By Patricia Mukhim
Let’s face some hard facts. Bureaucrats who enter the government and that includes the premier IAS products join the workforce after receiving their training on different facets of governance. Essentially they are trained to manage law and order, to execute schemes but perhaps very little training on how to ensure outcomes or to measure outcomes. Once the schemes are ‘implemented’ there is very little or no monitoring about how they impact or whether they impact at all. Some schemes that are ill-matched are implemented because the central government desires it. Even if such schemes don’t suit the people here they are pushed down people’s throats with no attempt at mid-term course correction to prevent wastage of money and resources. This happens because there is none to tell the central government that policies enunciated by the Centre – and at one time the Planning Commission to meet the needs of some states in India do not necessarily address the needs of the North Eastern states. The one-shoe fits all model had led to poor development outcomes.
Training the bureaucracy in diverse fields requires both financial resources and time. It is easier for governments to hire consultancy firms for short periods on contract with no long term financial commitments. The reason governments hire consultants is because they have specialized knowledge (expertise) in diverse fields such as agriculture, transport, water supply systems, environmental services and digital services. Some of the projects enunciated by the Central Government to be implemented within a definite timeline are complex of which the Jal Jeevan Mission is one and the attempts to clean up rivers and streams elsewhere in the country. These projects require skills beyond the government’s traditional scope. Also the rapid pace at which digital transactions have progressed require that public services, like the Direct Benefit Transfer programme are transacted with ease. This too demands technical expertise that consultants provide.
As stated in the previous paragraph the recruitment process in this country and in our state of Meghalaya is archaic. The Meghalaya Public Service Commission (MPSC) packed with retired government personnel is one such institution that requires drastic reforms to be able to recruit a workforce with a wide range of capabilities and a progressive mindset. As of now the MPSC continues to recruit personnel with a narrow range of internal capabilities thereby making consultants compulsory for specific challenges. I recall at one time the Meghalaya Government struggled to make detailed project reports and needed consultants with expertise in that field.
In fact, the role of consulting firms in Indian government projects include policy formulation and major project support. Some of the leading consulting firms in this country which work for the central government and some state governments including our own are McKinsey, BCG, and the Big 4 namely EY, PwC, KPMG, Deloitte which are heavily involved in shaping government policies and executing key projects. Their involvement is evident in key projects like the Swachh Bharat and Jal Jeevan Missions. In Meghalaya the consultants are involved in guiding the government in implementing schemes that are the offshoots of the Meghalaya Basin Management Authority (MBMA) and its various verticals. I am sure that the consultancy firms also assist the State Government in crafting out the roadmap for the $10 billion economic trajectory that the Chief Minister keeps telling all of us. In Uttar Pradesh for instance consultants have assisted in some significant economic endeavours such as pointing out strategies for a growth trajectory which will grow its economy to $1 trillion.
It is not just Meghalaya that is hiring consultants. The Government of India too engages consultants for a strategic vision development such as the ambitious document – Vision 2047 which also means that consultants are going to be around for a long time to enable that Vision Document to take shape and in setting priorities for this country so that it achieves that aspirational goal. But is this a good practice as far as governments are concerned? In Meghalaya it is seen that consultants stride around with some confidence because they believe they have superior knowledge compared to our civil servants, many of whom have had very little exposure outside the state and here I am including the state civil servants in particular.
Many civil society activists have expressed concern about the over-reliance of the MDA Government on consultants but their concern has been mainly about the drain on the exchequer. However, that is just one of the concerns. Over a period of time consultants will weaken the government’s own capability to think critically and even erode essential skills already employed by local officers to reach governance to the people in a manner that they can respond positively. It has been seen that while consultants can craft out all manner of schemes by paying short visits to our villages, what they see and imbibe in those short spurts of engagement with the local people does not address their response mechanism. Most schemes look good on paper but when taken to the people they fail because not enough planning has gone into the implementation part. Also, most consultants don’t spend adequate time with people or sit to plan with them in a participatory planning process which is a time-consuming exercise, before crafting out fancy schemes with equally romantic acronyms. As of today a cursory look at the range of consultants in our state we have reached a point of dependency. This could lead to what researchers call the “mission creep,” where consultants gain overarching influence over policy and decision-making processes.
Let us not forget that the consultancy business is not an innocent one. Before governments know it they would have been given a policy by consulting firms that are directed towards their own benefit. I had once used the word ‘Consultocracy’ to define the over-dependence of the state government on consultants and how this consultant integration can actually reduce the traditional functions and capabilities of public servants thereby altering the fundamental dynamics of governance.
Recently a senior bureaucrat who had enrolled for his PhD with a local university received his doctorate on a comprehensive research he conducted on the impact of social audit on the stakeholders of the system. Meghalaya is the first state to enact the Social Audit Act in April 2017. This was followed by pilot social audits for 26 schemes in 18 villages. At present, social auditing is reduced to 11 departments and 21 schemes in Meghalaya. The law mandates appointment of social audit facilitators to conduct social audits directly with people. The facilitators will present their findings to the Dorbar Shnong which will then add its inputs or correct anomalies before the schemes are finally audited by autonomous auditors. The scholar-bureaucrat while presenting his findings also noted that in most villages the government officials are not present when the social audits are conducted. Also, as of today there is no Chairperson to head the Commission after the last one demitted office. So is the Social Audit apparatus really working in Meghalaya and if not why not? That a senior bureaucrat has considered it his brief to conduct an intensive research on the functioning of a key apparatus that could actually change the way governance is done and involve people in measuring the outcomes of at least 21 schemes is a positive development.
How about using the Social Audit Act to measure the outcomes from employing so many consultants and the debilitating effect it has on the thinking capacity of government officials. Is this a good practice or will it have a negative effect in the long run. One can understand the impatience of the Chief Minister to deliver and so too that of the officers advising the CM. But this being the 6th year of the MDA Government being in the saddle it is time to measure whether the policy briefs and schemes enunciated by the set of consultants in Meghalaya are actually impacting positively on governance. Is Meghalaya doing better on the education, health and poverty front? These three are the main indicators of the state’s economic trajectory.