A popular movement against corruption that swelled in 2013, and the perception that governance had become paralysed, enabled Mr Narendra Modi to lead the BJP to a spectacular victory in the 2014 national elections. He promised Minimum Government and Maximum Governance. Neither reduction of government nor improvement of governance is simple in a large, developing country.
Though one may not expect results in the two years the Government has been in power, there should be signs of the direction of change and some markers of progress. The most visible sign of progress is the push for ‘e-governance’. Many schemes have been rolled out to eliminate human interface in citizens’ and businesses’ transactions with government. Application of technology to government’s processes will improve efficiency, increase transparency, and reduce opportunities for corruption.
However, ‘e-governance’ is a misnomer for these schemes: they are really schemes of ‘e-government’. Governance is the process by which a society finds just solutions to its complex and contentious problems, and the process by which it establishes the rules of the game. Good governance requires that such processes be transparent, participative, and effective. Broadly, there are three methods that can be used to fix the rules of the game and solve complex societal problems. Each of these methods should be evaluated against the criteria of transparency, participation, and effectiveness.
The first method is rule by a strong supremo. He (or she) retains powers to himself and operates through a tightly-bound coterie. Such regimes can be very effective in getting things done. Indeed, this approach to governance is credited with some of the Asian ‘economic miracles’. However, such regimes tend to be dictatorial; they crush dissent to keep themselves in power. Governance in these regimes, though effective, is neither participative nor transparent. The second method of governance enables a society to decide who must rule, and who is right, by determining winners and losers in elections and in courts. Elections determine who has the majority.
And courts decide who is right and who is wrong in disputes brought before them. Democratic elections and independent courts are two core processes for good governance in democratic countries. India has these too. It has universal franchise and runs the largest elections in the world with remarkably few complaints. And India’s courts, though over-burdened, are independent. If these two processes were sufficient for good governance, Mr. Modi would not have much more to do to provide ‘maximum governance’ in India.
The problem with majoritarian democracy and adversarial court processes is that they are not designed to find solutions to complex problems with many points of view. A government with a majority, especially a large one, can become as authoritarian as a dictatorial one. It can deny minorities their rights for their views to be considered while framing laws and resolving contentious issues. The people have spoken once; that should be enough. Now, they must leave it to the government in power. It can justify the exclusion of the minority since it was elected by a majority.
However, by excluding the views of the many who did not vote for it — and quite often these may even be the majority in first-past-the-post elections — a government reduces its own effectiveness. Those dissatisfied with the government’s decisions go to courts wherever courts are independent (as Indian courts are). Since courts are not set up to find policy solutions to complex problems, ministers of the Indian government have begun to complain that India’s courts are venturing into matters of governance that they should not. This is a sign that the government has much more to do to improve governance in India.
When problems are complex, with many interacting forces and several contending stakeholders, good governance requires effective methods for people’s participation. Referendums of the entire electorate give an illusion of good democracy. Because the opinions of masses of people must be swayed, leaders on both sides run populist campaigns appealing to the basest of instincts.
Whereas, when the issue is complex, voters should be educated about what they are voting for. And then when a small majority determines how all must go (52% versus 48% for Brexit), referendums become yet another example of the problem with majoritarian democracy rather than a good solution.
Whichever method a government chooses for governance of the country, it must improve its ability to use it. Dictators can govern well or poorly. Elections can be conducted fairly or badly. Similarly, stakeholder participation will not improve governance if it is not well conducted. Many countries are developing processes for participative decision-making in which stakeholders are adequately informed and issues properly deliberated upon before decisions are made.
James Fishkin has explained the principles by which such processes work and has given many examples in his book, When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultations. Examples are a special office set up by the Danish Parliament to use a process called the ‘Consensus Conference’ for consultation with citizens on difficult issues; and a process of ‘Deliberative Polling’ being introduced in several countries.
Issues regarding equity, environmental degradation, and social security will increase as the Indian economy grows. Faster growth of GDP will not brush them away: on the contrary, these issues will stall faster growth. Neither more centralization, nor more elections and courts, can resolve such complex, multi-stakeholder problems.The Indian government must apply best practices of stakeholder participation and deliberative democracy to fulfil its promise of ‘maximum governance’.
Arun Maira is a former member of the Planning Commission
Email: : thebillionpress@gmail.com