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.

Gov 3.0 Architecture for Lean Contemporary Government

Gov 3.0 : idea of a lean government

(an improvement over Gov 2.0 that is open & smart)

Democracy does not mean more politicians or more elected representatives. Nor does it mean elimination of decision making by elected representatives and substituting it by a system of referendum, 100% direct democracy.

What I consider to be a contemporary (“belonging to the present time”) government architecture is a two tier one, comprising Central Government [GoI] and Local Governments (i.e. Municipalities and Panchayats), all having elected representatives with 4-5 year tenures. The Gov 2.0 ICT enabled systems will be there in Gov 3.0 too – all budgets, contracts, program outcomes expected and achieved will be on the web. Referendum will be supported for selected issues.

We don’t need representatives of parochial interests if we want to make the nation stronger and more capable of achieving faster progress – there is no role for regional parties and no purpose of defining states based on linguistic or “cultural” characteristics. Constituencies, for MP’s elections, and wards, for corporator’s elections should be redefined as geometrical shapes only to emphasise that religion, caste or language are not important for governance. Languages, Arts and Culture are important subjects for a different reason. We have the “Ministry of Arts & Culture”. MPs from each state can ensure that resource allocations are not skewed. Promotion or development of Religion, Caste and sub-castes are not subjects that should concern the government at all.

The second reason why we don’t need the middle tier in the Government which was conceived in the age of telegraphs and when the fastest method of getting from point A to point B was on a horseback, is that today the idea of physical proximity between electorate and their representatives has lost meaning completely. Today we have planes, computers, Internet, 24x7 TV and mobile phones. We can work more efficiently by reducing the number of wheels in the government – we can escalate issues from the lowest level to the highest level in almost real time. We can work collaboratively as a team or an organisation with people across the world – the idea of the need for a “state government” in physical proximity to the “local populace” is completely archaic, meaningless and even counter-productive. The hundreds of state level politicians, tens of thousands offices, hundreds of thousands of babus and administrators are an avoidable “overhead” – they serve to increase the friction in execution of government programs, muffle people’s voices, create inconsistent laws and slow down the nation building process by blocking policies & legislations of national interest and quibbling over resource sharing – all in the name of “federal structure” and “false divisive pride”. Today people are mobile. Most families have members from different states. Many live in multiple states, many have parents that belong to different states and even nationalities; the idea of allegiance to a “native” state is quaint, except for the state level politicians and bureaucrats for whom this idea is a holy cow.

Machinery that runs with fewer wheels requires less lubricants and it runs more efficiently.      

How do we transition from the current - three tier structure to the two tier one? To get votes for amending the constitution, we need assent of 2/3rds of MPs (possible because they will increase their powers in Gov 3.0) and 2/3rds MLAs (impossible because they will disappear in Gov 3.0) – so there is this seemingly insurmountable political barrier and getting the government machinery to adapt to the new lean model without a breakdown is the second challenge. However, there is a way forward.

The transition strategy is straight-forward. We may try to do one or all of these things as events unfold and debate over Gov 3.0 picks up steam: We need 1) to slowly expand schemes to be executed by Municipalities & Panchayats and simultaneously cut state funding (e.g. JNNURM scheme), 2) go on increasing nos. of MPs (until we have one MP per 1.2 million people from the current ratio of one MP per 2.2 million population), 3) go on reducing the nos. of MLAs (until they disappear); by encouraging the best ones to become MPs, if needed, by nominating them to the Rajya Sabha and having them to get elected within one year of nomination; shifting good MLAs to Municipal Corporations / Municipalities, 4) redistribute subjects from the "State List" and "Concurrent List" to "Local Govt. List" (this doesn’t exist at present) and "Central Government List". Doing these things will also require constitutional amendments; however, these may be easier to pass. The idea is to take incremental steps which can win political support and let the Govt. machinery slim down and adapt to the structure with fewer wheels and the redistributed powers.

The principal advantages of Gov 3.0 are 1) leaner smarter accountable government 2) greater voice (oversight) of the people in governance, 3) government machinery that requires less “lubricants”, 4) stronger integrated nation. Cost saving is NOT the motivation of eliminating the middle tier, it is only incidental and RELATIVELY SMALL. Cost saving of few lacs of crores rupees p.a. may be possible (28 States’ & 7 UTs’ politicians and babus eliminated – their salaries, perquisites saved and palatial offices and bungalows sold off at handsome prices). This money saved and resources released could be utilised for providing safe drinking water (many village kids trek few kilometers to fetch a pail of water; 128 million are without access to safe drinking water) to all, sanitation (50% of population does not have toilets) hiring more teachers, health workers, judicial staff and infrastructure for education, health care and judiciary and the other way of utilising the money saved is to increase the salaries of MPs and Corporators and members of the Panchayat - as this will attract more talent (most of the current MPs are millionaires and few are billionaires but we also need MPs who may just be competent and not necessarily very rich) :)) 

FACTOIDS: 

1) British ruled India with 300K Britons - as the population then was 300 million, the ratio is 1:1000. If the Brits then had TV, Planes (as we know them today), Computers, Internet and Mobiles they would have managed to rule India with 30K Britons, i.e. a ratio of 1:10000. Today we have 18 to 20 million government employees [estimated as 3.9 million in GOI, 5 million in PSUs and balance in State governments - it should be noted that some State governments employ teachers in large numbers, for e.g. Gujarat Govt. has about 5 lac employees and out of these, over 4 lac are teachers - that they remain absent 25% of the time is another matter] and our population is 1.22 billion, so we have really evolved. Assuming the government staff strength to be only 12.2 million (it would be certainly higher than that) we have achieved a ratio worse than 1:100 !! However, we can take heart that almost ALL governments bloat (as per the second law of entropy, disorder increases with time - Boltzman's view) so we are really not 100 times worse off than UK but surely we are more than 10 times worse off than UK when it comes to designing administrative structures and systems. 

2) The British, historically, have had the best systems architects - even their clerks left an indelible stamp of authority, for e.g. a British clerk Andersen designed Form VII/XII in 1928 and till very recently this formed the basis of ALL land records in India - we just could not come up with a modern system till just a few years ago (Bihar was the first state to revamp the system); a recent McKinsey study reported that 70% of civil suits clogging up the Indian courts related to title disputes - neither our judiciary nor parliamentarians (or MLAs) were sensitive to how important and how easy it was to design a computerised land records system that could not be manipulated by the "patwari" or "talati" in the village panchayat office. There is no study i have seen, but i can bet that of the criminal cases clogging the Indian courts, more than 50% will relate to offences under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - the reason for this is the blatant misuse of this "facility" by almost ALL public sector and private sector lending institutions of demanding "post dated cheques" from people who come to them for taking loans. There is no study (that i have seen) of number of cases lodged or pending in the courts under different sections - i am sure that a large fraction of these cases was totally avoidable if only we had better drafting of laws - the language of acts and laws is often so pathetically poor and ambiguous that it would seem it is being done on purpose to enable "crooks" to interpret the rules in a way to maximise milking of the victims.

3) Under an open government (Gov 2.0), all statistics would be easily available to public. Judiciary, Parliament and Local Govt.s would need to publish details of all programs, issues and key performance indicators. Under Gov 3.0, the KPIs would be coupled to individual MP and corporator or member of the panchayat. Citizens could ask questions of these people. Q. Is it possible to build such a system? A. Yes, it is very easy to do this with modern ICT.What are we discussing here? There is no risk of power getting concentrated in few hands and "rulers" running amok in Gov 3.0. There will be so much of visibility and accountability and even a system of periodic referendum over selected issues that no government functionary will have the courage or the ability to hijack the people's agenda.

4) No. of government employees in the world: http://www.numberof.net/number-of-government-employees-in-the-world/

USA:           21.2 million (US has States - what you can do in one State, may land you in a cooler in another   State)

France:          2.3 million

India:           18.7 million (the basic three tier structure we have copied in our constitution, was designed by the British - in Acts of 1935 and 1919; what you can do in one state may land you in a cooler in another state; we have copied most of the Acts, for e.g. the police can put you in the cooler for investigation for a day or two without permission of the magistrate - the British made this rule for India specifically and we are of course following it till today)

China:            5.41 million

Indonesia:     3.7 million

Canada:          2.7 million

Germany:        2.0 million

Italy:               3.4 million

Japan:             1.0 + million

Russia:           0.85 million

UK:                 0.5 million (UK does not have States - they have only a two tier architecture)

Greece:           0.5 million

5) What has happened since independence about revisiting the centre - state - local government constructs? Have we attempted to relook, reform or re-engineer? Only during Rajiv Gandhi's stewardship, a bill was prepared (passed in 1991 when the Congress party had adequate numbers) for bolstering Panchayati Raj - his team articulated and empowered the local government considerably. Other than this there has been superficial work done - In 1983 (Justice) Sarkaria Commission and in 2007 (Justice) Punchhi Commissions were appointed to study and recommend actions to improve centre - state relations within the framework of the constitution of India. These are feeble attempts, probably triggered due to feeling of helplessness of ruling party in "getting things done". The recommendations of these commissions CANNOT fix the fundamental (generically inherent) problems that have ALMOST ALWAYS (and inevitably so) cropped up in the centre - state transactions whenever the ruling party in the central government and the ruling parties in the states were not the same AND when the ruling party at the centre was short of numbers in the Lok Sabha. If the central government party had less numbers (coalition situations), the states and regional parties could completely thwart the policies and legislations agenda of the central government party. The considerations in accepting or opposing policies and legislations would be TOTALLY POLITICAL with zero weightage to their relevance for the national good. This situation makes the centre appear ineffective and states relatively effective. 

CONCLUSION: To progress fast in a democracy that promises a just and equitable society, i think we need to refine the base design of the British model of two tier government and consider its adaptation along with a transition strategy. We should choose between having 29 to 35 independent countries (28 states + 7 UTs) or one country (with zero states) having a single government (GoI) and Local Governments. The detailing of this construct should NOT be done by Justices (retired from the Supreme Court) but by a team of people from diverse disciplines and they should include experts in Business Process Management, Organisation and Data Modeling, e-Governance and large public service delivery systems.

EPILOGUE: In a jungle inhabited by varied animals, an old wise Owl got elected as the President. Soon a mouse approached the President Owl with a complaint: the cats were harassing the mice all the time, how could he rest? The Owl after due thought advised the mouse to change itself into a Cat and that he should try hard to accomplish this transformation. After a few days the crestfallen mouse reappeared before the Owl and lamented that he had failed to transform himself into a Cat. The President Owl said that his responsibility was policy formulation and not implementation, therefore, the mouse should go to someone else with his new complaint :)     

Rearchitecting Indian Government : Gov 2.0

An appropriate architecture of government can make a very big impact on the people’s lives and progress. It is important to realise that government architecture ought to be dynamic and not frozen in time. Each country must discover what is appropriate for its people; there is no perfect system that can be cited.

The constitutions of most countries, in 120 out of 192 countries which are supposedly democracies, envisage three pillars of governments that are - legislature, executive & judiciary. The constitution defines the underlying principles & policies to be followed by the government and checks and balances between the arms of the government, a construct that is based on the principle of separation of powers. Democracy is supposed to be the last form of government. There are dozens of forms of government and many countries have experienced multiple forms of governments over the period of their existence. Depending upon the size of the country, there exist multiple levels, for e.g. national, state, district and local.  

The characteristics of the government at each level differ. This structure is totally archaic in all countries. The situation in India is described below; however, the case for delayering and downsizing governments is applicable universally. Delayering and "de-federating" are needed in government organizations and there are any number of commissions and task forces working on creating recommendatory reports. However, there is virtually nil discussion on delayering or eliminating the federal structure so as to cut the number of political positions. 

Does federal structure make the system more democratic - do people get more voice or the politicians do? More political positions does not mean more democracy. Likewise if you have to elect fewer people it does not mean you live in a system which is less democratic. 

Local bodies (elected) - panchayats constituted of five 'panchs' who are elected from a single village or a set of smaller villages; municipalities constituted of corporators who are elected from wards of the city or township

District officers (executive & judicial)

State government, bodies; legislature (elected), departments (executive) & courts (judicial)

National government, bodies; legislature (elected & nominated), departments (executive) & courts (judicial)

The term of elected representatives is of 5 years (in other countries term varies, US congressman has the shortest term of 2 years). Elected representatives are "politicians". In India, their service terms have no performance appraisal or incentives, political parties may themselves apply their respective appraisal systems. What programs they are pursuing or supporting is not known to public. There is seldom any referendum in any country on policy issues, exception being Switzerland.

The idea of the above structure is few hundred years old. It originated in Europe, though the practice of democracy originated in ancient Greece, Mesopotamia and ancient India couple of thousand years ago. All big governments are still having structures that were formed when neither planes nor telecommunications existed - of course electronic media, IT and Internet were not even conceived. UK or England had the smartest systems experts and architects for designing government structures. Brits tweaked their systems to suit their local requirements as a colonial power, in different countries round the globe. They implemented their systems so well that for generations, after the colonies gained independence, people have continued to live by those very systems without question. The slavery to habit (tradition) is a force that requires more than education to counter or effect changes. In context of innovations in laws, it requires legislators who are educated, systems experts, communicators and hard-working, all at the same time. Such combination of virtues to find amongst legislators is rare.  Nevertheless it is worth discussing a new version of government and building a popular consensus so future legislators can follow the popular demands for change.

What changes can and should be done in architecting Government 2.0 ?

The middle layers of executive and elected people [state & district] can be entirely eliminated and many departments that remain can be dissolved or reconstituted for larger domains, of geographical and functional areas, for greater effectiveness and also efficiency. Panchayats & Municipalities in Gov2 will get greater powers & national government will formulate and execute all policies with much fewer staff members and layers of hierarchies. Executive will also become stronger - and subjected to strict appraisal systems.

The motivation for the new construct is to make democracy work better & nation stronger by diluting divisive forces that discriminate on basis of language and caste or “culture”. We should aim for direct democracy more and representative democracy less. The new construct will make differences in the way the laws ought to be made – the extent of public access and influence over resource allocations and usage – the level of transparency. It will make govt. much leaner & smarter, i.e. more effective and more efficient.

In Gov2 there is no encouragement to parochial sentiments - which result in demands for fragmentation of states and societies or reservations based on languages, castes or "culture". Private enterprise, entrepreneurial traits would receive support, encouragement and respect. National chauvinism would be considered passé and global cooperation would be the norm and regarded as one's duty. People will be guided more by similarities between them rather than differences between them.

The electoral reforms and anti-corruption discussion should come after understanding and voting on the above reforms! Otherwise it would be like opting for a patch work when we actually need a complete rewrite of the program that has too many bugs and that has outlived its usefulness by decades, if not a century.

Referendum is a powerful instrument of democracy that can be used for resolving national as well as regional issues based on residence in different geographical regions. In Gov2 this will be online, therefore, multiple options, multiple issues could be taken up in periodic or frequent referendums. People will decide which subject areas will be usually legislated by elected representatives, by bringing a bill to the parliament, and which shall be decided through referendum. 

Political parties may declare those issues for which they will opt for referendum and those on which they have already taken a position - these will make the election manifesto of contestants meaningful. The number of MPs may be increased - in Gov2 they would be really called upon to work - they will work in the national interest but would be more actively engaged with meeting the needs of their constituencies. The citizen in Gov2 will feel more empowered. The Gov2 programs will be published on the web with targeted and achieved outcomes updated regularly. The planned allocations, pricing etc. will all be handled with complete transparency and participation of citizens or factoring their opinions, wherever possible or of the opinions of their elected representatives.

UK, a unitary state and a constitutional monarchy, has no state governments – they have just two levels – national government which makes all national policies, represented by parliament and local governments (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales are four constituent "countries"). UK has 650 MPs for a population of under 70 million. US is a federal union with each state having its own constitution - so they have huge number of politicians.

India can do with 1300 MPs, roughly one MP for every one million population. There will be about 5000 municipalities, one for each town (larger ones are called Municipal Corporations) and 150K to 200K panchayats for 600K villages. Corporators and “Panchs” will be elected and so will be MPs. There will be no other politicians. Each Municipality and Panchayat will have a website with published programs and outcomes expected. All accounts will be publicly accessible, at high level of aggregation. Through RTI, details can be sought by any citizen.

With the reduced count of politicians and bureaucrats in a flat government with just two layers (central government and the local government ONLY), enabled with ICT and proper systems, more coherent policies and speedier implementation will result. People's voices will become stronger and stand a better chance to get translated into action.

Discussions are invited on what will happen with Gov2.0 structure envisaged above?  

INSTRUMENTS OF DEMOCRACY

The front page headline story in Times of India (Ahmedabad edition of 9th Oct'11), “Singhams unite, back Bhatt” reminded me of the famous Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments of which 50^th Anniversary passed only two months ago. Sanjiv Bhatt, a senior IPS officer is currently in judicial custody (as the magistrate, for over a week now, keeps on giving dates before passing judgment on his bail plea) being prosecuted by State Government and reference to Singham is a film's take on a similar situation (probably, as i have not seen the movie). 

The IPS cadre comprises of educated and well trained officers then why, during the riots of 2002, could they not behave in a more responsible way? Why did they allow themselves to be led to acts of commission or omission which they felt to be bad or even unjust? Their behaviour can be understood by recalling what the “Obedience to Authority” experiment of Stanley Milgram showed.

Following four paragraphs are taken from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/50th-anniversary-of-stanley-milgrams-obedience-experiments.html

Stories of torture, corporate greed, fraud, and misconduct are regular features of daily news coverage. For years, psychological scientists have tried to understand why ordinary and decent people are driven to commit such atrocious acts.  Much of what we know on this topic can be traced to the work of one man: Stanley Milgram. Fifty years ago, Milgram, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale University, began a famous and controversial series of experiments to test the boundaries of people’s obedience to authority and determine how far normal people would go in inflicting pain on others just because they were told to.
The experiment involved forty males who each took on the role of a “teacher” who delivered electric shocks to a “learner” when they answered a question incorrectly. Though the “teacher” believed that he was delivering real shocks, the “learner” was actually part of Milgram’s research team and only pretended to be in pain. The “learner” would implore the “teacher” to stop the shocks and the “teacher” would be encouraged to continue despite the learner’s pleas.
These experiments laid the foundation for understanding why seemingly decent people could be encouraged to do bad things. Thomas Blass, Milgram biographer and a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, says that Milgram’s obedience experiments provided a powerful affirmation of one of the main guiding principles of contemporary social psychology: “It is not the kind of person we are that determines how we act, but rather the kind of situation we find ourselves in.”
“What Milgram’s obedience studies revealed above all was the sheer power of social pressure. Suddenly it was conceivable that the sorts of psychological forces producing conformity that social scientists had been interested in for some time could not only explain fashions and stock market gyrations, but also some of the 20^th century’s most egregious collective behaviors: genocide, the Holocaust, totalitarianism,” says Dominic Packer, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Lehigh University.

Today we are a little wiser and we also have ICT. So here is a simple solution for decent people who do wish to be vigilant or who do not want to become “situational victims”. SOLUTION: Form a special interest group, for e.g. On Yahoo - “IPS Concerned Officers Association”. Members may hold discussions and polls on issues of their interest. They can then take a united stand and thwart manipulative bosses without holding physical meetings and getting hounded by media. Association is virtual but the actions are real. Information and Communications Technology can support democracy in real solid ways. Fortunately the IPS folks are IT savvy.  

Fighting corruption: Jan Lokpal Bill implications of implementing it

The version 2.3 of Jan Lokpal Bill has expanded its coverage and power beyond what i would not have dreamt of. 

Its jurisdiction is now over "PM, Ministers, Elected Representatives, All public servants, Judges of the higher judiciary." [Government's version includes only Group A officers amongst public servants at the centre only and excludes PM in office and Judiciary].

Secondly, it can look at many more complaints, " Definition- a complaint means a complaint alleging that a public servant has indulged in an act of corruption punishable under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; which would also include any offence committed by an elected member of a house of legislature even in respect of his speech or vote inside the house." [Government's version is limited to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988].

As the Lok Pal is supposed to have its own separate wings for investigation and prosecution, it is worth considering the cost of running an effective Lok Pal. [Both Govt and Jan Lokpal are agreed on this formulation].

With 45 million public servants (government employees) and hundreds of judges to be disciplined for any complaint lodged with the Lok Pal (at centre or state), one wonders if the necessary resources required to run the Lok Pal will be provided. I read in the press that in 1972, the original version of Mr Bhushan's version of Lok Pal envisaged an annual expense of Rs. 3.x lacs p.a. and the current version will require a budget of Rs.1,700 crores p.a. (i.e Rs.300K and Rs.17 Billion p.a. respectively). This looks like a gross underestimate and with such meagre resources, the Lok Pal will be no different from the existing organisations which are buried under ridiculous backlogs.

The magnitude of corruption is huge, almost mind boggling. Perhaps it justifies changing the architecture of the government envisaged in the constitution of India. We have three pillars in the government structure - Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Having an effective Lok Pal almost means creating four pillars, Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and Lok Pal (Super Referee). The fourth pillar should have a staff strength of 450K persons and with an average salary plus overhead expense of Rs.500K p.a., the annual budget of running an effective Lok Pal is Rs. 225 Billion.

Obviously, the above additional resources cannot be found. So it will mean reshuffling or merging completely the existing resources from police, judiciary, ACB, CBI, CVC into Lok Pal.

So the end result will be that we will have a smart Lok Pal which will reduce corruption in the government but it will be at the cost of higher level or disorder, criminality and increasing back log of cases in the courts in the non-government sectors. This is because Rs.225 Billion would have got carved out of the budgets for the police, CBI and Judiciary.

If on the other hand, additional resources are allocated to Lok Pal and it is ICT enabled, it can perhaps do its job more cost-effectively than the existing organs of the government without hiring hundreds of thousands people. It should be empowered to requisition investigating officers and prosecuting officers as and when required from centre or from state governments on a deputation. 

For reducing corruption, the legislative competence must be improved and the babus who have drafted old set of laws and rules must be replaced and concurrently the old laws and rules should be rewritten in unambiguous language and without the baggage of amendments upon amendments. After formation of Lok Pal, this is the second most urgent step. Accelerating roll out of Judicial reforms in the making, is the third most urgent step. Police reforms are the fourth most important step and electoral reforms are the fifth most important step.

References: 
http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/Police_Population_Ratio.htm

Upon Anna Hazare crusade

Anna Hazare and his supporters, ardent and vociferous, and those who may be passive and even sceptical, all are well intentioned folks who want to oppose corruption by throwing out politicians and government apparatchiks (government officers and what about judicial officers, prosecuting corrupt judges is not more important?) whenever evidence of corrupt behaviour is found. And they believe "Lokpal Bill" duly modified by civil folks (mostly lawyers and "activists") will facilitate this much more than CBI, ACB or CVC have achieved in the past (there is talk of merging all these?). Since electronic media has discovered "corruption" makes an interesting story, everyone wants to flog the corrupt officer. Even before evidence is compiled, many fishy episodes get labeled as "scams" and round-the-clock reporting begun by most of the TV "News" Channels to see if TRPs improve.

The real issue is not about prosecuting the corrupt, we should be more concerned about the underlying problems that need urgent attention of experts. Corrupt politicians, executive and judiciary ("public servants”) should be prosecuted undoubtedly. Lokpal Bill by focusing just on corrupt politicians and executives will have a small impact on inclusive growth or the creation of an equitable or just society – a transparent and efficient government.

Please read what USA is doing. What ICT forum can help achieve:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

http://govinthelab.com/

For architecting Government version 2.0 (which is transparent, efficient and obviously ICT enabled), we need systems and legal experts. Most people have not realized the pernicious effects of poor quality legislations and lousy or archaic systems – I suspect we don’t teach these subjects in IAS schools.

None of the committee members in the Lokpal drafting committee is an IT expert (from the government side - all are lawyers). Lokpal bill itself is about facilitating launching a prosecution against suspects - using the very same government machinery and judicial system, which are known not to deliver results. We should ask why the machinery is not well oiled (how much more grease is needed?), why the judicial system is unable to dispense timely justice? Are the judges of poor quality or their integrity is suspect? Do they work too few hours & take a long recess, they need long vacations? Is the system over loaded? Of the several million cases queued up for decades in various courts, are large numbers on account of poor legislation or lousy systems? [A McKinsey study revealed that 70% of the cases are property title disputes, the next highest matter is "bounced cheques" - under IPC section 138 - the root causes of both these problems by the way are very easy to fix - 1) do away with VII x XII Form designed by Anderson - a bright British clerk, in 1928, and replace the land title records with an online system - many state governments are doing this finally, 2) order the banks and financial institutions NOT to take PDCs from loanees - this practice of taking or issuing postdated cheques is not followed in advanced countries - they do proper checking of credit worthiness of loanees and then advance loans but in India our "respected financial institutions" prefer to apply short-cuts and take advantage of innocent members of public, many of whom land up defending themselves against dozens of criminal cases launched by their lenders following repayment defaults - for e.g. if 12 cheques bounce, the bank would file 12 criminal cases].

Another thing easy to fix: Various government inspectors and officers can slap a claim on any entrepreneur or a business unit or a citizen. The claim is of tax or penalty for violation of ambiguous rules which can be interpreted differently because of poor drafting or series of indecipherable amendments. Even low officers can pass an order and middle level officers can launch a prosecution - normally the rules require the defendant to pay first and appeal afterwards. The government has endless resources (lawyers) to fight cases in courts but the defendant must provide for himself/herself. Should the defendant win the case, nothing happens to the officer(s) who made the claim. If we institute a law that the officer will be penalised even to the extent of 5% of the dismissed claim or two months’ salary (whichever is lower), we would find the incidents of corruption will drop dramatically.

Unfortunately you won’t find people agitating to fix the underlying systems, poor quality legislations and bad systems. The IAS receives training which was probably devised by the British - they are not taught about the pernicious effects of bad systems or the use of ICT. The elected legislators do not receive any training nor are they shown or compelled to study what other countries' expert groups are doing without having to make foreign trips [whenever learning involves foreign trips, they are more than keen to undertake such study tours]. In our big country, bloated bureaucratic machinery, poor quality legislations with huge number of amendments, ill-trained rulers (public servants) are a very big problem. The people who have knowledge do not have power and those with power don't have the knowledge? We need to go much beyond Lokpal bill. We need more than just lawyers to fix the system, they are not trained to use ICT which can transform the system and bring transparency. Now there are many examples of good systems but news channels have yet to discover them.

Leaner not fatter government

Linguistic differences or "cultural" differences, whether minor or major, have been flogged in India to hive off new states. Latest aspirants are people agitating for formation of "Telengana". Many believe these as genuine arguments for demanding separate states. These arguments are not justifiable for many reasons.

1) Democracy does not mean fatter government nor does local governance mean multiple layers of government. We can have more "Panchayats" or urban local bodies like municipalities, municipal corporations without creating more state government positions. Creating a new state, after netting out adjustments of reorganising some departments, is bound to add lacs (not thousands but hundreds of thousands) additional government apparatchiks (babus and clerks) - a new state does not create a single new panchayat or a single new urban local body. Such a massive administrative burden is not only costly, it is completely counterproductive as these new positions will work to increase the transaction cost of doing things. Everyone knows more government means more friction.

2) Today, using ICT we can completely restructure the government - delayer it - cutting out better than 70% of positions - we can make a much leaner, far more efficient and FAR MORE RESPONSIVE government; a government that is more democratic and capable of listening to and responding to people's wishes.

3) Pandering to so called linguistic and "cultural" aspirations encourages parochialism. It does not help the cause of national integration. It does not encourage labour mobility. It does not encourage optimal usage of natural resources for the country - it encourages selfish usage of natural resources for "sons of the soil". It serves to reinforce the value system that suggests that "sons of the soil" is the right policy - chauvinistic forces like "Shiv Sena" draw strength from people who subscribe to this value system.

COMMENTS:

We need to train our legislators and babus to behave in an even handed manner. To balance the demands of people belonging to different ethnic groups and the larger good. This is also what politics is about. 

We are slaves of the system that British left us. [Even the laws are archaic - why don't we have our "legal luminaries" agitate for changing so many ridiculous laws?] We hardly innovate - apart from suffering from "human inertia"; we as a society are still under-confident of devising more efficient systems.  Rather than re-engineering the government structure and processes, many governments have slavishly copied the existing system while commissioning "work-flow" systems that cost billions of rupees - these systems help in moving "tapal" (i.e. a letter) from the top officer's desk to the lowest officer (or clerk) and then the transaction flows in the reverse direction with noting of each babu or clerk. This serves no purpose except to continue the CYA policy and no analysis of issues or weight of public opinion can be assessed.

Today's news paper (DNA Ahmedabad edition -31st Jan'11) runs a story of municipal corporators joining the Face Book with the expectation of getting ideas for city's development or for engaging in discussions and debates with public. It is possible to design and implement a system for a fraction of the cost that our state govt spent (government of state of Gujarat) which will make the government more responsive and capable of re-engineering its structure. Here is the outline of such a system:
a) Build a business process model of the (panchayat or municipal or even state level - depending upon how ambitious you are) government
b) Build the organisation hierarchy (as it exists) of the government
c) Build a directory of people working in the government
d) Assign people to organisational units (created in step (b))
e) Build a communication system that allows people to log in and write a memo that points to one or more "processes", "organisational unit" or "babus/clerks". Allow the user to attach objects to the memo (like a document, scanned image, photo, audio or video clip or a URL)
f) Publicise the system, train politicians, babus and clerks to use the above system - one hour session twice a week for two weeks is sufficient.


The above is nothing but a knowledge management and intelligent communication system. We can build work-flow linked to the above system. We can generate discussions on "problems" and "issues". We can do referendum. We can address complaints and solve peoples' problems quickly. We can analyse the processes and organisational units and govt staffs' performance and frequency of complaints etc. which can serve to re-architecting the department, organisational unit and even the government.