Subscribe now to get notified about IU Jharkhand journal updates!
Countries like India with democratic set up and multi-cultural presence need good governance in the form of premium institutions, efficient responsible bureaucracies and a thriving civil society that can boost the quality of their most important endowment, i.e., their own people. In fact, these countries aim at social opportunities and removal of poverty by way of securing justice, empowerment, employment and efficient delivery of services. But with the constraints like heavy population pressure, multi-faceted wants, paucity of capital and comprehensive gap between the demand and supply, can it be possible to look forward to fulfill the objectives so mentioned. The response will be probably 'no'. The way out to reverse the response, owing to empirical facts, is to be a part of globalization trend and take as much advantage as possible to maximize the societal welfare. Keeping the recent so-called panacea, i.e., globalization in the backdrop, this paper tries to highlight, on the basis of descriptive research, the reality of good governance in democratic societies like India.
The concept of Good Governance compares ineffective
economies or political bodies with feasible economies and
political bodies to meet the requirements of the masses
rather than select groups in the society. By Governance,
we mean, the process of decision-making that makes the
decisions implemented or not implemented. As per the
Commission on Global Governance, 1995; Governance is
the summation of the numerous approaches individuals
and institutions - public and private, deal with their
common af fairs. As a cont inuing process, i t
accommodates conflicting interests and takes cooperative
actions. It includes formal institutions and regimes
empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal
arrangements that people and institutions either have
agreed to or perceive to be in their interest. In fact,
Governance serves the citizens by safeguarding the
territorial integrity of the State and securing individual
security, rule of law and the delivery of services ranging
from education, health to livelihood and food security. A
country with good governance, namely a democratic state
with premium institutions, efficient corruption-free
accountable bureaucracies, and a thriving civil society
may likely boost the quality of its most important
endowment - its own people. In fact, good governance
must aim at expansion of social opportunities and
removal of poverty. All these can be achieved by way of
securing justice, empowerment, employment and
efficient delivery of services. In short, Good governance
helps create an environment in which sustained economic
growth becomes achievable. Conditions of good
governance allow citizens to maximize their returns on
investment.
Good governance discovers criminalization of politics
and corruption as two foremost challenges. It also
highlights shifts in connotation and substance of national
values of the freedom movement, particularly those of
nationalism, democracy, secularism, non-alignment, and
mixed economy and its impact on the administration as
well as on the intellectual build up of the organs of the
Indian State. There are, however, two areas that need
special attention by innovators, namely, economic
empowerment of women and livelihood programmes
based on local resources and upgraded skills. The need is
to devise a national strategy that accords pre-eminence to
the Gandhian principle of 'antodaya' devoid of forfeiting
growth and by making mechanisms of State accountable
for good governance.
Political leaders, policy makers and business brains of
India are actuated by a strong desire to make the country
an economic super-power in the 21st Century. The high
rate of economic growth coupled with comfortable
foreign exchange reserves and rising Sensex figures have
imparted in them a growing confidence. The world is also
looking at India with respect and considers India and
China as ideal economic growth models. India is aiming to
have a high growth rate with focus on equity. Although
these two objectives are not always contradictory but the
conflict arises when scarce resources are diverted to meet
the demands of the growing middle class or business
houses by ignoring the needs of the poor. The imperatives
of democracy, however, are forcing Indian political
leadership to look deeper into the causes of poverty,
inequality and suffering of the common man. In this ongoing
debate, major shifts in national value system has
somewhat gone unnoticed and/or under-emphasised by
academicians, media commentators and India-watchers.
The concept of 'Markets with search Cost' pioneered by
three Nobel laureates Economists - Peter A. Diamond,
Dale T. Mortensen, and Christopher A. Pissarides in 2010
lays the foundation for justification of globalization of
higher education. While so many people are unemployed
at the same time lot many job openings are also there. It
exhibits the fact that there may be less mobile of labour
force or mismatch of job requirements and expertise of
labour force or more remotely the problem is very sporadic
in nature. Whatever it may be improper match between the
demand for labour and supply of labour causes search cost
to both the buyers and sellers. Moreover, the emerging
economies like India, owing to heavy population pressure,
face the problem of massive unemployment, while the
developed nations are having ample job opportunities.
Globalization may cater to this gap. Moreover, not only the
gap will be mitigated by doing so, the level of efficiency
and efforts of all institutions involved will automatically
be upgraded owing to high competitiveness that
establishes the saying 'perform or perish'.
Globalization incorporates a host of profound changes in
world politics: growing political linkages at the global
level, erosion of local space and time as structures of
economic life, and homogenization of social life through
global standards, products, and culture. However, our
focus is on central aspect of globalization, i.e., economic
integration at the global level.
Good governance can also be very useful at the global level
to legitimize some of the international organisations.
Organizations with their own policy such as the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the OECD,
and the UNO can strongly influence the policies and
politics of particular states both democratic and nondemocratic.
The implementation of the principles of good
governance inside these organizations forms part of their
legitimacy. However, even more important than the
internal principles of good governance in these
regional/global organizations is the fact that there can be
top-down effects – some standards of good governance are
often asked from member/client states. Membership or
financial aid can be conditioned by the implementation of
the basic principles. And this top-down effect raises
serious questions.
The objective of this paper is to discuss the areas of concern
that need to be addressed energetically and calls for
synergy of efforts between government, the market and
the civil society so that a good comprehensive governance
will be maintained even being a part of the globalization
trend in a cross-cultural democratic set up like India.
There are no doubts that the implementation of good
governance both in new and old democracies has mostly
positive effects, and that good governance is, in fact,
complementary to democracy. But in non-democratic
regimes the situation is different, and the impact of good
governance can be really ambiguous.
The concept of good governance is a mechanism that can
intensify democracy in democratic regimes and can set up
rejuvenation processes in less developed and nondemocratic
countries. At the same time, it can stabilize and
legitimize some authoritarian or hybrid regimes and
stabilize them in the long-run perspective. Good
governance is an instrument that helps global capitalism
to expand more easily because of the spread of some basic
standards, principles and sometimes even values all over
the world. On the other hand, the imposition of the
concept, mainly in the case when the basic principles are
not informally accepted, can hinder the internal
development of the society. The imposition of good
governance can become part of the power conflict and can
destroy the value system of particular organizations. This
can even lead to the fragmentation of the society. We can,
therefore, infer that good governance is a good servant but
a bad master. In fact, although good governance contains
very good features that can potentially bring forth drastic
changes in the path of up-gradat ion of any
organization/state, the implementation of the principles
of good governance has been proved to be the great
question to handle.
There is a consensus among the scholars/experts on
following eight basic principles of good governance,
implementation of which in a democratic set up with
cross-cultural presence carries the real task to perform.
Although the hierarchy of these principles is subject to
debate, we can agree that the most important principles of
all these are the Rule of Law, Accountability, and
Transparency. The hierarchy can alter consistent with the
type of the establishment, political culture, etc.
India's democracy is at the centre of governance
architecture. It creates opportunities, sustains leadership
and generates hope. Good governance being central to the
Indian democratic experience could be seen more clearly
when we look at what is happening in our part of the
world. Pakistan is making experiment with various forms
of governance, democracy as well as military dictatorship,
and merely succeeding in saving the nation-state from
being a failed one. The Bangladesh Army seeks similar
justification in managing and calibrating the transition to
democracy, as does the Gayoom regime in the Maldives.
In SriLanka, notwithstanding high rates of literacy and
economic growth through decades-old democracy, it has
not been able to secure cooperation of the Tamil minority,
with the result that democracy thrives side by side with a
bloody civil war. In Nepal, democratic institutions which
have been undergoing serious strain under the Maoist
threat are trying to resurrect under a fledgling inclusive
republican order.
In a democratic set up like India where multiple cultures
co-exist with free inter-province migration, maintaining a
common rule of law across the country is near to
impossible. That's the reason why we have different sets of
rules for different culture, creed and community.
However, there is one common platform where all diverse
sets meet together for common objective of societal
harmony with growth. In the era of globalization, this task
has become bit hectic owing to free flow of completely
strange culture and way of living etc. in and out of the
country. Although the task is hectic, one should not feel
that it is non-performable. In fact, globalization, if put in
right direction, will rather help in maintaining and
strengthening the Rule of Law. The bright example is fight
against terrorism. A single country may fail to suppress or
demolish the empires of terrorists' world-over but when
more countries join hands for the purpose the task
becomes easy and reachable. Similarly, India's internal
fight against corruption has been started and has taken
due momentum but corruption still persists. If rest of the
world cooperates in this noble task of India, probably, no
person can hide his/her money so generated from the
corruption s/he had headed. So globalization will
definitely contribute a lot in maintaining and
strengthening a common and decent rule of law for
countries like India.
Improving the quality of institutions and their capacity to
fight corruption depend on the amount of resources a
society devotes to this end. A society invests more into
building good institutions the larger the benefits it
receives or the smaller the costs. Given that foreign
producers may divert their exports or investments from a
national market to another more easily than domestic
producers, one would expect corruption and bad
governance to discourage more strongly international
trade and capital flows than domestic commerce and
investment. This differential effect of corruption induces
stronger incentives towards good governance
investments for those economies that are more open.
Other things being equal and because of the resulting
larger benefits, an economy more exposed to international
markets would allocate more resources to fighting
corruption and end up with a lower level of it than a more
isolated inward-looking one.
Studies have revealed that the more open economies and
those that have most successfully integrated with the
global economy have produced the best growth results,
while those that have remained closed have produced the
worst. For example, a 2002 World Banks study of 72
developing countries found that since 1980, the
"globalisers" - those that increased their ratio of trade to
GDP - grew almost four times faster than non-globalisers.
A further study estimated that an increase in the ratio of
trade to GDP by one percent raises the level of income by
one-half to two percent.
From the 1960s onwards, most East Asian economies
became increasingly export oriented and globalised,
lowering tariffs and expanding their trade. They also
provided their populations education and infrastructure
and generally sound governance. As a result, per capita
income grew most strongly in East Asian economies over
the last 20 years. In the 1990s, with the exception of Japan,
East Asia grew by between 6-8 per cent per annum, and the
share of regional populations living in poverty fell rapidly.
Furthermore, the growth in these countries didn't just
benefit a small few with the poor lagging behind as some
people suggest. Rather, evidence shows that economic
growth is on average associated one-for-one with higher
incomes of the poor. That is, when an economy grows 1%,
the incomes of the poor rise on average by one percent. In
contrast to the rapidly growing East Asian countries,
countries that have failed to grow and still suffer desperate
poverty - most notably many countries in sub-Saharan
Africa - have failed to integrate into the world economy.
This failure to integrate is caused by domestic conditions
including war and internal governance, but it is
sometimes made worse by rich countries putting up
barriers to their products, particularly farm products.
As UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said, "The main
losers in today's very unequal world are not those that are
too much exposed to globalisation. They are those that
have been left out." For those who are still in doubt, it
worth reflecting on what happens when a country closes
its doors having been opened to the world for some time.
Zimbabwe is probably the best illustration of this.
According to Norberg, Zimbabwe has "undertaken the
world's fastest and most consistent retreat from the
alleged evils of globalisation and liberalisation." Under
Robert Mugable, trade has been limited, government
spending has increased, price controls installed, freedom
of expression limited, and property appropriated.
Consequently within 5 years, Zimbabwe went from being
an exporter of foodstuffs to a country where more than 6
million people were facing starvation. (Norberg, 2003).
Australia, of course, has been both at the fore-front of, and
a beneficiary of globalisation. Over the last 20 years, the
Australian Government has cut tariffs, opened itself up to
global capital markets and implemented significant
micro-economic reform. While this has resulted in some
significant disruption to some industries, Australia
overall has benefited profoundly with productivity
growth in the second half of the 1990s 40 percent higher
than in the 1970s and 80s (DFAT, 2003). This has lead to
higher incomes and the lowest unemployment levels in
decades.
However, the followings are to be cautiously examined
and implemented in order to ensure that communities
keep and spread the gains from globalization;
While Australia has done these well, other countries have not and their gains have been less. A nation's resource endowments and its productivity determine how fast it can grow and the level of its economic well being in terms of income per capita.
In a broader sense by securing justice we mean; security of
life and property, access to justice, and rule of law.
The supply of security especially security of life and
property to the citizens of a democratic set up like India
where multiple cultures co-exist is the most important
public good. The responsibility of the Indian nation-state
to protect the life and property of every citizen is being
acutely endangered predominantly in the areas affected
by terrorism (Jammu and Kashmir), rebellion (northeastern
states), and naxalite aggression in 150 districts of
India's mainland. Access to justice indicates that people
are able to rely upon the correct application of law. In
reality, there are quite a few countervail factors. Some
citizens are not acquainted with their rights and cannot
afford legal aid to advocate on their behalf. A related
aspect is fairness of access as some people involved in the
legal proceedings and large number of criminal
prosecutions is not voluntary participants. The most
severe challenge relates to complexity of adjudication as
legal proceedings are lengthy and costly and the judiciary
lacks personnel and logistics to deal with these matters.
For example, according to data available with the apex
court, the number of pending cases with the Supreme
Court is 64,919 as on December 1, 2014.The data available
for the 24 High Courts and lower courts up to the year
ending 2013 showed pendency of 44.5 lakhs and
whopping 2.6 crores, respectively. Of the over 44 lakh
cases pending in the 24 high courts of the country,
34,32,493 were civil and 10,23,739 criminal. Systematic
solutions are, therefore, needed for strengthening access
to justice. At the same time ad hoc measures are required
to provide immediate assistance to the needy citizens.
The concept of good governance is undoubtedly linked
with the citizens' right of life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness. This could be secured in a democracy only
through the rule of law. The rule of law is expressed
through the axiom that no one is above the law. One has to
clearly understand that the rule 'of' law is different from
the rule 'by' law. Under the rule 'by' law, law is an
instrument of the government and the government is
above the law while under the rule 'of' law no one is above
the law not even the government. It is under this
framework that rule of law not only guarantees the liberty
of the citizens but it also limits the arbitrariness of the
government and thereby it makes government more
articulate in decision-making. The rule of law as Dicey
postulated is equality before law. This is secured through
formal and procedural justice which makes independent
judiciary a very vital instrument of governance. It is
widely appreciated that human factors i.e. the quality of
political leadership, the executive and judicial officials
play important roles not only in upholding supremacy of
rule of law and in efficient delivery of service but also in
shaping traditions, customs and institutional cultures that
are integral part of the liberal democratic machinery.
In the process of globalization, may be, there will be more
number of issues that may give rise to the chance of
crowding out the interest of masses but at the same time
the free flow of legal advisors across the globe may
cheapen the cost of services of rule of law.
An empowering approach to poverty reduction needs to
be based on the conviction that poor people have to be
both the object of development programmes and principal
agency for development.
Our experience shows that when poor people are
associated with public programmes, they have
consistently demonstrated their intelligence and
competence in using public funds wisely and effectively.
The involvement of poor women in micro-financing
institutions of SEWA in Gujarat or in self-help groups in
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu has clearly established
that they not only understand financial systems but also
repay their loans on time. In short, the poor women have
demonstrated that they can outperform all other
customers in profitability.
Our Constitution is committed to two different set of
principles that have a decisive bearing on equality. First, is
the principle of equal opportunities to all and the second,
the principle of redress of educational and social
backwardness?
In the post Gandhi-Nehru era, the involvement of civil
society in governance has become crucial. Civil groups
like NGO's, women's groups, trade unions, cooperatives,
guilds, faith organizations are all essential to buildings of
inclusive growth. Without the involvement of the people,
without their voices, without their participation and
representation, a programme can only be implemented
mechanically. Today, we need innovators in two areas in
particular : women and livelihood programmes.
Women are key to good governance. Their increasing
representation in democratic institutions has provided
stability to Indian polity. Women can bring constructive,
creative and sustainable solutions to the table. Women
participation in economic programmes needs to be
augmented for in women we get expendable providers,
educators, caretakers and leaders.
If we look into the status of institutions like NGOs, Self-
Help Groups, etc. and demographic strata like women
and grass root level section in India now and compare that
with their status 20 years back, we can easily infer that
drastic change has taken place in positive side. The credit
of this positive change must go to globalization. In fact,
globalization has helped a lot in empowering many
demographic strata and institutions in India.
The most challenging task that India is facing now and has
been facing since long is the generation of gainful
employment for the youth.
Over 50 per cent of India's population belongs to working
age that constitutes the workforce of India. This share will
continue to rise and reach 60 per cent in 2050. A fastgrowing
working population will ensure more workers,
more saving and hence more investment. But population
growth by itself does not add to prosperity, unless young
people are educated and new jobs are created. If we fail to
generate employment and equip the youth with good
quality education and skills, India's demographic
dividend could become a demographic liability.
Unemployment in India is projected to witness marginal
increase between 2017 and 2018, signaling stagnation in
job creation in the country, according to a UN labour
report.
The United Nations International Labour
Organisation (ILO) released its 2017 World Employment
and Social Outlook report which finds economic growth
trends lagging behind employment needs and predicts
both rising unemployment and worsening social
inequality throughout 2017.Job creation in India is not
expected to pick up pace in 2017 and 2018 as
unemployment rises slightly, representing a near
stagnation in percentage terms."Unemployment in
India is projected to increase from 17.7 million last year to
17.8 million in 2017 and 18 million next year. In percentage
terms, the unemployment rate will remain at 3.4 per cent
in 2017-18," the report added. The need is to prepare the
youth with such education (we have more than 300
million illiterate children adding to the enormity of the
problem) that would help them acquire vocational skills
and mastery over new technology, including internet.
This would make the youth employable in the job-market
and also help those who want to work on their own.
The history of economic development clearly
demonstrates that development of non-farm sector is tied
to modernization of agriculture and its improved
productivity. The increasing application of modern
technology also frees labour to move to urban areas for
gainful employment in non-farm sector.
Livelihood does not only mean factory jobs. It should
relate to social economy and local resources as well. It
should also mean upgrading of existing and traditional
skills that people have possessed from time immemorial
in agriculture, in animal husbandry, in fishing, in textiles
and so on. Investment in up-gradation of such skills
would lead to harmonious relationships with nature. My
own experience tells me that when you provide
productive work on a regular basis to a couple, their
children would automatically go to schools and shall
refuse to entertain persuasions of naxalite and insurgent
groups to indulge in violent acts. It is through work that a
person can plan the way in which his ambition can be
fulfilled. With regular work life is no longer just about
survival, but about investing in a better future for the
children. Above all, when one has regular work, there is
incentive to maintain a stable society.
There is no doubt that globalization has opened up
opportunities for the unemployed masses to fly anywhere
and get fitted to a job commensurate with the skill that one
has. Not only job opportunities but also inculcation of
befitted know-how, training and appropriate education
which are very essential for doing any job have also been
availed at our door-step because of the globalization.
Globalization, therefore, helps generating job
opportunities for the domestic work force.
In spite of having very good services, the service provider
may not get the expected return if the services are not
efficiently delivered. There is no doubt that market has
better delivery of services. Moreover, in a competitive
environment, the market can be both cheaper and more
effective than the government in providing certain types
of services. However, the markets, controlled as it is by
businessmen, operate for profits and the poor have little or
no voice in the regulation of its operations. Thus, the
failure of the government and the profit motive of the
market have led to distorted developments in which the
rich have become richer and the poor poorer.
Market is an integral part of social order but the truth is
that principles of market cannot be allowed to govern
society and polity. Accordingly, no democratic
government can leave market uncontrolled and free from
regulations. The poor are poor of course because of
historical inequities but also on account of failure of the
State to empower them adequately to get their
entitlements. Democratic governance demands that the
State can not for long serve the demands of the rich and
organized sectors of the society and ignore the dalits, the
minorities and the women because they are unorganized
and poor.
It is being widely appreciated that good governance is
dependant not merely upon good policy advises but more
importantly on the processes and incentives to design and
implement good policies themselves. Dysfunctional and
ineffective public institutions are increasingly seen to be at
the heart of the economic development challenge.
Misguided resource allocations, excessive government
interventions, and widespread corruption have helped in
perpetuation of poverty. The weak institutions of
governance make an adverse impact on service delivery.
Poverty reduction depends on improvements in the
quality and timely delivery of services to poor people of
basic education, health, potable water and other social and
infrastructure requirements.
Scholars as well as administrators agree that participation
of civil society in decision-making, public sector capacity
building and rule of law are essential for quality and
timely delivery of services.
While for globalization the market is to be freed, for the
smooth functioning of the system in a cross-cultural set up,
as mentioned above, the market is to be regulated to some
extent. There is no doubt that globalization causes for
efficient delivery of services but sometimes for the sake of
efficient delivery the foreign players exploit the domestic
customers and push the domestic players to the astray.
Therefore all the services should not be in clutch of
globalization as that may distort the structure of the
society. Particularly sectors of strategic importance should
not be there in the race of globalization.
In the backdrop cross-cultural democratic set up and
trends of globalization, India's democratic institutions are
required to address the following areas of concern
vigorously. (1) State-sponsored development
programmes must aim at reduction in poverty and
improvement in productivity levels of workers. Towards
these, poor people need to be directly involved. (2) Public
Expenditure Review meets should be organized
periodically at village, sub-district and district levels to
ensure proper utilization of funds and ownership of
development programmes by the people. (3) Civil service
should be given clear responsibility for delivery of services
in respect of approved schemes and held accountable. One
third of seats in Assemblies and Parliament should be
reserved for women. (4) Persons charge-sheeted by a
competent court for heinous offences and corrupt
practices should be debarred from contesting elections.
Synergy of efforts between government, the market and
the civil society is a must to reap the benefit of
globalization and make use of that for the growth and
development of the economy as a whole.
The effects of good governance in globalization era can be
sometimes totally different than was originally expected.
In cases when the principles were only formally accepted
and not internalized the effect can be limited or even
opposite. Just now we can witness these problems in the
European Union in which Greece is the most visible case.
But we do not need to move so far, the problems with
corruption and clienteles that Czech Republic is facing are
very much connected with only a formal acceptance of
some principles that in fact do not work at all. The nature
and content of good governance would undergo changes
in tune with rising expectations and fresh demands of the
people. Democratic governance would expect and secure
from its leadership to be alive to such aspirations and to
continually tune institutions of polity to be effective
instruments of citizens' welfare.