Gaps in governance

COVID-19 has created a much more uncertain world. We know that we are entering a new phase in human history but its contours are vague. Some trends are clear. In dealing with the challenge of the pandemic and its consequences, states across the world have assumed more powers, some for legitimate purposes but often to escape both responsibility and accountability. It is important to understand that the failure of governance cannot be made up by agencies of State assuming greater and discretionary authority over citizens. Quite to the contrary, the ability to deal with the pandemic or any other future crisis may be severely undermined unless the weaknesses in governance system are acknowledged and addressed with a sense of urgency. The current crisis has created an opportunity to undertake this precisely because it has created a sense of urgency and a pervasive yearning for change. Long-festering political and social fault lines are out in the open. This is true of the demand for racial justice in the US, or the acute awareness of the social and economic inequities papered over for decades. The message for governments from their people is compelling: the enhanced power of the State must be marshalled towards addressing these fault lines.

An interventionist State must be a caring State, recognising its primary responsibility to provide all its citizens with health, education, safety and security without discrimination. The only kind of strong and stable State in the future will be one fully committed to the welfare of all its citizens. The challenge is not in the political embrace of this concept of welfare State. After all, is not that what PM Modi’s ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’ slogan conveys? It lies in having governance structures and processes which are appropriate to and capable of translating the concept into reality. The temptation to bypass institutions of governance and processes established by law must be resisted but this is becoming the norm rather than the exception in India.

Most governance institutions have in-built procedures for dealing with crisis situations. For example, the Crisis Management Group (CMG) is headed by the Cabinet Secretary, who is the senior-most civil servant in the country. If and when a crisis occurs, he convenes the CMG, for which he needs no authorisation. The CMG includes all key stakeholders in government, who enjoy executive power in their own respective institutions. Once the CMG takes a decision, implementation in a coordinated manner follows. The Cabinet Secretary keeps the political leadership informed so that the broader political questions and a few key decisions may be taken at that level. The leadership is thus freed from day-to-day interventions on myriad issues. The impression one has is that the tried-and-tested institutional structure has been sidelined and there is a top-down style of functioning that is unable to manage a rapidly changing situation. Decision-making then becomes whimsical, with the role of the professional civil servant and experts reduced to providing validation for what has already been decided by the political leadership rather than render advice based on objective assessment, expertise and experience.

This is not to suggest that institutions of governance and the quality of professional personnel do not suffer from infirmities and should be reformed. The pandemic has, in fact, many such infirmities. However, it is better to reform existing institutions rather than supplant them with new ones which will take time to settle down, develop their own norms and systems and recruit and train managerial and technical personnel. Nor can ad hoc discretionary decision-making rise to a complicated challenge. Existing institutions have the advantage of institutional memory, a pool of experience which could be reoriented towards new tasks, and, most importantly, have both institutional, and often even legal accountability. There may be cases where a new institution may have to be set up, for example, to deal with a new domain such as cyber security, or adopt ‘mission mode’, a favourite of bureaucrats, for more effective implementation of a specific project.

In implementing various administrative measures, particularly controls over market, such as subsidies or incentives or those designed to regulate social behaviour, passing an order or announcing a regulation is only the first and easy step. If institutions of governance are not equipped to deliver subsidies or to extend incentives, or if these involve very cumbersome paperwork, results may be perverse. They may create arbitrage opportunities which distort the market and encourage illegal and even criminal behaviour. The same is true of regulation of social behaviour. Unless the State has in place the capacity to enforce such regulation, it may end up undermining its credibility. This is evident across the country today, in the open flouting of social distancing norms. It is better not to adopt such measures rather than end up with chaotic scenes which we have been witnessing across the country. There has been a virtual flood of administrative measures announced daily, some contradictory and unenforceable. This creates a perception of a State not in control of an admittedly complex situation. The assumption of greater authority by the State is only succeeding in undermining its credibility.

Strong leadership may achieve wonders but leadership without credibility risks becoming a farce. Leadership needs to work through a talented and committed team whose members are ready to take responsibility. The temptation to bypass institutions and violate established procedures must be resisted and resorted to only in extreme cases, and then, too, with transparent explanation. This discipline is more important in a developing country and indispensable in a democracy.