Opinion The irresponsible executive

Beliefs of this variety create an anomaly in our decision-making structures and lead to dysfunctional bureaucratic institutions. The fact is that authority and responsibility must go hand in hand. To do otherwise would amount to anarchy. Unfortunately,a brief look at decision-making over the last few decades in our country shows that precisely such a state of anarchy does exist. It is this anomaly that is principally responsible for our failures in governance. Ministers exercise executive authority through all manner of decisions. They exercise authority on most matters — task allocation among personnel,budget allocations,policy decisions,etc — pertaining to their government departments.

Moreover,nearly every department has,under its supervision,a number of so-called independent corporations or autonomous bodies with relatively narrowly defined remits. The well-established structure of several of these corporations is that the minister is its chairman. In this role,the minister has even greater direct executive authority,because he is routinely involved in large tenders and all manner of financial decisions,quite apart from the transfers and postings. The more pro-active ministers even manage to set the agenda for the body they chair.

The catch is that there are no rules governing the manner in which the minister is expected to exercise his authority. It is this lacuna that allows a minister to maintain that he cannot be held responsible for the actions of his personnel,even though he might regularly interfere in their day-to-day functioning. It is this anomaly that allows ministers to say they cannot be expected to look through files.

Most of us know about the sins of commission that can be and are committed by political executives. Some ministers have even been sent to jail for having exercised discretion that had no basis in rules. Some have had to demit office because a relative was found exercising patronage on promotions and appointments in their ministry.

But quite apart from these,there are many sins of omission as well. Since there are no rules governing the minister in his executive role,there are no timeframes within which decisions are expected to be taken. Ministers can simply delay a decision they do not want to take,and can avoid recording their views on it by keeping the decision pending. Sometimes,hundreds of such files remain pending for the duration of a minister’s tenure. The department and the public suffers as a result of both bad-faith decisions and because of the several decisions that are kept pending or which are taken after substantial delays. Later historians will document,in greater detail,how this resulted in the collapse of government corporations that were providing cheap and reliable services to the public. Dismissing the collapse of government corporations as “bureaucratic lethargy” and “corruption” would be missing the wood for the trees.

None of this lessens the responsibility of the bureaucrats for the decisions that they have taken. The UPA 2 government has shown its complete inability to select bureaucrats who would advise them properly. But,however much we may like to express our frustration against an unresponsive and often arrogant officialdom,the fact remains that it comprises of persons hired to advise on decision- and policy-making. The final decision rests with the political executive. That is the structure of parliamentary democracy in India.

Institutional structures need to be taken seriously. As important as individual leaders might be,they are only as good as the institutions in which they work. If we are unable to hold ministers responsible for their executive decisions,then they can and will behave irresponsibly.

Where the minister exercises executive authority,he is in fact the CEO of his ministry and as the CEO,he must accept responsibility for the actions of his department. In the case of Jeffrey Skilling,ex-CEO of the Enron Corporation,who was charged on several counts of fraud and insider trading — and was held responsible for the collapse of the corporation — he claimed not to have known about the illegalities taking place. His own mother reportedly told a US newspaper,“When you are the CEO and you are on the board of directors,you are supposed to know what’s going on with the rest of the company.” That is the bottom-line.

The writer teaches contemporary Indian history at Panjab University,Chandigarh.

express@expressindia.com