– Aniket Navalkar
THE ORIGINS OF GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENT
There are a variety of distinct conceptual understandings of both, government and governance although, in lay man’s language they may appear one and the same. According to principles of political science, any institution which is empowered to take collectivized decisions can be considered as a government. The norm of democracy appreciates collectivized decision – making in any activity. However, ‘government’ is referred to as a formal institution which operates at a national level. The core function of government is to make law (legislation), implement law (execution), and interpret law (adjugation) (Heywood, 2010).
Governance is also described as the ‘process’ of interaction between formal and informal sectors on how to distribute and manage resources. While government is an entity or a body that exercises political authority and control, governance is a process. The word ‘Governance’ can be traced to the Greek verb ‘kubernan’ – which means to pilot or to steer. This was first used by Plato with regard to how to design a system of rule (Kjaer, 2004). In Medieval Latin, this word transforms itself to gubernere. Both words have the same connotation. So an interpretation of governance can be a process that pilots or steers, the navigator being the government.
Various groups of people within society, perceive governance and government differently. For example: Marxists and Feminist tend to treat government as a secondary political formation which operates within broader system of class politics (in case of Marxist view) or sexual politics (in case of feminist view). Scientific theories like system theory examine not the mechanisms of government but the structures and processes through which these interact with the larger society (Heywood, 2010).
Now it is very important to understand that all the classical definition of governance and government are presented within the context of ‘Civil Society’. The concept of civil society talks of a political community governed by law which is distinct from the state. This is because the civil society is a group of individuals in a political system who have grouped themselves on common traits, on certain ideas and beliefs etc. The concept of government and governance would cease to exist if the concept of ‘Civil Society’ did not exist. Often, civil society is also defined through a western viewpoint.
It is assumed in this definition of Civil Society, that liberties and equalities are generally present in a uniform kind of a society. Hence, to cross over the concept of governance and government and see where it fits in the Indian context is a bit of a challenge and a very puzzling endeavor. Let us imagine the expanse of the Indian Sub Continent from Kashmir to KanyaKumari. Besides the diversity in ethnicity, language and culture, there is diversity in beliefs, in values and in societal trends as well.
There are many social groups and each social group would have a different interpretation of Government and Governance. For instance, some agricultural societies in Nothern India may not believe in the formal agricultural sector of the government and may turn to the traditional system of landlords to get their issues resolved. There are many tribal societies in the subcontinent that have their own system of government, their own leader who is elected or becomes a leader because he wins a tribal competition.
The Pashtuns of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Waziristan in Pakistan have never been a part of the formal government institutions, neither during the colonial regime of the British, nor during the Pakistani Rule of 64 years. They have their own ‘Jirgah’ and elect their own leader and haven’t changed their system in decades. They have a MoU with the Pakistani Government that the state will not interfere in the domestic affairs of the province and the matters of the ‘jirgah’. Hence, such varied ideologies, make a bland and uniform concept of government and governance difficult to apply in traditional societies.
Internationally, the U N Commission on Global Governance gave the following definition: “Governance is the sum of many ways through which individuals & institutions, public or private manage their common affairs. It is continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co – operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to take decisions.” (U N Commission on Global Governance, 1995).
In the above definition we can see a clear line drawn between government and governance. The above definition is also a more all encompassing definition and doesn’t limit itself to the public domain. Hence, any institution, public or private can indulge in good governance. It is generally agreed in Global definitions that elements of good governance include a) Participation, b) Rule of Law, c) Transperancy, d) Responsiveness, e) Consensus from all stake holders, f) Equity and Inclusiveness, f) Effectiveness and g) Accountability. The litmus test to good governance is passed if the above norms are reflected in policy and decision making.
SHIFT FROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE:
The 74th amendment of the Indian Constitution tries to bring in the above norms through a process of ‘decentralized governance’. Until the 74th Ammendment, local governments in India were organized on the ‘Ultra Vires Principle’ and the state governments were free to extend or control the functional sphere through executive decisions without an amendment to the legislative provisions. The 74th Amendment Act of 1992 strengthens the ULBs, by giving them more powers and functions to operate as individual levels of government (Implementation of the 74th Constitutional Amendment. MoUD). There were ward committees created in the urban areas, there was an introduction of a two – tier system of governance at the ward level. To further goals of decentralization, the 74th amendment also provided for the creation of State Finance commission and State Election Commission (Areeba Hamid, 2004).
Because decentralization occurred, Urban Infra programs like the JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission), or the Mumbai Based SSP (Slum Sanitation program) were unveiled. There are many critiques of the process of decentralization but it is also true that by giving more decision making autonomy to the ULBs, the means of empowering the masses has been tapped. It is hard to figure out if the 74th amendment has any connection with furthering neo – liberal policies in India.
IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZED GOVERNANCE IN INDIAN SCENARIO:
All institutions have different ways of looking at the process of governance. The state doesn’t believe in a type of management that involves people typically. The Market looks at governance from a view that would lead to better efficiency but would also end up using exploitation of labour and resources in order to increase profitability. ‘Governance’ is still talked of as the efficient use and management of resources. Hence, there is no overall rule of thumb as to which body or which mechanism would deliver ‘good governance’. The methods applied would differ from situation to situation, from case to case. In some cases, it would be fruitful to involve the forces of market to get better efficiency and increase profitability.
A good example is the electronics and telecom industry in India. There was too much Government control in the telecom sector, which has made it inefficient (mainly due to monopoly), stalled transfer of modern technology, making technology inaccessible and the license raj discouraged private players from exploring the market. Disinvesting this sector, fulfilled the objectives of good governance. Today, technology has become very cheap, even the poor can afford buying mobile phones. While for college going students, it’s more about SMSing their friends, or keeping in touch with their girlfriends/ boyfriends, whereas to a fisherman going out in to the sea or a sabziwala going to the wholesale market, affordable mobile technology and telecom services is a facility which he had never availed of before.
In this sector too the key decisions have always been made by the Ministry of Telecom. But to operationalise goals, the private sector entities is involved. Moreover, the sector runs on the principle of free market rather than market control. The outcomes of giving so much freedom and accessibility to the private sector have undeniably had a positive impact.
In some cases, complete public sector control has been a very successful model of good governance. The success story of Indian Railways and BEST echoes this fact. While, in some cases, PPP models are very essential to be followed in order to maximize efficiency. Some models like the creation of Para – Statal agencies to make governance efficient are also an option that can be considered when looking at governance. CIDCO is a prime example of how the development of an entire township can be spearheaded by a para- statal body.
The entire endeavor of poverty alleviation and making slum free cities through models like the JNNURM, RAY, SRA are putting the intent of all the actors involved in the contemplation of these programs in to question. The inherent problem is not public – private partnership but in partnership with World Bank and IFIs. The terms and conditions laid down by them are not very conducive to the practice of good governance. The overall failure of the SSP (Slum Sanitation Program) in Mumbai is puts the intent of the IFIs (Inter – Financing Institutions) in to question.
The SSP (Slum Sanitation Program) was able to get deployed in Mumbai because of CBO formation and participation and the empowerment of the ULBs through the 74th amendment. The pre condition for the availability of credit to the SSP was that it should be a ‘Community Driven’ endeavour. The salient features of the first phase of SSP were that it was a Demand Driven Approach and the Slum Dwellers were treated as initiators and collaborators. The Slum Sanitation Program was attempting to provide sanitation to all of Mumbai’s slums through the three fold approach : Partnership, Participation and Cost Recovery. The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) was entrusted with contracting. They overshot the budget and had to rely on politcal connections in order to mobilize CBOs. The program hence ceased to be truly participatory in nature.
The aim of the program was to provide 1 toilet seat for every 50 people. The program was thought of as a shift from a model that is ‘state provision’ to a model that is participatory and demand driven in approach. The SSP program got funds from the State and the BMC got the credit from the World Bank and in turn provided and paid for water, sewer, & electricity connection and also provided land. Contractors and NGOs, Engineering firms were to build toilet blocks for the BMC, which would then be transferred to the CBO to maintain. The money put in would be recovered by providing a monthly pass to the slum dwellers for using the toilet facility. The SSP program had an approach didn’t take in to consideration the local political and economic conditions, especially the dynamics of politics in the slum areas of Mumbai.
SSP relied too heavily on the corporate principles of cost – recovery, O &M, etc and applied these to communities that do not have a faint idea of the heavily loaded terminology. SSP failed to gauge the diversity within the slum communities of Mumbai in terms of caste and religion and also the economic diversity and tried to have one uniform strategy and assumed it would work for all. The scheme was profit oriented in nature and the structural mechanisms it relied on were not formulated to provide maximum benefit to the poor. The approach of SPARC was very neo – liberal in nature. It is quite evident from such programs in India, that neo – liberalization has not solved the problem of urban sanitation in the Global South. An earlier view that market oriented procedures are fool proof and can deliver a developmental solution is brought under question since ‘good governance’ is not necessarily attached to a market process as has been discussed earlier. The fact that Indian government circles and the entire policy making apparatus actually bought this logic and implemented it comes forward as an example of bad governance and a lack of rationality in decision making.
PROBLEMS FACED IN INDIAN GOVERNANCE:
I have every reason to believe that governance was not a very successful story because India was not able to develop an indigenous model for governance. We tried to tailor existing models that had developed in isolation from our society. Earlier we believed that a Socialist System with government control will help realize societal objectives. Now, suddenly, we seem to have changed our opinion. Our lack of success with the earlier system has convinced us that liberalizing the economy and market intervention will help us get out of the quagmire of social and economic problems.
However, this may not be so, because, the systems borrowed from other societies may not adapt to the complexity of our problems. India, historically has always carried forward the concept of a welfare state. This was exemplified even in Monarchy during Emperor Asoka’s reign and throughout the Maurya, Gupta and Chola periods. A detailed study of the edicts of Ashoka done by experts and archeologists, show his intentions to create a welfare state on the principles of love, truth and non violence. Later on, post colonialism, when the country shifted to Democracy, the same principles were imbibed. Infact, even the emblem and the various signs of India’s democracy, which include our Ashok Chakra, and the Ashok Stambha show the noble inspirations of those who compiled our constitution. However, over a period of time, these ideals got weathered off and what came in to place was an overwhelming influence of red tapism and bureaucracy which was a remnant of a Colonial System. The ‘system’ of Governance is actually a western inspired one and it fails to integrate with the kind of value system that the policy makers had originally tried to fuse it with. In the Indian context, it is this paradox that needs to be solved.
The western inspired paradigm of governance may be structurally robust and use technology driven management solutions. Yet it may not be the best fit for India because these systems approach governance top down. They are not truly participatory in their inherent nature despite the claims of individual rights and freedom. If the participatory governance was inherent in western systems, then, in the U.S natives and black Americans would have got representation long back.
CONCLUSION:
It is very important that India does not blindly follow western models. Instead, Indian policy makers should take pains and fund research on inclusive policy and participatory governance. There has to be flexibility in the system to be able to involve all actors equally in order to deliver the goods of governance. But in order to do that, we must abandon fixed mindsets that have been persisting over the decades after independence. The practice of good governance will help build the trust of the people in government mechanisms and institutional structures. This trust will help empower these institutions and they will be in a better position to take the right and unbiased decisions.
I Conclude my Essay with the following words from our Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh:
“All systems of governance must be based on trust. It is the people’s trust that we in Government reflect and protect. Rampant distrust of all authority imperils the foundations of democracy. Our polity with its enormous size and diversity can only be held together when we put our faith and trust in institutions that we have carefully built over the years.”
REFERENCES:
• Governance, Anne Mette Kjaer, 2004, Polity press
• Key Concepts in Politics, Andrew Heywood, 2000, Palgrave
• Impact of 74th CAA, Consolidated Report.
• Report to the Water and Sanitation Program (WSP) and the World Bank, September 2005, Taru & Wedc.
• India Telecom 2009, Telecom for Inclusive Growth, December 3-5 2009, New Delhi, Department of Telecommunications,
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India.
• From Government To Governance: State of Art Review of Environmental Governance prepared for Alberta Environment,
Environmental Stewardship, Environmental Relations. De Loe R C Armitage, D Plummer, R Davidson, and Moraru, L 2009,
Rob De Loe Consulting Services.
• Upinder Singh (2008).A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th century. Pearson
education.
Aniket Navalkar is a Student Fellow with the Urban Aspirations in Global Cities Project. His current research project is titled, “Understanding the Catchment Area Parameter of Open Spaces in the Socio-Spatial Complexities of Mumbai”.’
UrbanAspirationsblog 