Business Standard: New Delhi: Sunday, January 12, 2014.
If I was
asked for a bribe by a government functionary, I would see red. My first
reaction would be to have the culprit arrested and punished. However, this may
not necessarily ensure that the next time I seek the same service, I will not
be harassed again.
Also, I am
not sure whether this approach can be adopted for suspected malafide in policy
making and implementation. Should we guillotine every bureaucrat by using the
same yardstick merely on suspicion? Is it possible that there such a thing as
an Aam bureaucrat? Could it be that she/he is at least as deserving as us of a
fair trial and protection from wrongful prosecution, if not as law abiding and
honourable as we think we are?
Ever since
Anna Hazare's movement brought the Lokpal bill (soon to be law) into focus, an
impression has been created that stronger and more autonomous vigilance and
investigation organisations and fewer safeguards for bureaucrats can solve all
India's corruption related problems. As another stalwart of this movement
assumes an important office, the public is ever hopeful for relief from
bureaucratic corruption. However, if we are to achieve that objective, it is
also time to awaken to a few ground realities apart from the romantic notion of
policing errant babus.
We need to
ask ourselves whether we can do without intelligent and dynamic bureaucratic
decision making. Even the gentlemen leading the much talked about present
political revolution in India, is on the look-out for this variety of
bureaucrat. Would we like a bureaucrat to be as decisive as the CEO of a
private firm even if public good rather than corporate profit is the goal?
Would the latter be able to function at the risk of being vulnerable to
damaging accusations and probes for well-meaning and well documented decision
making and everyday actions (which could possibly be interpreted as falling
foul of procedural rules)? Could the rampant corruption of petty officials and
the cynicism of the affected public be exploited by the corrupt themselves and
end up strengthening the hands of those who play the system? Are the personnel
manning the organisations we seek greater autonomy for guaranteed to be beyond
corruption and human frailties?
I can cite at
least a dozen examples of areas where a positive change has taken place by
making the system itself corruption proof and a hundred more where the same
change needs to be effected. One can keep chasing thieves and corrupt officials
and hope to bring them to book but a significant and long lasting change that
improves the everyday lives of citizens necessarily requires positive
transformations in the processes of government-citizen interface. This means
reforms that ensure transparency, plug loopholes, remove unnecessary
bureaucratic discretion and empower the citizen. Many of these require
electronic or mobile governance as facilitators.
Once these
are in place, effective complaint and redress mechanisms coupled with prompt
and exemplary punishment would be the sufficient condition to prevent corrupt
practices and harassment. The latter should also include the supply side of
corruption by way of impatient citizens who try to beat queues and rules
integral to the system.
Similarly,
regulatory reforms are needed to prevent the larger issues of government scams
such as the telecom spectrum or coal block doleouts. Very simply, mandating
proper socio-economic analysis and competition audit of policies and major
policy decisions and the need to place these in the public domain along with
transparent implementation systems, such as bidding or auctions, would help
ensure public interest and scrutiny and curb crony capitalism. More of
government decision making processes and outcomes should be voluntarily placed
on departmental websites obviating the need for RTI applications and
encouraging probity at the same time.
Another very
important issue that the public at large may not easily appreciate is that the
very same bureaucrats whom they perceive to be corrupt also man CVC and CBI and
will man the Lokpal. It cannot be assumed that the minute a bureaucrat is
posted to these organisations she/he becomes perfectly honest even if she/he
dons a mantle of honesty and can now stand on judgement with respect to actions
of others. Is the public aware of how often complaints to CVC, prolonged
enquiries and CBI cases thereof are used to harass honest bureaucrats who stand
in the way of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats?
We read
newspaper reports about CBI cases against M.Ps from the opposition and assume
cynically that these are arm twisting tactics. However though they do not make
it to national news, there are numerous instances of honest civil servants
being harassed by unscrupulous elements, including colleagues who use NGOs and
politicians to lodge complaint with the CVC. The existing procedures are vague
enough to ensure that the CVC enjoys plenty of discretion to admit and act on
complaints and is not bound by any sort of legal rigour in deciding whether a
complaint would merit preliminary or further investigation. This can be misused
by vested interests.
Many cases
involve no personal gratification or pecuniary gain and their main
beneficiaries are none other than the aam admi. The level of discretion that
exists in these CVC decisions is unwarranted and itself a potential source of
corruption unless checked by laws and greater accountabilty. Neither is there a
legally binding requirement to complete the enquiry process with a specific
time frame. This can do irreparable damage to the victim's career. The honest
bureaucrats who man posts in these organisations need also to be empowered to
make correct decisions rather than go with the flow and be safe by allowing
underserving enquiries to be prolonged for fear of sticking their necks out. A
more legally bound functioning of vigilance organisations is the order of the
day.
It would be
obvious that the more honest a civil servant is, the more sensitive would
she/he be to such an enquiry being conducted against her/him as reputations are
at stake, apart from careers. Even an upstanding and courageous bureaucrat
would shudder to take decisions if these may later be brought under scrutiny,
thanks to such lax vigilance procedures which expose her/him to deliberate
attempts to harass or settle scores. She/he would also understand the
consequences of antagonising troublemakers within the system who are known to
resort to such unethical pressure tactics. She/he may be discouraged from
attempting the approval and implementation of the very projects that bring
about systemic reforms for fear of faulting on procedures aware of scoundrels
with vested waiting to misinterpret every well intentioned action.
While the
astute 'whistle blower' would be guaranteed protection in the current
environment the well-intentioned Aam bureaucrat who does not enjoy political
patronage or access to the the upper echelons of the bureaucracy is most likely
to be harassed and fear harassment in such a system. She/he is the one the aam
admi should think about. Can we ever define policy implementation so rigidly
that there is no room for flexibility or should we be required to look beyond
processes at the integrity of the underlying intent and significance of
outcomes? Needless to say this does not bode well for governance. Such lacunae
are the making of an ultraconservative and apathetic bureaucracy which would
prefer not to use their wisdom but would seek safety in precedents and
procedures.
There is a
pressing need to reform the vigilance and investigative organizations from
within. They must be made accountable for their decisions too. They should be
bound by laws that limit discretion, ensure fair enquiry and their
functionaries should be severely punished for misuse of official position. If a
case that should not have been investigated beyond the prima facie stage is
pursued; if a case that does not involve criminality is referred to the CBI; if
an enquiry is prolonged beyond a point on illegitimate grounds; if ulterior motives
are involved, the concerned officials should be brought to book swiftly and
this is not easy unless we revamp their own rules and processes and look into
the quality of manpower of these organisations.
It is
important to consider that the vigilance officer should himself understand the
process of policy making and programme implementation rather than just looking
at the processes in isolation. She/he should be able to understand the context
of a particular decision and give due credit to transparency/authenticity of a
decision making process. Further she/he should be able to interpret the
presence or absence of mens rea if a bureaucratic decision leads to an
unexpected outcome or flouts some inconsequential rule. This is not possible if
she/he has not worked in such areas. Further, the integrity and orientation of
these officers needs a thorough background check. Non-performers and power
hungry bureaucrats would certainly be attracted to misuse such positions, so
how sound is the recruitment process of these organisations?
Are the best
officers opting to be posted to them if not, why not? These are questions that
the public at large may not consider as significant; yet they are extremely
important if the country is to rescue itself from the governance slump it has
found itself in.
(12-01-2014-The
writer, being a civil servant herself, preferred to remain anonymous as service
rules did not allow her to air her views in public. The views expressed are
personal. She can be contacted at absarkar_47@yahoo.in
absarkar_47@yahoo.in
.JPG)
.JPG)
