Few Objections to Gov 3.0

These are few of questions raised by those who read about Gov 3.0 architecture that envisages eliminating States and redistributing the subjects from the “States List” and “Concurrent List” to the “Union (Central) List” and “Local Government List”.

Q 1. If proximity is not important why have local governments? Why not run the whole country from a central command? [Subverse: State government people know better than “Delhiwallas”.]

A 1. Local Government comprising of elected “corporators” and “panchs” will have jurisdiction over a defined geographical region – a city, town or a set of villages. Since the corporators and panchs will be executing programs and schemes, it is important for them to be in proximity of the affected citizens and sites. For e.g. Surat was not long ago considered to be the dirtiest city in India. Municipal Commissioner Rao ordered all corporators to spend 50% of their working hours on the streets supervising and taking feedback of residents. Soon, Surat came to be recognized as the cleanest city of the country. Today it is also the fastest growing city in the country.

Resource allocation and resource usage policies require information, research, consultation with subject area experts besides assessment of (and even shaping) people’s wishes. For this purpose, there is no reason to believe that the MP of each constituency supported with proper ICT systems will make decisions inferior to that of a MLA just because the MPs are required to spend a certain proportion of their time in the national capital. MP will have more powers, resources and facilities to tour his/her constituency and take people’s feedback as compared to any MLA. When you represent a very large number of people that runs into six to seven figures, you do not take feedback by talking to everyone (which is infeasible – nonetheless you must interact with as many people as is practical) but by putting in place, online feedback systems – today we can do this because almost all people anywhere can use mobile phones – with UID (unique ID is currently being given to every resident in India) coming up, electronic referendum will be easy, it will probably cost .01% of the cost of elections to conduct a national poll. In Gov 3.0, as a Corporator or an MP you would have to publish your programs, ideas and ongoing schemes on a web site and then invite people to debate, contribute and vote. Each representative (and any opposition party’s representative too) would be allowed TV time for talking about the issues that affect the people in his/her constituency, for e.g. what kind of schools, gardens, roads, hospitals you want? [Local Govt.s will deal with local subjects and not issues like height of a dam on a river which flows through multiple “states” or nuclear power plants which generate 00s or 000s of megawatts of power as these are actually subject matters of national policy and not state subjects at all – witness the history of disputes over such matters in which states are always embroiled – so many states have been fighting for decades in the courts and also fighting on the streets by fanning parochial sentiments and delaying national progress, burning up public money and consuming precious judiciary time].   

Q 2. India is about diversity. We need a cauldron of opinions and competing ideas rather than a bunch of Delhiwalla’s ideas imposed on the whole country. The accountability of elected representatives will reduce in Gov 3.0; the MPs will become too powerful.

A 2. In Gov 3.0 there is no Delhiwalla – there will be about 1300 MPs from constituencies throughout the length and breadth of the country. They will represent the whole country; each MP representing a constituency of one million people. Amongst so many MPs will be enough variety of ideas and the government could appoint think tanks where called for and take help of research organisations. There will be competing ideas but not perennial log jams that are being created by States and Regional parties  because of their power to refuse to fall in line even if 90% other states ascent, for e.g. Goods and Services Tax introduction has been delayed due to intransigence of couple of states, causing loss of lacs of crores of rupees p.a. which actually represents the smaller hit taken by the people of India – the bigger hit is the invidious influence of the existing myriad tax laws that challenge compliance because of their complexity, ambiguity and the discretionary powers they bestow on the “tax collectors” in the states’ taxes departments, excise & service tax departments, customs departments and income tax departments who are past masters at tying the tax payers into knots and thereby milking the victims.

MPs will be expected to speak for their constituencies and they will sit on various committees and recommend resource allocations and schemes which will have to pass muster of the entire parliament. MPs in Gov 3.0 will have to be very active and they will need strong administrative support infrastructure – for meeting a very different role from the one the MPs have today. Because of the process of competition for fewer seats of power (since the head count of politicians in the whole country will drop drastically with the disappearance of the middle tier of States), the caliber of MPs in Gov 3.0 can be expected to be much higher than those of today’s average politician. For national policy formulation you need high caliber thinking type and virtuous people. For execution of programs at the local government level you need people who work in the field and those who will actually be in a position to entertain common people and go out and talk to opinion leaders in their communities. In Gov 3.0 the MPs cannot easily cook up their private agendas – they will have to get elected on the strength of a) their parent political party’s agenda or their personal beliefs backed with merit and track record and b) their action plan specifically for their own constituency – all of these (agenda, beliefs, track record and action plans) will be published and debated in the elections. Post elections, the public will be able to contrast the achievements of each MP with the promises made by them. The public and the media will engage with MPs with wayward key performance indicators, visible to all at all times.

Q 3. Regional parties are an essential part of democracy. They should have a role.

A 3. Sure, the regional parties may field candidates for MPs seats and these parties will also have their representatives contest elections in Municipalities and Panchayats. Independents will also contest elections for seats in Union Govt and Local Govt. The idea of bicameral parliament, with members in Rajya Sabha will be continued – at present a small number is nominated by the president and balance is elected by State Govts. This will change – selected municipal corporations will elect members to the Rajya Sabha. Here again, regional party candidates and eminent people could find representation in the parliament. However, the national parties in Gov 3.0 dispensation will accomplish better results.

Q 4. States in India are seen to have achieved very different levels of progress. For e.g. few states are achieving double digit annual growths whereas the laggards are stagnating. Gov 3.0 will pull down the performance of the “best” regions represented by erstwhile states and the people in those regions stand to lose out.

A 4. Smart politicians or bureaucrats will not disappear or become powerless in Gov 3.0. The smartest amongst those working in the State level government will shift to the Union Govt or the Local Govt. Of course many politicians and bureaucrats will not find a place in the Gov 3.0. This is a good thing and not something to lament. The national resources will stand to be better utilised with fewer but smarter politicians and bureaucrats. This is commonsensical reasoning. With overall honesty level of government going up and smarter people having a greater say the overall growth rate will go up and not down. The honesty level at the top has a lot to do with achievements. Therefore, rather than apprehending that the growth rate of the “best performing” states getting pulled down in Gov 3.0 it is to be reasonably hoped that the performance of ALL states will rise. Exceptions could occur where a particular existing state has extracted an unfair share of resources from the Union Govt. or if it has registered a high growth by bartering away its future well-being (for e.g. at the expense of environment or land use or some other largesse) – in such cases there could be a dip in growth rate in Gov 3.0 but it must be realized that Gov 3.0 is not about achieving growth in the short-term or growth rate that is realized in an inequitable fashion or if it is achieved by illegitimate distribution of largesse; it is about building a just, equitable, sustainable and smart society.

Q 5. Will Gov 3.0 not be afflicted with corruption; after all it is going to be made up of the same set of people?

A 5. To those who consider the political class as a fountain head of corruption, by reducing the head count of politicians, we will reduce the incidence of corruption in Gov 3.0. However, this is not the raison detre for doing away with the middle tier. The Gov 3.0 will perform better simply because it will be a machine with fewer wheels and it will have a superior traction on the ground. The constitution of India gave us the power to make amendments and we have made hundreds of amendments so far. But nothing is more important than making the amendment to create Gov 3.0, for 1.2 billion people whose progress and well-being is presently held hostage to archaic monster machine. Computers have evolved, communications technology has evolved, medicine and engineering have advanced why does the government not evolve? In Government, today we don’t need so much wiring between the brain and the muscle and detours to other mini brains in between. We urgently need the simpler more effective Gov 3.0.