Accountability in public service in glance
The prevailing situation in India highlights a profound accountability crisis in governance. Despite considerable economic growth and increased investments in social sectors, India’s development performance lags behind even much poorer nations, indicating the severity of the accountability problem. Absenteeism, incompetence, inefficiency, and corruption have become pervasive in essential services that the government is responsible for providing to its citizens.
Public accountability
Public accountability is rooted in the social contract between citizens and the state, necessitating that institutions of the state remain accountable for their actions. To ensure this accountability, both external and internal mechanisms are in place.
In democratic systems, external accountability is achieved through elections, allowing citizens to express their preferences and hold politicians and administrative officials accountable . Concurrently, internal accountability is maintained through institutional checks and balances, internal oversight, and separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature.
For effective public accountability, these two arms of the “long route” must work in harmony. Citizens use external accountability mechanisms to express their preferences, and the state, acting as their agent, employs internal accountability mechanisms to transmit these demands to service providers. In turn, service providers, including line agencies and public sector bodies, are held directly accountable to citizens, ensuring that their incentives align with the preferences of the people they serve. This synchronization of external and internal accountability is vital to achieving true accountability in public service delivery.
External accountability
External accountability in democracies is often achieved through elections, where citizens hold elected representatives accountable for fulfilling their preferences.
In India, for example, mechanisms for external accountability of policy makers are limited, and the hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy often leads to top-down decision-making without citizen participation. The oversight of the executive by the legislature is compromised by weak institutional mechanisms, reducing the effectiveness of parliamentary questions and audit findings in holding the executive accountable.
Internal accountability
Internal accountability refers to the responsibility and answerability of those in positions of power within an organization or government structure. It involves holding individuals or entities within the organization accountable for their actions and decisions.
Internal accountability, on the other hand, involves institutional checks and balances and internal oversight, such as the separation of powers between the judiciary, executive, and legislature, performance monitoring, and the role of oversight bodies like auditors general and ombudsmen.
Weak monitoring and lack of transparency in fund flows contribute to ineffective internal accountability of service providers also for accountability of public service . For instance, in India’s public health care system, issues such as vacancies, absenteeism, and corruption among doctors and nurses are prevalent due to the lack of monitoring and enforcement of performance standards.
To improve internal accountability,there is a need to increase citizen engagement in decision-making, enhance monitoring mechanisms, and ensure transparency in fund allocations and expenditures. By focusing on outcomes and performance, rather than just inputs, policy makers can better evaluate the effectiveness of public expenditures and ensure that services are aligned with citizens’ needs and preferences.
Social accountability
Social accountability represents a unique approach to accountability that challenges the state’s monopoly on oversight functions and actively promotes citizen participation in governance. India has been recognized as a pioneer in embracing this form of accountability, largely due to the efforts made by civil society organizations.
Additionally, the government has initiated several crucial reforms aimed at enhancing social accountability, albeit with varying degrees of success. Key initiatives include empowering local governance through the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments, establishing community-based oversight bodies for localized monitoring, implementing citizen charters, and enacting the Right to Information Act. These measures aim to involve citizens in decision-making processes and hold public institutions accountable for their actions.
Recent Developments
To address the existing issue, the current government could prioritize implementing several draft bills that aim to limit politicians’ arbitrary transfers of bureaucrats. These proposed legislations include the :-
Public Services Bill (2007), the Civil Services Bill (2009), and the Civil Services Standards, Performance, and Accountability Bill (2010)
which have been awaiting action. Notably, a significant reform in the civil service sector emerged from the judiciary in 2013 when the Supreme Court of India instructed both central and state governments to establish civil service boards responsible for managing the tenure, transfers, and postings of All India Services officers. However, the effectiveness of this directive has been questioned as only a few states have complied by establishing a minimum tenure of two years for civil servants.
Since assuming office in May 2014, the Modi government has attempted to address politicized transfers, but opinions on its actions vary. One initiative that has drawn praise involves the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) implementing a new process.
Under this approach, senior bureaucrats conduct background checks on officers seeking postings to the central government, focusing on two key criteria: honesty and efficiency. Despite this effort, critics argue that centralizing power in the PMO may not lead to an effective administrative machinery. They point to frequent reshuffling of joint-secretary level officers and a decline in the number of officers willing to work at the center as evidence of this potential weakness.
conclusion
To enhance governance, the Indian government ought to reform its recruitment and promotion procedures, implement performance-based assessments for officers, and establish safeguards that ensure accountability in public service while safeguarding bureaucrats from political interference.