In the democratic polities of the world there is an eternal struggle between elected representatives who want to take decisions based on attracting maximum number of votes and non-elected intellectual elites, who would like the government to take decisions based on rational, administrative and economic reasons. While elected representatives and government have the backing of the Constitution, the strength of elite groups lie in their ability to take along with them the media, civil society groups and advisers to the government.
The conflict arising in India over hike in diesel, petroleum, kerosene and LPG prices, the subsidy being given to fertilisers or the Haj pilgrims or exports guidelines to attract FDI in retail or wholesale trade, the devaluation of the rupee either by market forces or the government, foreign policy involving India, Pakistan, the USA, Russia, Afghanistan, etc, all lead to severe fissures between political representatives and non-elected elites. These fissures are further compounded by the scams being highlighted from time-to-time by the CAG, the CVC and the CBI. A single investigation story by either of these three agencies, gives rise to speculation on the amount of corruption in the country, with demand for resignation from the prime minister downwards.
All these cracks in society further widen when in the globalised world of today, international credit rating agencies acting on economic parameters (laid down by economists of the Western World) declares negative ratings with well-defined letters of the alphabet like B+, B-, BB+ etc. We in India do not have self-confidence in ourselves but wait for the world to tell us how we are. Whether it was the IT sector or rankings in the Human Development Index, the ease to do business in India, the GDP or per capita income, the World Bank and other international organisations tell us where we stand. We have adopted the Millennium Development Goals and completely forgotten our very own twenty point programme. The Planning Commission largely consist of economists, technocrats, and policy-makers who are the products of the World Bank or followers of Keynes and forgot the Indian environmental context.
Large section of our society involve themselves in government bashing whether it be land acquisition, fair price shops, oil prices, education, health etc. They concentrate on highlighting the weaknesses, but nobody wants to take the responsibility of suggesting solutions. It is time we concentrated on the solutions, rather than identifying faults. There must be public media/TV debates on the solutions.
This is possible only if we separate the political and the non-political system of governance. A beginning, not very successful has already been made by setting up regulators in various sectors, like power, ports, telecom, hydrocarbon, etc. More and more such regulators should be set up in different sectors and departments of the government. However, care should be taken to appoint only professionals, experts or experienced administrators, who have worked long in these sectors. They should not be politically appointees and therefore, should be selected by an independent committee headed by the cabinet secretary with two senior-most secretaries of the government. This committee can co-opt experts if it wants to. The selected person should then be appointed by the president for a fixed term and should be removable in the same manner as High Court/Supreme Court judges. If regulators become merely political appointees then the system is bound to collapse.
Every law or policy approved by the Cabinet should be initially vetted by a committee of experts drawn from the economic, financial, industrial and agricultural sectors before being announced or put up to Parliament. This will help balance political and a-political aspects of governance. It could also give more credibility to government’s policies and would prevent the charge of political bias. The advice, comments of the committee of experts should be made public and can become source-material for informed discussion in Parliament.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh had further finessed this policy in the year 1999-2000. A committee of experts was formed in each department, with people who had worked long in that area. This committee was headed by the same secretary who was also the secretary of the department. This led to blending of political thinking of the minister-in-charge of the department with the a-political advice of the experts. A similar experiment could be carried out in the central government with a committee of experts attached to each department that could meet periodically to aid and advise the department on essential policy matters. This advice should be documented and recorded, and attached to the Cabinet Note that would be finally put up to the Cabinet.
Such a parallel structure of experts with each department, both at the Centre and the States, will go a long way in bringing transparency and acceptability of government policies. It will also help the CAG, the CVC and the CBI in taking informed decisions and conducting their investigation in a professional manner. None of these three agencies have experts in different sectors with them at present and depend mainly on in-house knowledge of their officers who might or might not consult outside experts.
When a Bill is put up to Parliament/state legislatures or becomes a subject matter of discussion either in Parliament or the state legislatures, the parliamentary committee attached with the department should hear the experts who have vetted the proposals and discuss with them all the pros and cons of the issues involved. They should not only hear the secretary, who is merely an administrative coordinator, but also the experts on the subject. The Parliamentary Committee Secretariat should also identify experts on the subject holding a contrary view point and then the committee should hear them together so that the legislators can take a balanced view. This is the practice followed in the US House of Representatives.
If the above suggestions are followed the country can take on an informed view of a subject rather than an uninformed political view purely on party lines. This will strengthen democratic governance.
Yogendra Narain is a former secretary general of Rajya Sabha.
E-mail: yognarain@gmail.com
