S.NARENDRA, a former principal information officer to the Government of India, who closely worked with four prime ministers, as spokesperson of the Government of India, and later in the Planning Commission as Principal Adviser, and is a regular columnist in this magazine, writes the UPA government in Delhi suffers from not just ‘governance deficit’ but a fundamental trust deficit too. Without acknowledging and working to remove this deficit, the government is trying to show that it is a

government that works just by announcing a slew of so-called ‘big ticket reforms’ aimed at buying silence from business and industry that has been critical of its slow decision-making process, the way we are governed.

   Recently, a newspaper gossip column told us that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was exercised about the widespread negative perception that the government’s decision- making had come to a halt. And he asked the cabinet secretary to take a meeting of secretaries to government for getting them work on two most important policy/programmes from each ministry and speedy decisions on them.

   In a professorial absent- mindedness, Dr Singh let out the cause of the drift and relative paralysis of the decision-making machinery, while speaking on the occasion of the second anniversary of UPA II in June this year: “Soniaji aur Rahulji hameh aadesh dethe rahe, aur ham unko paalan karte rahe” (Soniaji and Rahulji keep giving us directions (orders, if you like), and we will implement them). Realising the import of what he said, the prime minister quickly corrected himself and said: ’hame sujhava (in place of aadesh) dethe rahe, aur hameh unko------“ (they will advise us and we will do the needful)

   In mid-November the Textiles Minister announced over Rs6000 package for weavers in response to Rahul Gandhi’s urgings. If the gossip column had a grain of truth, it is a cause for worry on two counts. First, the prime minister’s concern was with perception, not with the way his political and administrative machinery was performing. Second, his response was technocratic. It was not that of a political leader, who means business and carries political weight.

   In another news bit, Dr. Singh was inadvertently candid and let out what is ailing his government. The third new bit shows that Dr. Singh’s ministers look for external political cues to act and are incapable of fulfilling their ministerial responsibilities on their own. In this case, the Textile ministry has a dedicated bureaucracy for looking after the employment-intensive handloom sector bristling with problems. Yet it had to be goaded by party general secretary to offer a huge relief package to weavers. The decision, even if merited, raises a suspicion that it was a political sop.

   Diarchies, that is, two centers of power, have demonstrated their dysfunctional nature. In UPA -I, the National Advisory Council (NAC), headed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, was the fountain-head of authority. NAC remained in poll campaign mode even after the poll victory. This, along with the left party partners in UPA-I coalition, ensured that the government did not suffer from post-poll amnesia about its promises to the aam admi. It led the government in delivering ‘aam admi” focused social sector and social engineering programmes –RTI, NREGS, OBC reservation, NRHM and such others. The predecessor NDA, in its singular focus on economic growth, benefitting mostly the top in the income ladder, had created a space that the UPA-I agenda attempted to take advantage of.

   Once NAC ran out of its campaign fervour, weaknesses in the governance leadership began to prominently surface, particularly in the penultimate stages of UPA-I tenure. If evidence of an inherent structural infirmity was needed, a rude warning came in the form of paralysis of central and Congress-ruled Maharashtra state machinery when a handful of terrorists struck Mumbai in November 2008.

   And this weakness has got amplified in the successor avatar of UPA-II.NAC in post 2009 phase is a pale shadow of its first edition and is plugging its aam admi agenda with much less conviction.NAC may be equipped to envision aam admi political agenda but not an agenda for driving economic growth.

   This brief recall is essential for examining what has come to be known as ‘Governance deficit’. Both governance and its deficit mean vastly different things to different sections in a polity with sharp inequalities, exacerbated by the economic reforms introduced in 1991. For example, during the BJP- led NDA regime, this deficit was largely felt by ‘Bharat, the unskilled, landless, semi literate, and the rural sector .However, this ‘deficit’ went largely unnoticed by the political and business class and corporatized media benefitting from the regime’s overemphasis on economic growth.

   Dr. Singh’s second inning as prime minister from the word go has been stuck on a sticky wicket. Partly it is because of his party and government’s knack for shooting themselves in the foot. Another contributing factor is that the team captain is looking to the coach for directions and approval.

   Remarkably, Dr.Singh has not been able to match his record in external affairs with his leadership on domestic affairs, especially in matters that squarely belong to the central sphere. He willingly carried forward some ghosts from UPA-I, such as 2G scam and its main perpetrator.

   When all hell was breaking over the appointment of CVC. P.J. Thomas, an ex-Telecom secretary, the prime minister did not rise up early to end the controversy. When a Telecom minister wants sovereign powers in giving licences and spectrum, bypassing the cabinet’s collective responsibility, the prime minister’s office agrees to it.

Dr.Singh has not been able to match his record in external affairs with his leadership on domestic affairs, especially in matters that squarely belong to the central sphere.

   The government’s ineptitude became a media spectacle when it was dealing with Anna Hazare’s and Swami Ramdev’s fasts against corruption and black money abroad. Dr.Singh’s position on the contents of the Lokpal Bill was left under a question mark, even while media reported that Rahul Gandhi was in favour of making the Lokpal a constitutional authority and the office of PM could be covered under the institution. For every ticklish issue or a problem requiring cabinet coordination, there was GoM or group of ministers, under a politico for all seasons-Pranab Mukherjee.

   Or, alternatively the Planning Commission to set up a study group or NAC for policy guidance. For the first time the government is experimenting with outsourcing political vision and leadership. Is India entering a dark age of high stake politics that is played without ideology?

   What signal the council of ministers supposed to work under the leader and the officials receive from all this routine? When Corporate India‘s leading figures write a letter pointing to the governance and policy paralysis, the prime minister looks to the cabinet secretary to energize the bureaucracy for changing the perception of action freeze .One does not know why the prime minister could not convene a closed door meeting of his larger ministerial council to convey that he wants the government to work, and not a cosmetic makeover. It is notable that NAC did not come into the picture.

   The corporate honchos who jointly wrote the letter have done a great service by pointing to the politics of confrontation that has rendered India’s political democracy dysfunctional. This influential section had to write not one but more letters to gain attention. The second letter written to the prime minister in January 2011, pleads for urgent action on:

   growing governance deficit;

   galloping corruption (not just episodic graft like 2G but day-to-day corruption);

   urgent need to distinguish between ‘dissent’ and disruption;

   environmental challenges.

The letter emphasizes that ‘Disruption inside parliament and outside is socially debilitating and erodes public confidence’. It goes to strongly condemn the nexus between certain corporates, politicians, bureaucrats and power-brokers’ and suggests enactment of an anti- bribery law similar to the one in Britain.    The contents of the letter are unprecedented as they point toward the lack of access of the common man (the poor) to constitutional remedies, due to judicial delays. The emphasis is on governance, transparency and accountability    For the first time focus is on the governing political system that includes the executive, legislature (political parties), the administrative support system and the civil society. It does

Yeshwant Sinha

not exempt corporate India that wields humongous influence behind doors on public policy.

   India is passing through very difficult times in a globalised world. While the country’s economic growth rate is next only to China, it is still far lower than its potential. As the world economy is depressed, there is negative news from everywhere and such bad news is good for generating more bad news. Often recession is fed on negative sentiment. The letter asks the corporate leaders to give up their sense of victimhood and create a sense of optimism and confidence. Should not this message also go to the political parties?

   This timely and thoughtful letter that looks at governance beyond the boundaries of government has sadly evoked a depressing response of selfdenial from the government, the ruling party and the BJP.

   Yeshwant Sinha, in a letter reproduced in the Economic Times, more or less has asked the business leaders to mind their own business. Azim Premji, who had written a separate letter on the same theme, has almost been rebuffed. Speaking to NDTV from Davos, Premji has called for early action on black money stowed in foreign banks.

   A visionary ruling and opposition leadership would have seized the opportunity created by the letters and converted into political capital. A few of the captains of industry and business are stretching their hands for forging a partnership in improving the broader meaning of governance that meets the expectation of a wider constituency. They have risen above the usual business chambers’ narrow charter for sops that tends to divide societies.

Azim Premji

After the Wall Street greed took the capitalism -led economies to cleaners, there are critical questions about capitalism and free market. The path breaking letter from the Indian business leaders in many ways asks for introspection on the part of capitalism’s messengers and priests and suggests correctives like open auction of government contracts and embracing ‘inclusive growth’ mantra in letter and spirit.    The government seems to have sprung into action to ward off the ‘perception. In calculated media leaks the government, while its leader was away in Bali, Indonesia, has conveyed that it would swiftly move for ‘big ticket reforms’ that were pending before it. These related to allowing FDI in airlines (a bail out), in retail and clearances of large investment projects. Intention to take action on these was contained in President Pratibha Patil’s address to the

budget session in February this year but decisions had to be forced out of the government. In the case of entry of FDI in airlines and retail one sees the footprint of corporate influence. If the Congress and the opposition care for governance, they would have demanded that independent regulators precede the FDI clearances in controversial areas.

   In its hurry to fix the perception problem, the government may be biting more than it can chew. It failed in observing the basic needs of smooth governance by having the formality of consultation with the main parliamentary opposition that has a constituency of traditional’ kirana’ outlets who feel threatened. Nor did it show the courtesy of discussion with its erstwhile ally- CPI/CPM, pathologically opposed to economic opening.

   In the opening up of the retail, that has to operate in states, the ground was not prepared by holding discussions with the state governments. Large format Indian retail such as Reliance Fresh had faced street protests and had to slow down implementation of their expansion plans. The Centre and the prospective retail investors had a golden opportunity of gaining the support from farmers and urban consumers but did not utilize the ample time they had for the purpose. The beneficiaries and the corporatized media will cheer the decision-making ability of the government, but does this represent 'governance'?

   Governance in India’s federal polity has a specific states' context. More often than not federal global vision and benign policies and programmes have floundered on the rocks of states' implementation. The state level leadership, with few honorable exceptions, functions in a very local electoral politics. Rent seeking or using enormous discretionary powers and politically hijacking centrally funded programmes for personal profit are widespread. PDS, NREGS and many others have fallen victims to this.

   Anti-poverty, health and education, rural development, industrial development and broader governance issues cannot make any progress without the combined leadership and partnership of the Centre and States. Delhi is no longer able to radiate its moral influence. Nor is it in a position to ask for accountability of centrally funded programmes. This is because states ruled by its own party are derelict in their performance.

Mukesh Ambani of Reliance has asked for central and state governments to align and move a lot faster. The Planning commission, in its 12th Plan approach document, has also spoken of the “governance deficit” as responsible for central mega pro-poor scheme outlays not producing expected outcomes at the states' end.    When growth and development are being discussed in the ‘Centre vs. state,’ ‘my party vs. your party’ accusatory idiom tailored for local electoral politics and politics of identity, such calls for freeing governance from politics fall on deaf ears.    Both from the federal and state governments a few sporadic and high profile programmes have been launched for improving governance in some specific sectors. In 1997, the fad was to make every central department put out a ‘Citizens Charter’. Such a charter was expected

Mukesh Ambani

to specify the service and its delivery quality to be made known to users. It degenerated into a publicity gimmick with tall and vague promises, not backed by accountability and penalties for not fulfilling the promise.

   In the UK, where the citizens charter was first introduced, the charter works because the government employee works and adheres to it. Failure has a cost.

   When I visited the tax department (in Britain) to file a return and discussed with a junior official my case seeking some clarifications, he informed me that I can expect a reply within 10 days. Three days later, I received a point-wise summary of what we had discussed and the commitment to send a reply by a certain date. The response arrived on time and I did not have to make many trips to the office concerned. An excabinet secretary, Naresh Chandra once told a meeting of secretaries that public transport is crowded because either commuters are visiting or returning from a government office for minor things.

Nitish Kumar

When living in Singapore, I applied for water and electricity connection to my home and received a computer printout of time and date of service delivery. The Indian embassy tried to use its diplomatic status to shortcircuit the process but did not succeed. And the service was delivered as specified.    Now, I was to register a rent contract in Haryana. The entire registration procedure had been computerized and biometric technology employed. Yet I needed a lawyer to open the doors of the computer room where I was subjected to biometric system that cost me an extra Rs5000/.    As Fred W. Riggs writes, even sophisticated technologies don’t travel linear but deviate at an acute angle, like light passing through water. This refraction effect (cost) is not reckoned by people who advocate e-solutions as a panacea for political - bureaucratic apathy.

   In Bangalore, e-governance works. One can pay anywhere all kinds of bills 24x7 through ‘Bangalore One’ outlets that dot the city. The new government of Karnataka has initiated a new citizen’s charter on the lines of the one that works in UK: time specific delivery and penalties for non-compliance. Is it too much to expect this to happen in Mayawati’s Uttar Pradesh, Gehlot’s Rajasthan, and the rest of India?

   Nitish Kumar in Bihar and Narendra Modi in Gujarat got their mandate renewed on good governance and development plank. Surprisingly, the main national parties have not put forward such an agenda. Can the Union government start taking a few small steps like the Finance Minister ensuring timely payment of tax refunds, and penalising erring officials for delays? Can the Union health minister ensure that the CGHS or central health government cards issued to a very small number of officials given by the outsourced agency without errors?

Governance means caring for details, micro efforts contributing to larger picture, like gentle brush stroke dipped in paint contributing to a work of art. The ordinary Indian who walks to the poll booth and exercises his democratic right will heave a sigh of relief when this actually happens. He may also forgive charges of malfeasance leveled against political leaders.    Affluent societies and their polity have managed this aspect of governance very well. As a result, people put up with political and administrative shenanigans. Of course, they can expect “Occupy Wall Street “protests when top 1% per cent takes home 80% of income. Corporate India’s letter anticipates this danger and has asked the government to address this aspect.

Narendra Modi

   Dr.Singh’s government or its successors may move fast forward actions on any number of so-called second generation economic reforms and push economic growth, with inevitable trickle down effect. If the cake is large, every one will get some portion, though unequal. Efficient government is not always equated with good governance. The envisaged perception managing effort now under way does not take into account the fundamental sickness affecting the image and reputation of the Congress and its government.

Governance means caring for details, micro efforts contributing to larger picture, like gentle brush stroke dipped in paint contributing to a work of art. The ordinary Indian who walks to the poll booth and exercises his democratic right will heave a sigh of relief when this actually happens.

   Higher economic growth does not always mean good governance.NDA paid the price for its India Shining focus. Governance deficit is not the same as “trust deficit’.

   An Australian University research on relationship between growth and good governance in Asia has concluded: “notwithstanding its tremendous economic achievements, the state of governance in Asia is not stellar by international comparison. Indeed, the majority of these countries seem to suffer from a governance deficit.”

   Second, contrary to our expectations, data do not suggest any strong positive link between governance and growth;paradoxically, countries that exhibit surpluses in governance on average grew much slower than those with deficit.”

   The challenge before this government is how during the remainder of its term it could reduce the trust deficit. Economic growth figures, as mentioned, would not go to save UPA-II. Its leadership, while moving for effective governance, has to work towards occupying larger and larger common space. Fortunately, its main opposition, BJP, or identity politics riders, do not aim for it. Without overcoming the trust deficit, this common ground will remain elusive.