure and politically claim such endeavors by proxy
2. To donate part or most of their resources (in question) to community aids so as to influence the politically naïve, the economically poor and the emotionally driven, with a target to convert such feelings into votes.
3. To camouflage this, under that notion of ‘love for their own kind’ and what not.
4. This political plunge tends to normalize the culture of corruption, abuse of power and pretend that everything is okay without the knowledge of the public and their specific electorates.
Way forward:
To stick to its own rules, State Government should spell out clearly on what kind of disciplinary actions are to be taken if any of its employees are found breaking those service rules vis-à-vis political engagements. Perhaps, the disciplinary actions all these years have been non-existent, minimal or well within the fiscal reach of the violator, hence, normalizing the government-servants turned political-opportunists to ignore rules and laws.
In working towards its own mandates, ECI could consider making it mandatory for any government servant who intends to join politics to wait for a gap of 6 years, after he or she resigns or retires from the job, whether state or central, after which, the government employee is free to join mainstream politics. We leave that to the wisdom of the Commission.
If better political sense prevails over political egos and money, the concerned political organizations should exercise restraint in batting for the candidatures of such breed of opportunists. While the public know that some constituencies like the 17-North Shillong are up for grabs, many pointed out that this is due to the growing unpopularity of the present legislators, suffering from emotions over-dose syndromes. Only time will tell, if the debacles and the erratic moves of politically aspiring government servants may alter political preferences to pave way once again for emotionally driven leaders to get reelected.
Lastly, hope still prevails in the fact that prominent citizens, electorates and political parties could exercise wisdom to root their candidates wisely and strategically, because in urban Meghalaya, integrity is still one of the integral factors of one’s winnability. Money is short-sighted, integrity is not. If you get it wrong in the minors of those basics, you got it all wrong.
(The writer is Social Communicator & Artiste)