Over the last few years there has been much public discourse around the performance of India’s constitutional authorities, statutory bodies and enforcement agencies. The political opposition alleges that organisations like the Election Commission , the CBI, the ED, the I-T department, the CAG, etc. have been “politically weaponised” in order to serve the electoral ends of ruling governments. The claim gaining ground is these agencies are manipulated or not allowed to function properly by the government through a judicious use of carrot and stick policies. Such assertions are fueled by the fact there are no definitive performance parameters or organisational quality standards that can be verified regarding the work of these agencies.
In this scenario, is there a case for such agencies to be accredited by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)? Do such organisations need an ISO 9000/9001, a quality certification? More importantly, is it possible and if so, how does one go about it?
To answer the first part, it would seem there is a definite need for agencies to be quality certified. All public institutions have vast, overarching powers and authority over citizens. Conversely, they are also tasked with ensuring equal treatment, to serve the cause of the nation and protect all its safeguards. If they are instead made to serve the cause of the ruling dispensation, that would defeat the purpose for which they were founded. An agency can best serve its client base if it is bound by certified quality standards. This will ensure the organisation’s principles and civic orientation stay on track. It will also guarantee the agency’s autonomy and fairness. Notably, such standards will prevent the easy shifting of responsibility from politicians to the agencies if things “go wrong”. Standards for public agencies are even more vital than those for private operations as these public agencies protect the very foundations of a nation, not just product quality and profit margins.
The response to the second question is complicated. On the one hand, examples of successful quality standards certification of public agencies are found in countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand, which serve as testament that it is possible to apply such standards to agencies. On the other hand, the current state of Indian politics does not offer much hope for such certification to yield the wanted results. Ideally, such agencies should function on a voluntary honour code. Should that prove challenging, quality standardisation is the most practical solution.
Ironically, as India matures in terms of democratic practices, these organisations are being increasingly controlled and monitored by governments. India, unlike much of the third world, is still a democracy with functioning institutions, principally because of the political resolve, in the early years after Independence, to self-regulate and instil some measure of public ethics into the body politic. Our democracy’s founders had the vision, courage and determination to set up such permanent mechanisms. Their actions proved it is possible to self-regulate with integrity in order to serve a larger purpose. Why cannot these agencies now be improved and protected with the same determination, courage and vision? Quality standardisation is one means for agencies to achieve that outcome.
The critical first step is identifying the requirements of such agencies and preparing individual quality policies accordingly. The ISO 9000/9001, which is the BIS’s certification, details a four-pronged approach called PDCA (process, do, check and act) to identify and apply quality standards. In turn, these are linked to the seven quality management principles of customer (citizen) focus, leadership, people engagement (feedback) at all levels, process or procedural approach , continuous learning, organisational improvement, and evidence-based decision making .
A casual reading of the above approach shows much of them have been given the go-by or consciously neglected by the agencies, despite having the structural framework for their provision. Concerned citizens, civil society, “alternate agencies” (including NGOs, parastatal actors) and political parties have no easy or accepted means to identify when an agency is malfunctioning. A quality policy will help detect any faulty performance. This will enable even a layperson to understand where, when and how an agency is erring. This can be a significant means of civic empowerment that will engender a watchdog citizenry and compel a responsible media.
It is clear that much of a quality policy will cover an agency’s processes and procedures. In fact, quality is a process-based standard, and when used to monitor and control an organisation’s processes, the end product should automatically yield the needed results.
One part of every agency’s quality policy must cover human resource management systems. In order to ensure the quality of human resources, autonomy in recruitment must be mandated, as also in the terms and conditions of service, etc. This could include the direct selection of an agency head through a national testing system, clearly defined professional competencies and the removal of the agency head only by parliamentary impeachment. These suggestions, while not exhaustive, serve to demonstrate how quality standards can be built into organisational processes.
However, a quality policy will also need to cover other process-based protocols whose quality may not be as easy to regulate. Some may not translate into an enumerative list of quality characteristics. Nonetheless, they could provide a direction, a tone and an identification guide for what is permissible. One such other principle is the ‘continuous learning’ principle. This will oblige the agencies to periodically review and tweak their policies, apply the lessons learnt through their work experience and update and improve their in-house training mechanisms.
The principle of ‘consistency’ is another powerful tool. Over time, this will enable any deviation from an agency’s professional standards to be immediately detected. Correspondingly, ‘risk identification’ and ‘change management’ should be included as an integral part of the periodic planning process. Similarly, an ‘impact perspective’ will help ascertain whether the standards being applied are sufficient to serve the cause of public welfare. Finally, a quality policy will enforce accountability and compliance.
What is noteworthy is that even an imperfect quality policy will give all stakeholders a measuring rod by which to decide whether an agency is generally functioning as per its mandate. If it is not, such policy should also enable redressal of violations and allow for course correction.
Once an agency drafts its quality policy, the next step is for it to identify and lay down the standards by which the policy will be implemented. Standards provide a framework for conformity. Violation of the policy will determine whether standards have been breached. The redressal of such violations is written into the standards and their certification in order to better protect stakeholder interests.
Some possible redress mechanisms are suggested below:
Annual performance reports to be mandatorily tabled in the parliament.
A cancellation of certification will invite a JPC probe as well as an inquiry or impeachment proceedings by the parliament against the head.
Violation of standards can be made justiciable by the Supreme Court.
Compulsory sample testing and audit of a fixed percentage of processes of each agency to be conducted on a yearly basis by the CAG.
Every such agency to be scrutinised by the PAC once every 3 years.
Each agency to provide for an independent department to be headed by a publicly recruited lead implementer.
This is not to say that there will be no challenges in the implementation of these standards. One major hurdle will be the requirement of increased infrastructure, changes in laws and provision of adequate financial outlays for agencies to operationalise their standards. Another impediment will be the lack of an enabling environment in the country. Although the UK, Australia and New Zealand have applied quality standards to several of their public agencies, they have chosen to standardise more easily regulatable systems.
It must also be admitted that, to some extent, honour codes work better in those countries. This is possibly because politics is not viewed as being as profitable or attractive in those counties. However, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the lack of political will. Those political actors who will say that it is not possible must be reminded that those in power will sometimes be in the opposition and vice-versa.
The impartiality and fairness of such agencies can best be appreciated when parties are out of power. Further, the lack of credibility of such seminal agencies will ultimately reflect on electoral outcomes. This should itself serve as a powerful incentive for political parties of all hues to support the government to put some quality guardrails in place.
(Views are personal)
Renuka Chidambaram | Retired IAS officer, former UN bureaucrat and former head of Karnataka’s planning department