Reforms in Governance

Reforms in Governance

Prof. Joseph K Alexander
Chairman’s remarks at the Regional Conference of IIPA
Kerala Regional Branch on 20th Oct. 2009

Governance pertains to policies and actions of State, market and civil society. The goal of reform of Governance is to raise the abilities of individual units in them. It aims at the increase of efficiency of economic and market systems, public institutions and democratization of the society through efficient LSG and NGOs. There is no stable pattern for these changes. Reforms warranted in Governance change with the fast changing situations. In India the reform agenda is basically to adopt what has been suggested by the various committees of the two ARC (Administrative Reforms Commission) reports. The theme paper of the 53rd Members Annual Conference prepared by Ms. Sujatha Singh points out that implementation of these recommendations were slow and by steps. Hence the reform “has failed to capture the Indian situation”. But I may be permitted to point out that the adoption of the reforms were ineffective because the implementing agencies are highly corrupt kleptomaniacs. They do not want any change in their fishing grounds and nets.

Context of Reforms
In India Governance situations changed with every change in politics, markets and the society. We had one type of Governance in the pre-independent period, another in the post- IInd War period, still another during the Indian Independence, and so on during Nehruvian economic planning, during Ms. Indira Gandhi’s Control-license Raj, during liberalization and privatization era beginning in 1991, millennium regime of 2000, and the new inclusive growth agenda of 2008 onwards. Each change demanded new reforms in Governance. Indian Governance all through had been contextual and dynamic. This contextual nature is true of all nations and all times.

Kerala Context
In Kerala this context has three elements.
1. Every five year general election alternatively empowers the UDF / LDF coalitions to change the reforms each previous Government envisaged / started to implement.

2. The LDF has a long range goal of ushering in a Marxian Socialist society. So their short term goal is strengthening the party by getting entrenched in public institutions, market structures and all social infrastructures. UDF is more interested in the present administration, economic and social goals. Because of conflictive politics of these two coalitions every five years, the new Government in power suppresses the reforms of the previous rule to introduce new reforms. Thus neither the former nor the latter reforms have time to take root. Chaos prevails...

3. The third element is the widespread corruption. The politician-mafia- bureaucrat-sun-rise finance and banking firms-goonda nexus make not only governance, but even life difficult.



Indian context and reforms
Indian reforms in Governance are based on the Two ARC Reports 1966-’70 and of 2005. In post independent period, reforms in Governance was recommended by Goplaswamy Iyengar (1949), AD Gorwala Committee (1951) and two Paul H Appleby reports in 1953 and 1956. IIPA and Administrative Reforms Commission were created in 1957 and 1964 respectively. The ARC created 20 study teams, 14 working groups and one task Force. They made 20 reports and 581 recommendations. The second ARC report (2005) was mainly for refurnishing the Personal Administration

Stability of tenure of civil service, right to information to foster transparency and to counter corruption, involvement of NGOs in Government programs, limiting the size of bureaucracy, decentralization of planning through the Panchayat Raj system, promoting use of IT, effective implementation of development programmes, single window clearance of investment proposals, HRD etc; have all been recommended

The theme paper
The theme paper points out that the recommendations regarding lateral entry into civil service at the middle and higher levels, introducing specialization and specialized experts into civil service, compressing the selection process of civil servants, downsizing their number, administrative accountability etc have not been implemented in toto . Most of them were initiated, but could not be implemented effectively. The”incremental approach” implying a step by step process of implementation of the reforms “fails to capture the Indian situation”

Conclusion
Reform in the State, market or civil society structures is not possible in a “kleptocracy” that exploits national wealth for its own benefits: short –run or long-run. The politicians and parties require funds and are “hand in gloves” with the mafia –goonda gangs. They oppose all transparency and accountability in the public actions and policies. They profess incessantly about impending reforms on all the platforms to hoodwink their ranks The Global Transparency International‘s barometer shows that political parties, legislators, police, judiciary, tax revenue departments are all corrupt. India is in the last ten groups of the most corrupt countries of the World. Reforms are impossible in such a corrupted chaotic political, social and economic arena. No reform in any of the structures is possible in “kleptocracy” that exploits national wealth for own benefits.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@