Politicians regularly claim that their focus is on governance and development, not so much on getting re-elected. They must realise that even re-election is dependent on how well the government has performed. In the largely polarised politics of today, anti-incumbency beyond a certain level invariably leads to electoral defeat.
The big question citizens have to ask themselves is who is actually running the system. Going by the performance of ministers in most states, it becomes starkly obvious that, first, there is a lack of cohesion in government policy and, secondly, few have a realistic clue about what is actually happening on the ground, as is obvious in Karnataka, these days. The unfortunate fact is that, mostly, it is the bureaucrat who proposes and disposes. Since, the interests of the powerful officials are not necessarily aligned with the government, and not even rooted in the countdown to election time, there is neither urgency nor focus in their work. For them, it is broadly a question of spending (or withholding) funds in a way that ensures the advantage accrues to them. Going by their manner of functioning, the actual goal of a scheme or project is the last thing that weighs on their minds.
So, it matters little if a categorical policy statement is made by the minister concerned. In practice, even a minor official thinks nothing of not just ignoring the principle, but actually violating it. Those in the know can give umpteen examples of this on a daily basis. Important projects may have been launched, or high profile MoUs signed, with clearly stated timelines, but the reality is quite different. When election time comes, politicians look to offer these initiatives as examples of the work they have done, knowing that a substantial amount of money has been spent from the government’s coffers. But they will have nothing to show, because vested parties will have not only waylaid these schemes, but taken them in a totally different direction altogether.
So, although the objective may not directly be of gathering votes, it certainly is to achieve the public good. If a sewage treatment plant has to be built, or flood control works instituted, the primary purpose is the people’s welfare. If, however, the bureaucrats add on ifs and buts of their own, even to the extent of scuttling the basic viability of the project, it can be described as nothing short of sabotage. They do so to establish their own importance and create nuisance value. This is why the political masters need to emphasise their authority in critical ways.
In most states, when the opposition and the common people complain that it is the bureaucracy is running the state, there is considerable substance in the charge. It is regularly reported that ‘reviews’ have been conducted of departmental functioning, but it seems the Chief Minister and ministers are not getting the actual picture. If they did, they would exhibit a greater sense of urgency and be very angry indeed.
Ministers need to draw up lists of projects, plans and policies close to their hearts and get a clear idea of the delivery timeline. If it does not fit with their perceptions, they need to take action.
