Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Accountability of the Lokpal

A lot has been argued that Lokpal will become a super body with enormous powers. I feel it is not about 'power' but 'ACCOUNTABILITY'. In order to curb massive corruption, we need a body that has some powers to operate smoothly and efficiently. Therefore, if proper mechanisms are put in place, the so called powerful body can be made accountable. Therefore, the following mechanisms can be used (iterated by NCPRI and IAC):

• Accountability regarding the accounts and other performance and financial matters – answerable to the Parliament, through the Public Accounts Committee, on the basis of financial and performance audits conducted by the CAG.
• Any complaint against the Lokpal or its members should lie in the Supreme Court.
• Annual Report of the Lokpal must be laid in the Parliament.
• Any orders passed by any bench of the Lokpal or any officer of the Lokpal shall be subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or Supreme Court.
• The Lokpal shall maintain complete transparency in its functioning and shall ensure that full records of any investigation or inquiry conducted under this Act after its conclusion is made public by being put on a public web site.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Reservations in Lokpal

In my opinion, it is an inadequate argument:

1. None of the other constitutional bodies have it.
2. The objective of the LokPal is not affirmative action but curbing corruption.
3. Only the meritorious people should occupy LokPal. So if an SC/ST/OBC/women is meritorious, he will automatically be eligible.
4. Performance of the LokPal will be judged by how effectively he curbs corruption. The victim can be a general/sc/st/obc/women category. It doesn't matter.
5. There is no bar for people from reserved category to occupy the LokPal membership.
6. It will create way for reservations in other posts as well and ultimately a big political tool and further division of our country.
7. Judiciary doesn't have reservations but still it is the strongest promoter of affirmative action.

Regards

Friday, December 16, 2011

Lokpal – Some areas of concern

Supremacy of Parliament
I feel this is a bogus argument put forward by our parliamentarians. When our constitution was being drafted, we chose to give supremacy to our constitution and not the Parliament as in the case of British system. De Lolme writes ‘British Parliament can do everything except, making a woman a man, or a man a woman’, which is not applicable in our case. The Indian Parliament is supreme only when it comes to framing of laws and therefore overrides any ordinance, rule, guidelines framed by the executive. The Constitution starts with “We The People…” which implies that the constitution derives its authority from the people. If at any point of time there is a difference of opinion between the Parliament and the People at large, the wishes of the people take the precedence. Hence, People are supreme.
Moreover, any legislation by the Parliament can be struck down by the courts.

Can Lokpal be the Panacea?
No one claims that Lokpal is the solution to all the ills of our society as far as corruption is concerned. Not even Team Anna. But if it can’t be a panacea, does it mean that we don’t need a lokpal? Absolutely not. In any act of corruption, there is a demand side and a supply side. Demand side is often characterized by Politicians and bureaucrats and supply side characterized by people/corporates. Ideally, both demand and supply side needs to be tackled simultaneously but if we choose one, then it has to be the demand side first. This is because if people at large choose not to pay bribes to get their work done, there would be delays in getting the work done or at times refusal if bribe is not paid. So act on demand side first and Lokpal is the best first step for it.

Including the entire Bureaucracy
It is preferable to include the entire bureaucracy because corruption many a times is a collusive act where many people at various levels are involved. We often hear about lower officials saying “upar saab ko bhi dena padta hai”. And once proper structures are established and some sort of deterrence is created with ‘speedy’ and ‘sure’ punishment, we may not require a heavy bureaucracy to prevent corruption.

Independence of CBI
It is one of the core issues that can’t be compromised. A CBI independent of the Government and not totally independent is the need of the hour. Independence does not mean no accountability.This has been upheld by the Hon’bl Supreme Court umpteen number of times. This will also do away with SC monitoring investigations as in the case of 2G scam.

Selection of important posts
It has been aptly said “Either you recruit right or train right”. Therefore any such selection of important posts be it that of Director CBI or Director of Prosecution, must involve the government, opposition, civil society, Judges, lokpal chairperson and in such a way that in no way the people against whom the CBI is expected to act i.e., politicians, bureaucracy and judiciary, should be more than half the number of members in the selection panel.

Investigative Agency
It must be CBI because it is a professional agency engaging in the same for the last so many years. The infrastructure, though inadequate as compared to FBI, is well laid out. Moreover, any new agency created will have to start from scratch requiring people to be trained. The infrastructure takes time to develop and it may end up like other agencies which are not able to perform as per their potential because of manpower shortages, lack of skilled personnel and deficient infrastructure such as Competition Commission of India, Central Information Commission etc.

Lokayuktas
The Lokpal Bill must provide for the lokayuktas as well. The overall framework must be the same as the central lokpal so that there is uniformity in all the states. This will also provide for harmony between the central and state laws. Also, otherwise it will become very difficult to request to every state or raise protests against for such an agency.

‘My way or the highway’
Team Anna has been often accused of this. It must be noted that on core issues – independence of CBI, lokayuktas etc, there can’t be any compromise. You can’t treat the disease partially. Therefore, the team is right on being rigid on core issues. On the appropriate mechanism, there can be dilution but that must not be seen weakening of the Lokpal.

‘Either you are with us or you support corruption’
This is a false propaganda put forward by some people, especially some journalist. Firstly, these people don’t have any alternative idea/structure of Lokpal. They come on the TV sets, criticize government’s draft for 30 seconds and then speak for 20 odd minutes against Team Anna. This forces many of the people to brand these people as supporting corruption. They have been writing for many years in reputed newspapers/magazines but have failed to arouse any kind of awareness against corruption. Moreover, many of the newspapers/magazines with which they are associated cater to middle classes.

Role of Media
Watching TV debates will tell you that the knowledge level of many of the journalists and that too of reputed media channels is so low that they end up asking panelists as to whether they require independence of CBI. There are some issues on which there can not be any Yes or No. This also supports the argument made by Justice Katju that many of the journalists have no idea of political, economic, social theory. The Media, being one of the pillars of democracy, will have to be responsible in facilitating such debates.

Finally, the problem today is that the systems in our country have failed, more so when it comes to the accountability mechanism envisaged by our founding fathers. When there have been three-sixty degree changes all around, especially post-globalization, the governance, characterized by status-quo, has failed to keep pace with the society as well as global trends. In the times to come, a strong Lokpal should be our first step towards rectifying this lacuna.

Regards

Friday, November 18, 2011

Civil Services Examinations: A Blueprint for Reforms


In this rapidly changing world, every sector of our economy is witnessing reforms or is perhaps calling for reforms in order to keep pace with the volatile environment. Administrative sub-system, being an ‘open system’, also has to renovate and rejuvenate itself constantly. Otherwise if left to itself, will drag itself towards entropy or simply degeneration. Amidst this, a number of reforms have been put forward by the government for the civil services but one area that has escaped drastic change is the civil services examination itself. Though, a change in the form of introduction of Civil Services Aptitude Test (CSAT) and scrapping of Optional subject in the preliminary examination has been attempted this year, a comprehensive overhaul may justify the step taken. This article attempts to overview the examination process and suggests some changes.

From the last few years, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has been trying to move away from rote learning to an application based conceptual understanding. This can be judged from the type of questions asked in the recent years. This is a welcome step because the earlier pattern gave undue advantage to candidates who have been preparing for some time. Presently, a candidate has to answer questions worth 300 marks in 3 hours. This breaks down to 6 minutes for every 10 marks (100 words). This does not include time wasted for signing for admit card, extra sheets and the occasional water break. Now when the questions have become more conceptual and analytical that requires more application of mind, it becomes difficult to put forward your point of view in a structured manner in the required time limit without compromising on the quality of the answer. As a result, candidates attempt initial answers carefully but have to speed up at the end. Though time management is the key to this examination, the present time limit seems insufficient. The solution can be that the number of questions can be reduced and the candidate be asked to give a structurally and conceptually balanced answer and marks given strictly on the basis of the quality of answers.

Secondly, there is an urgent need to update the syllabus and make it detailed as well. Many of the present issues for the administration must be included. For example, in Public Administration, International Affairs, Environment, International agencies, Communitisation etc can be included. Moreover, topics like regulatory authorities, disaster management should be detailed as these are huge topics in themselves. A candidate can’t be expected to know everything about the topics. Though, few years back some changes were brought about in the syllabus, this has to be a regular process as issues change as the time flows.

Thirdly, UPSC has also been trying, successful to some extent, to discourage students from joining and relying on coaching institutes. These institutes have been quite successful in inculcating rote learning in the students and this has even helped candidates to enter civil services without having the inherent zeal towards public service. The present change in the pattern of examination though tries to prevent candidates to join these institutes, it unconsciously is forcing many to do the same. By creating more uncertainty as to what kind of questions will come, the candidates are ever more leaning towards coaching teachers. This can be tackled by publishing some model answers of past year question papers. In GMAT (test for MBA examinations), Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC), that conducts GMAT, publishes standard answers for the retired past year questions. So a candidate can know how the test makers think. Similarly, UPSC can form a team of academicians and come out with model answers so that candidates can understand what the examiner looks for in the answers and therefore can prepare on his own. Ofcourse, these answers should only be tentative. In the same way, some standard sources must be listed for every subject so that in case of divergent views in different books, candidate can rely on only the official source.

Fourthly, the issue also props up whether the exam tests the candidates on the traits that are expected of an administrator. It would be pertinent to talk about Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) that argued for scrapping of optional subjects and substitute them with common papers of General Studies that would comprise Economy, Constitution, Law, History, Geography etc. This is again a welcome initiative as some of the optional subjects do not test administrative traits at all. Infact, it has also been argued that many of the pressing issues such as land acquisition, civil society, Black money have not been asked. Therefore, the recommendations of SARC are worth following in this regard. Infact, papers like English and Indian language must also be tuned to what can be actually predict administrative qualities.

Fifthly, it is well noted that not all who take the examinations become civil servants. Those who miss even by few marks are not drastically different from those who get selected. Many of these candidates start coaching centers and this answers the flourishing of coaching centers. Government can take steps by inviting candidates who have taken Main examination to join other sectors. The marks of Main exam can be a criteria followed by an interview by the concerned department. This has already been done by Sports Authority of India (SAI). This can be extended for other comparable jobs.

It is no doubt, civil services examinations are the toughest examination in our country. Our administrators selected by way of these exams have done exceptional work in public sphere. This is the same civil service which was considered to be the ‘Steel Frame’ during the British Raj. When reforms have been the answer on all fronts, some changes in the examination process and pattern can better justify the response of administrative system towards the environment.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Catch ‘Em Young


Amidst all the outrage over corruption, one entity that has not caught much of the attention in the public debates is the bureaucracy, esp. the higher bureaucracy. Considered as the ‘Steel Frame’ during the British Raj, Bureaucracy was ‘predicted’ to be inadequate for the newly independent India until Sardar Patel vocally supported it. Since then, many Committees and Commissions have given recommendations that have tried to uproot the bureaucracy from its status quo-ist inclination. The two Commissions viz. First Administrative Reforms Commission (FARC) and Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) are worth mentioning as they dealt with comprehensive analysis and restructuring of the administration.

In one of the reports of SARC – ‘Refurbishing of Personnel Administration – Scaling new heights’, there is a suggestion of a new type of recruitment procedure for the civil services. The Report talks about two proposals – Post School recruitment system and Post-school grooming for Public services. The essence of both the suggestions is that administrators be recruited at a young age by putting the age limit of 21 to 25 years with usual relaxations for reserved candidates. The main reasons given are:
1. At a young age, the mind is open and receptive to values of public service whereas at a late age the mindset is already entrenched and the person is set in his views.
2. Recruiting at a young age would allow the candidate to reach higher levels of Bureaucracy where he can give his vital inputs towards policy formulation (given his expertise and experience developed all throughout his career) and hence it would lead to better realization of his potential.
The Arguments given for the above proposals are commendable but there are few notes of dissent before such a step is considered.

Firstly, the report assumes that the special institutes i.e., National Institutes of Public Administration (NIPA) and other selected institutes, that are being proposed to be established would be successful in creating the ‘ethos’ and skills desired of a public servant which will guarantee a successful career in the civil services. Practical experience says that our education system has failed to deliver be it on the grounds of inadequate policies or ineffective implementation. If that is the case, what is the guarantee that the NIPAs would be qualitatively so much better than any other institutes, infact even than the IITs and IIMs (which are few of the institutions that are recognized globally). Many critics also argue that ‘ethos’ is not something that develops in 3-4 years i.e., the time when the person is in NIPA. Early childhood has a greater role to play in the grooming of an individual. So structuring a vibrant education system should be the priority of policy makers and implementers.

Secondly, it can also be ‘inferred’ that recruiting at a younger age also gives a chance to the system to mould the malleable candidates as per the needs of the system. But it must also be understood that the system, presently, is craving for reforms. Many former bureaucrats and academicians have talked about not only an entire overhaul of the archaic laws but also of the entire system- be it political, economic or administrative. There is a fear that a person under the garb of diseased parts of the system may become a ‘Yes Man’ who may hesitate to give his dissent on the issues which go against the larger interest of the society. Often analysts talk about the degrading ethical moral levels of the society (refer the recent judgment of Supreme Court on the Euthanasia case) and the competitive politics being played in the country which often looks for short term interests. In this case, there is a fear that bureaucracy, over a period of time, may be hijacked by the very status quo-ist system, maneuvering the bureaucracy as per its own interests.

Thirdly, when the maturity factor is taken into consideration, not many of the people attain maturity (quite a subjective term) at a young age, perhaps at around 21 years when the person is just out of his college. Maturity is generally defined with respect to the social interactions a person has. Administration is one such profession where the decisions you take have larger implications for the society and moreover the person starts taking these value laden decisions the moment he comes onto the field. In the present system, many of the candidates joining civil services have a working experience in different organizations which greatly helps them when they become a part of the esteemed civil services.

Fourthly, as far the present criteria is concerned, it is already having a three-layer check (Preliminary, Mains and Personal Interview) which can look for the desired ethos in the candidates and with the major changes already done in the syllabus and the pattern of the examination, in the form of civil services aptitude test and nature of questions asked, the examination is beginning to inch closer to the new challenges and values required of an administrator.

Fifthly, when the Union Public Service Commission has already moved towards an aptitude test (aptitude being defined as a combination of characteristics indicative of an individual’s capacity to acquire, with training, some specific knowledge or skill or a set of organized responses)the crux of which is that the candidate must have the administrative aptitude so that he can keep himself flexible all the times and mould himself as per the dynamic environment he finds himself in, the assumption of older students not easily accepting new values may not arise.

Sixthly, regarding the assumption that older candidates may not be able to reach higher levels, where their potential, experience and expertise can be better realized for policy making, may also have a solution. From other recommendations of SARC, it has been highlighted that merit system be promoted and a closer scrutiny on performance should be the norm. If this is so, a meritorious candidate regardless of his age would be able to reach any level. This will be a win-win situation both for the government and the candidate.

From the above arguments, it should not be deciphered that the recommendations of SARC are not justified. These reports are infact a gold mine of suggestions. But before going for any piecemeal changes, systemic reforms should be introduced so that if and when a person enters the system, these ethos and values become a source of inspiration not only for the administrators but for many who feel bureaucracy is one such institution which has stood the test of time.

The article can be read here as well:
http://www.wisdomblow.com/?p=2343