Should civil society groups be made part of government?
Governance in a democracy is propelled by two factors: delegation and accountability. Citizens choose their representatives and delegate constituency responsibilities to them. Legislators delegate authority to ministers.
But the process of accountability is not always adequate. If the Public becomes impatient with the quality of governance it cannot easily make the rulers accountable. Hence a rule should be made that every policy action should be referred to the people.
Technology now allows us to access public opinion. It is appropriate, therefore, to use this feedback while framing laws and policies.
Use should be made of opinion polls, text-message or internet-based surveys. In Switzerland, laws passed by Parliament can be challenged and nullified. In the Swiss system, an individual citizen can force a plebiscite if he collects 50,000 signatures. The same system should be used in India too so that people are happy with the way government functions and won't have to hold them accountable.
Civil society groups should be allowed to involve themselves in the election process because they work among grassroots communities and represent popular opinion. As such, they bring to policy shaping a humane heart, while civil servants and political administrators only contribute a clinical mind. Both the Anna Hazare camp and members of the National Advisory Council (NAC) wants such a kind of system to prevail.
But there is one other point to consider. What happens when civil society groups have opposite views? Are they both right?
After the Japan earthquake, some civil society groups demanded India scrap nuclear power plants and focus instead on hydroelectricity. Yet, many projects have been stymied by other civil society groups that have made hydropower - rather than nuclear power - their object of hate. So if every thread of civil society is handed a competing veto, how is India expected to give its people electricity?
The answer goes beyond accountability and delegation. It is about governance, whether global or domestic, and who can deliver it and who cannot.
Governance in a democracy is propelled by two factors: delegation and accountability. Citizens choose their representatives and delegate constituency responsibilities to them. Legislators delegate authority to ministers.
But the process of accountability is not always adequate. If the Public becomes impatient with the quality of governance it cannot easily make the rulers accountable. Hence a rule should be made that every policy action should be referred to the people.
Technology now allows us to access public opinion. It is appropriate, therefore, to use this feedback while framing laws and policies.
Use should be made of opinion polls, text-message or internet-based surveys. In Switzerland, laws passed by Parliament can be challenged and nullified. In the Swiss system, an individual citizen can force a plebiscite if he collects 50,000 signatures. The same system should be used in India too so that people are happy with the way government functions and won't have to hold them accountable.
Civil society groups should be allowed to involve themselves in the election process because they work among grassroots communities and represent popular opinion. As such, they bring to policy shaping a humane heart, while civil servants and political administrators only contribute a clinical mind. Both the Anna Hazare camp and members of the National Advisory Council (NAC) wants such a kind of system to prevail.
But there is one other point to consider. What happens when civil society groups have opposite views? Are they both right?
After the Japan earthquake, some civil society groups demanded India scrap nuclear power plants and focus instead on hydroelectricity. Yet, many projects have been stymied by other civil society groups that have made hydropower - rather than nuclear power - their object of hate. So if every thread of civil society is handed a competing veto, how is India expected to give its people electricity?
The answer goes beyond accountability and delegation. It is about governance, whether global or domestic, and who can deliver it and who cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment