These days, the terms 'governance' and 'human development' do not automatically command our attention. This isn't surprising, since many elementary public services often do not work and the most un-controversial entitlements - e.g. public education and health care - simply aren't implemented. Also, some private enterprises are moving to provide a system of services and trade in which the affluent few alone can participate, leaving out the great majority of others. One might conclude from these that government itself is dead - it was too inefficient anyway - and that civil society will henceforth be shaped by the imaginations of private enterprises.
Not so. Government by the people may be taking a beating, but in democracies, government for the people is not so easily defeated. Despite the trends we now witness, almost certainly in the years ahead we will move towards greater public entitlements and more government presence in the lives of people, for several reasons.
First, disempowered people do not submit to their fates
quietly. By a combination of approaches - collective action, finding
supportive persons in administrative and statutory bodies, publicizing
their neglect, etc. - they pursue the reforms needed to improve their lot.
Amidst wide-spread failure in the public health system, for example,
activists and ordinary citizens have gathered sufficient strength to rally
the National Human Rights Commission to their cause; the Commission recently
endorsed the view that citizens must have a constitutionally protected right
to good health.NHRC
Second, disempowered and empowered citizens sometimes find common cause, and the two groups seek institutional reforms together. Newer rules for some public institutions can actually reform the politics within and around these institutions, making them more effective and therefore credible. What's more, effective institutions carry the potential of strengthening themselves by attracting public service minded citizens who might otherwise shun holding offices within government. Reforms to our electoral system are a good example; they offer both the potential to cleanse the negative forces currently holding sway, as well as inducement to more civic minded persons to join the fray.
Third, freedoms permitted by economic and social liberalization do not automatically have to entail withdrawal of government from the public arena. For instance, corrupt and unaccountable telephone services deny the proper means of communication to nearly everyone. But a reformed and service oriented system increases productivity and requires some regulation to ensure that connectivity remains widely available and affordable. Competition, alert consumer groups, and the threat of regulation are the ultimate checks on the profit motive running amok.
Finally, empowered citizens too engage the public-interest, even though they have no need to do so for personal gains alone. Socio-economic self-sufficiency allows us to think of ourselves as more than the sum of our material and physical needs. This 'noblesse oblige', recast today as various political philosophies, is as much a product of privilege as wealth and opportunity. Perhaps some act only to separate themselves from the majority who do not. And still others will act from the recognition that philanthropy - even deliberate engagement in it - is great for publicity in a material world.
These forces largely dictate the course of government in free societies. Large and purposeful roles for government in India are nearly inevitable, no matter what economic ideologies may undergird our society. Political organizations of all ideologies in India will eventually have to accept that a broad range of human entitlements are the way forward.
Even in the United States where free-market theories hold centrestage, a huge portion of spending is devoted to state entitlements for health care, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. In the US and Europe, the very expectation of government-guaranteed entitlements is so broad that these are no longer subject to ideological filters. This expectation is deeply held by a voting citizenry and in part, their lived experiences helps sustain it. The political process has thus become invested in retaining these gains, and squandering them below the minimum guarantees is virtually impossible. Little wonder that the neoliberal theorists at the IMF who roam the planet imposing ideologically extreme versions of 'the free market' down other nations, dare not offer the same advice to European and American voters.
But how will these expectations be realized in India? Where are the resources to implement these entitlements?
Some of our progress can be financed by growth; as
revenues into the Treasury grow, the government is able - and obliged, for
reasons stated above - to fund a range of services. Some of the costs can
also be financed by reforms towards effectiveness of spending, capacity
building within government for better performance, re-engineering
processes, and mitigating corruption. Eliminating wastage and pilferage is
the cheapest option; this adds no financial burden on citizens, and has
additional benefits beyond the availability of resources for their
intended purposes.
But to some degree, new entitlements must also be financed by the familiar paths taken in developed societies - progressive taxation and budgetary allocations for broader redistribution of opportunity. Some wealthier citizens in the developing economies of Asia are wary of walking this path, fearing it will undercut the processes that have brought national and personal prosperity. Instead we hear often from some decision-makers that people must rely on cultural welfare nets, not state-provided ones. But this dyke won't hold forever, especially in the more open societies.
The cynicism and distrust that government will ever voluntarily embrace a broad range of guarantees is understandable. But even without this, a plethora of entitlements will ensue in the coming years.
