By Introduction
In the most basic sense democracy denotes the direct or indirect election of a supervising body with the fundamental features of justice, liberty, equality, rule of law, etc. However, democracy in its modern sense should include all of that and other modern features such as transparency, decentralization, public participation, etc. The success or failure of a democratic mechanism depends on these essential elements. Such features add to the effectiveness and efficiency, along with meeting people expectations in a democracy.
People’s power reigns above all in a democracy. The legislature and the executive are trusted with these powers. Towards the latter half of the 20th century, the meaning and definition of democracy changed according to the times. Democracy now is a much more holistic view which oversees cultural and social aspects as well. Gone are the days when the meaning of a democracy was just adults exercising their right to vote. Democracy is a continuously evolving concept and has also become a way of life in today’s time.
Democracy as a way of life centers around respecting and acknowledging another human personality. It denotes an environment where everyone is provided with opportunities to develop and nurture themselves and contribute back to society for its welfare. It also means that criticism as long as justified, should be encouraged. Democracy as form of government means that the government is merely a representation of their citizens and that all citizens have the right to participate in it along with enjoying their civil liberties.
Tawney rightly pointed out that democracy just as political system is destined for failure[1]. What this means is that democracy means so much more and that it also includes socio-economic ideals. Democracy should not be viewed as means to an end but rather an end itself as popular sovereignty and natural rights form the very backbone of a democratic society.
Webster’s Dictionary defines governance as the act of governing or exercising authority. The two aspects of governance are the exercise of power and the delivery of public goods and services. Depending on the nature of these 2 aspects; a form of governance can be classified as good or bad.
The concept of good governance has been present in India from its ancient times. The concept of “Dharma” signified good and responsible governance towards the people by the ruler. During the freedom struggle the lines between self-government and good governance was blurred and it began to mean one and the same thing. Post-independence, the Constitution of the country clearly stated, “secure to all its citizens‟ justice social, economic and political”. This line in general encapsulates the meaning and essence of good governance. Although not enforceable by law, the directive principle of state policy too encourages the implementation of good governance. Some of the requirements listed are as follows:
- A social order for the promotion of the welfare of all people.
- Right to adequate means of livelihood for all men and women.
- Higher level of public health and nutrition, etc.
The United Nations Directive Principles lists the following as indicators of weather good governance is being practiced or not:
1. Participation – Participation by both men and women is the cornerstone on which foundations of good governance is built upon.
2. Rule of Law – Legal frameworks need to enforce laws impartially.
3. Transparency – Information must be freely available and policy decisions must be made in the interest of the population at large.
4. Responsiveness – This requires all stakeholders to be served efficiently in a timely manner.
5. Consensus Orientation – All differences must be mediated in order to serve the larger interest of the population.
6. Equity – All members of society must feel must be involved accordingly. Special provisions should be made for the vulnerable groups.
7. Effectiveness and Efficiency – Expectations of the public must be made while using sustainable resources
8. Accountability – All government agents must be help accountable to the public and the agency stakeholders.
The World Bank in its Governance and Development report of 1992 stated that good governance is a symbol of how government is exercising its power in managing socio-economic development. It realised that is essential to practice good governance in order to create an atmosphere of strong and equitable growth and progress. It points towards the same indicators as listed out by the UNDP in regards to good governance.
The opposite of good governance being poor governance; is characterised by non-participation from large sections of the population, a bureaucracy that is not held accountable for its actions, corruption, etc.
The government must also ensure that all fundamental rights of the citizens are being protected in the purse of the goals mentioned above. Things have taken a turn away from the idealistic principles of good governance as “politics” became to be viewed more as profession than as a way of service to the state. As a result, the non-political agents in the government machinery suffered.
Hence, it is no secret anymore that ideals of “democracy” and “good governance” have risen to become benchmarks in regards to development in all spheres in a civil society. But what exactly are these ideals? If we were to group the two words together, it refers to a liberal democratic political system which protects and enforces basic human and civil rights with the help of an efficient and transparent public administration[2]. It went along the lines of the modernization theory that emerged in the 1960’s. This theory suggested that the western economic and political (liberalism) models aided in promoting world peace as well as generate healthy economic growth[3].Hence it was naturally assumed that that a certain degree of economic and social progress was necessary to cement the emergence of a liberal democracy.
The prevalence of the modernization theory at the time can be attributed to the influence of the developed countries where a sufficiently advanced phase of industrialisation had been reached before the democratization of such countries. However, this understanding was challenged since it appeared that democracy was a preceding requirement for adequate social and economic development and not democracy being a by-product of the 2 progress and development indicators
Historical Perspective
Post-independence, a Nehruvian developmental model in India was followed. This model encouraged state interventions to promote faster economic growth while upholding social democratic values. This model of development needed an apolitical and rational approach for it to be successful. And it worked successfully for the first few years without being affected by party politics. Hence it received extensive support from policy makers in its initial stages. This model was especially beneficial to those states that had a poor economy with considerable inequalities in terms of wealth and privileges (Bimal Jalan, 1992).
By the time the 1990’s had come around, the flaws in this developmental model were beginning to show. The Nehruvian model felt like an artifact from the past. The country needed a more modern and growth-oriented model of development and economic progress. But why did the previous model fail after it had received the praises and support form policy-makers and various economists. After a number of studies conducted in this regard, social scientists attributed the failure of this model to the fact that the state could not distance itself from the vested interests of the certain groups in society. This ultimately distorted and disturbed the policy making decisions that were supposed to made in the interest of the population at large. Such external deficiencies led to what could be termed as “crisis of governability” (Atul Kohli, 1991). Some have also pinned the blame on a bureaucracy that was adamant on the continuance of a system that had grown inept and corrupt. Others blame a weak political leadership who have turned a blind eye to the criminalisation of politics (Kothari, 1988). The studies that were conducted in this regard focused on the qualitative data while trying to point out the indicators for the failure of the Nehruvian model of development. The studies lacked any sort of suggestions or insights into a new model of development. It was as if the country faced a dearth of alternate options or choices (Kothari, 1993).
By this time the world had grown attracted to policies and systems that were neo-liberal in nature as it had provisions for greater economic growth and reduced state intervention. This would be much more resourceful when it came to formulating redistributive policies and achieving expedited economic progress. World institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank too advocated for this model by increasing privatisation and supporting the reduction of the size of the bureaucracy and further de-regulating certain aspects of government activity (Leftwich, 1993). In spite of the high and positive expectations, the neo-liberal model failed to deliver in the sphere of the developing countries due to economic instabilities. This resulted in the failures of political mechanism and spurred protests in the regions. As a consequence, political reform was once again the agenda. It encouraged states to factor in government intervention for social and economic development but in a more limited and structured manner that would function in conjunction with a democratic political system and a market-based economy.
Such events thrust good governance into the limelight. The focus shifted from preventing the overbearing of vested interests on the government to shielding the decision-making process from the clutches of political power play. Horizontal links were built between the government agencies and businesses in civil society to prevent political pressures on the policy and decision-making operations (Petitieville, 1998).
The failure of the structural reforms in the developing countries revived the interests towards a democratic system. But this time it was different as democracy was demanded more for its instrumental values. Unlike the modernization theory which suggested that democracy was a by-product of social and economic development; it was now believed that a democratic state can perform significantly better when managing various kinds of reforms and improve economic administration. Even the United States made a democratic system a pre-requisite to receive foreign policy aids and grants.
Challenges to Good Governance
India has also struggled to emerge as a leader in terms of socio-economic developments despite being the largest democracy in the world. The nexus of crime and politics has led to the suppression of the voices of the common citizen. In 2002, the supreme court passed an order that made it compulsory to disclose educational qualifications and criminal record for those contesting elections. Further committees were formed to keep this order in check. But all of it has failed spectacularly as more than 45% of those in the parliament as a representative have a criminal record. Political parties too are incentivized to give tickets to those with criminal records as most of them have some sort of influence, whether it is in the form of capital or local muscle power.
This has given rise to a political culture where the office of an elected representative is viewed as a means to accumulate wealth and power. It would be unfair to ban those with a criminal record to contest elections; however, a system of checks and balance must also be implemented. In such cases, a general rule cannot be applied but rather context should be applied to every individual case.
Another element that is seen as a big hinderance to the form of governance is corruption. As much as human greed can be blamed for corruption; a lack of accountability and a weak enforcement system have also contributed to the trend of rising cases of corruption in the country. Corruption goes on to have a knock-on effect as it also affects transparency in the various decision-making procedures.
Election funding too becomes a challenge to good governance. Public funding of political parties could prevent the raising of funds through illegal and corrupt means. Public funding for elections will also encourage accountability for those contesting elections as they would be doing so at the behest of the funds provided by the public. It will also level the playing field and increase political participation. In the long run, topics of religion and ethnicity during elections too might become inconsequential election hopefuls will be more focused towards delivering on their promises.
Good governance talks about increased participation. Despite accounting for almost 50% of the population; the representation of women is terrible in government agencies and other sectors. More emphasis should be laid on breaking gender norms and stereotypes and increasing awareness so that more women can participate in both the public and private sectors.
Strengthening of the judiciary in order to provide fair justice to all. There have been numerous cases of political intervention in judicial cases in the recent past. The judiciary must be independent and strong enough to dissuade such cases of political foul play. This leads to next issues of judicial courts being understaffed. There were about 21 million cases left to be tried at the end of 2016. One of the reasons of this may be attributed to the negative reputation carried by the courts due to whispers and rumours of the courts being in the pockets of the government in power.
E-Governance
India is lagging behind due to failure to meet citizens expectations. As a result, e-governance has become absolutely vital in because in a democracy, its people are the biggest stakeholders.
The government faces issues in the delivery of goods and services due to the huge population and the diversity in this massive population. High rates of illiteracy and poverty don’t help the cause either. To counter such drawbacks, the delivery services and the form of governance need to be reinforced. Any new strategy needs to backed by information and communication technology as it increases transparency and accountability. This is where e-governance comes in.
The positives of e-governance could be endless. However, there are still potential obstructions to the successful implementation of e-governance on a national scale. Since everything takes place online, a level of trust needs to established between the population at large and the government. People need to trust the government enough that no fraudulent activity can take place and also prevent any additional checks on people who use the system honestly. E-governance should also come with appropriate security standards and protocols to safeguard the interest of citizens.
The innovation diffusion theory also states that change takes time. There will be sections who adopt change very early and then there is the group that will only accept change once an overwhelming majority have accepted it. This explains the hesitancy from the population at large to move to system of governance that is not paper-based. The high rates of illiteracy and poverty are one of the causes behind the digital divide in the country. Lack of awareness too plays a role in this. But as the internet connectivity in the country increases, so will the applications of e-governance. Cost of equipment is the biggest barrier e-governance. In a country where a large chunk of the population lives below the poverty line, it is not the best decision to use a form of governance that dictates the use of additional equipment. Naturally, it will not be in the best interest of the public. Other hinderances to implementing e-governance come in the form of short-term planning, poor leadership, narrow range of applications, etc.
A lack of infrastructure too is detrimental to the progress of e-governance as it is of utmost importance for its application. Hence, it is advised that the basic facilities such as electricity and internet privileges be achievable for the average citizen before working towards implanting e-governance.
The government has tried to implement e-government in certain instances and has seen relative success in those cases. There is even more reason to implement e-governance as it covers almost all aspects of good governance such as equity building, transparency, etc. It also goes a long way in dealing with cases of corruption and ensuring more effective delivery of public goods and services.
E-governance strategies in Karnataka
To increase efficiency in delivering good governance; the Secretariat Local Area Network was set up. This process involves computerization of the secretariat departments. This will help citizens in keeping updated with files they have submitted to various departments.
Khajane was another e-governance initiative that kept track of the payments of the state. This helped in the instant reconciliation of government accounts and also displayed the expenditures of the government in various schemes. Not only does this improve the efficiency of the system but it also increases transparency so as to avoid misappropriation of funds. Before the digitalization of the admission process of the common entrance test in Karnataka, there were a lot of questions in regards to the transparency of the process. The admission process has become fully transparent since the computerization of the process and the fact more people from beyond the state participate in this test, is a testament to the aspect of transparency in the process.
The Gramsat Pilot Project of Orissa
This project started by the government of Orissa in 2000 was a big step towards promoting the values and ideals of good governance. It addressed concerns regarding transparency, responsiveness, corruption, participation, etc. It was a satellite-based communication network that allowed for live communication between the capital, districts and various blocks in the state.
The aim behind the project was to create a database for land use, ground water, power distribution, etc. This data could then be used for providing information and skill training, there-by increasing people participation and transparency.
E-governance qualifies as good governance and good governance is owed to the public. Use of IT in the governance sphere will increase connectivity, which will aid in the efficient effective delivery of public goods and services.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, the primary focus should lay on the effective functioning of governance in the state. Citizens will pay for the goods and services provided by the government as long as the government system providing it is accountable, transparent and free from any sort of prejudices. When the functioning government becomes more efficient and reliable so will the services provided by it.
References
- Leftwich, A. (1993). Governance, democracy and development in the Third World. Third World Quarterly, 14(3), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436599308420345
- The Challenge of Good Governance. (n.d.). Www.asthabharati.org. http://www.asthabharati.org/Dia_Apr08/balmi.htm
- E-Governance in India: Issues and Challenges. (2016). IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 7(5), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.9790/5933-0705045054
- Padhi, K., 2005. Strategies in Good Governance: A Case Study of Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa. [online] Magazines.odisha.gov.in. http://magazines.odisha.gov.in/Orissareview/may2005/engpdf/strategies_in_good_governance_ACSOKKAO.pdf
- Bala, Dr. M., & Verma, D. (2018, October). Governance to Good Governance through e-Governance: A critical review of Concept, Model, Initiatives & Challenges in India [Review of Governance to Good Governance through e-Governance: A critical review of Concept, Model, Initiatives & Challenges in India]. International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering.
- South, V., & Suri, K. (n.d.). An Asian Barometer Conference on The State of Democratic Governance in Asia the State of Democratic Governance in India The State of Democratic Governance in India. Retrieved November 21, 2021, from http://www.asianbarometer.org/publications/051d9b8a1710e7a2398bd795f2fdfc45.pdf
- Joseph, S. (2001). Democratic Good Governance: New Agenda for Change. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(12), 1011–1014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4410424
- Sangita, S. (2007). DECENTRALISATION FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY IN INDIA: THEORY AND PRACTICE. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 68(3), 447–464. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41856346
[1] Tawney, R.H. (1931) “Equality”, London: Methuen, pp15-16.
[2] L Chalker, Good Governance and the Aid Programme, London: Overseas Development Administration, 1991.
[3] S M Lipset, Political Man, London: Heinemann, 1960, p 403.
