GS Notes

17. Governance Notes 06

21 min read

Elaborate Notes

Issues with the Right to Information (RTI) Act

  • Oath of Secrecy vs. Oath of Transparency:

    • Historical Context: The “Oath of Secrecy,” administered to ministers and civil servants, is a legacy of the British colonial era, enshrined in the Third Schedule of the Indian Constitution and reinforced by the Official Secrets Act (OSA), 1923. The OSA was enacted to suppress espionage and dissent against the British Raj, creating a culture of confidentiality within the administration. This culture persisted post-independence, viewing information as a state monopoly.
    • Conflict with RTI: The Right to Information Act, 2005, marks a paradigm shift from a culture of secrecy to one of transparency and accountability. Its fundamental premise is that in a democracy, citizens are the masters, and the state and its functionaries are their agents, making information held by the government the property of the people. The oath of secrecy creates a direct ideological conflict with this spirit of RTI, as it predisposes officials to withhold information rather than disclose it.
    • 2nd ARC Recommendation: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC), in its first report “Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance” (2006), critically examined this conflict. The Commission, chaired by M. Veerappa Moily, argued that the culture of secrecy is the biggest impediment to the RTI’s success. It recommended that the Oath of Secrecy be replaced with an “Oath of Transparency.” This proposed oath would bind public servants to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability in all their official dealings, except for information specifically exempted under the RTI Act.

  • Vigilance Mechanism and Accountability Gap:

    • The Problem: The RTI Act has been instrumental in exposing numerous cases of corruption, nepotism, and administrative malpractice. For instance, the Adarsh Housing Society scam and irregularities in the Commonwealth Games (2010) preparations were significantly brought to light through RTI applications. However, the unearthing of information (transparency) has often not translated into swift and decisive action against the guilty (accountability). This gap exists due to weak, slow, and often compromised vigilance and investigative mechanisms.
    • 2nd ARC Recommendation: To bridge this gap, the 2nd ARC recommended strengthening the anti-corruption and vigilance infrastructure. It proposed the establishment of separate and dedicated vigilance cells starting from the district level upwards. These cells would be empowered to receive complaints of corruption (many of which would arise from RTI disclosures), conduct time-bound investigations, and ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice. This would create a direct and effective pathway from transparency to accountability, giving real teeth to the RTI Act. This recommendation complements the roles of macro-level institutions like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the Lokpal by creating a robust grassroots-level enforcement mechanism.

Civil Society Organisation (CSO)

  • The Need for Civil Society Organisations:

    • Emergence of State and Market: The Industrial Revolution (18th-19th centuries) fundamentally reshaped society. It led to the consolidation of two powerful institutions: the modern State and the capitalist Market. The Market, driven by the logic of profit maximisation and rational principles of demand and supply (as articulated by economists like Adam Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,” 1776), gained legitimacy through its efficiency in wealth creation. The State gained legitimacy through the rise of democracy, which is based on principles of popular sovereignty, representation, and accountability.
    • Failures of State and Market: Over time, both institutions exhibited significant failures.
      • Market Failure: Unregulated markets led to monopolies and oligopolies, resulting in consumer exploitation, poor quality goods, and high prices. They also failed to account for social costs (negative externalities) like environmental pollution.
      • State Failure: The State, instead of being a benign protector of citizens’ rights, often became an overbearing and oppressive entity. Thomas Hobbes, in his work “Leviathan” (1651), described the state as a powerful sovereign necessary to prevent societal chaos, but this power could be misused. In the 20th century, states often became bureaucratic, inefficient, corrupt, and instruments for suppressing individual freedoms.
    • The Third Sector: The space created by the failures of both the state and the market was filled by the “third sector” or Civil Society. Ordinary citizens, finding their interests ignored or exploited by both the state and corporations, began to organise voluntarily to protect their rights, demand services, and advocate for their interests. As political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy in America” (1835), the proliferation of voluntary associations is a key feature and safeguard of a healthy democracy.

  • History and Evolution of CSOs:

    • Global Origins: While voluntary associations have existed for centuries, the modern concept of CSOs gained prominence in Europe, particularly in the context of the peace movements protesting against the World Wars in the early 20th century. These were seen as wars of imperial aggression, and citizens’ groups emerged to protest against state-led militarism.
    • Indian Context: In India, the tradition of civil society is deep-rooted.
      • 19th Century: Social reform movements led by figures like Raja Ram Mohan Roy (Brahmo Samaj) and Swami Dayananda Saraswati (Arya Samaj) were early forms of CSOs working on issues like sati, widow remarriage, and education.
      • Gandhian Era: Mahatma Gandhi’s emphasis on ‘Sarvodaya’ and ‘Gram Swaraj’ was actualised through numerous constructive work organisations focused on rural development, sanitation, and self-reliance.
      • Post-Independence: The 1970s saw a surge of CSOs, often taking an adversarial stance against the state’s developmental policies. The Chipko Movement (1973) against deforestation and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (1985) against large dams are classic examples. The work of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, starting in the 1990s, was pivotal in the struggle for the Right to Information.

  • What is a CSO? Features and Roles:

    • Definition: A Civil Society Organisation (CSO) can be defined as a non-state, not-for-profit, voluntary organisation formed by people in the social sphere to protect and promote their common interests. The World Bank defines CSOs to include “a wide array of organizations: community groups, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], labour unions, indigenous groups, charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, and foundations.”
    • Features:
      1. Voluntary Nature: Entry and exit are based on individual choice, not coercion.
      2. Autonomy: They are institutionally separate from the government, even if they receive state funding.
      3. Non-Profit Distributing: They are not primarily driven by commercial goals. Any surplus generated is reinvested into their mission, not distributed among owners or directors.
      4. Self-Governing: They control their own activities and are not controlled by external entities.
      5. Diverse Forms: They have no fixed structure and include formal entities like NGOs and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) as well as informal movements and community-based organisations.
    • Key Roles in Governance:
      1. Awareness Generation: They educate citizens about their constitutional and legal rights (e.g., Association for Democratic Reforms - ADR’s work on voter awareness).
      2. Bridging Gaps (Voice Articulation): They act as an intermediary, conveying the needs and grievances of marginalised communities to the government.
      3. Policy Inputs: They provide crucial research, data, and grassroots perspectives to aid in the formulation of more effective and inclusive public policies (e.g., the contribution of MKSS to the drafting of the RTI Act).
      4. Assisting in Implementation: They often act as implementation partners for government schemes, leveraging their community connections and flexibility. For instance, the Akshaya Patra Foundation collaborates with governments to implement the Mid-Day Meal Scheme.
      5. Providing Feedback (Monitoring): They serve as ‘eyes and ears’ on the ground, offering unbiased feedback on the efficacy and shortcomings of government programmes.
      6. Ensuring Accountability: They use tools like Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Social Audits, and Citizen Charters to hold the government accountable for its performance and promises. The social audits pioneered by MKSS in Rajasthan are a prime example of community-led accountability.
      7. Deepening Democracy: By facilitating citizen engagement beyond the five-year election cycle, CSOs help transform a ‘representative democracy’ into a more vibrant ‘participative democracy’, where citizens are active co-creators of public policy.

Pressure Groups

  • Definition and Role:

    • A pressure group is an organised group that does not seek to capture political power directly but aims to influence government policy and decisions to protect and promote its specific, often narrow, interests. Political scientist Gabriel Almond referred to this function as “interest articulation.”
    • In any pluralistic democracy, society is composed of diverse and often competing interests (economic, social, religious, regional). Pressure groups are the vehicles through which these interests are organised and presented to policymakers.
    • Electoral Compulsions: In a parliamentary democracy, governments are sensitive to the demands of large, organised groups as they represent significant vote banks. Ignoring their demands can have adverse electoral consequences.
    • Examples:
      • USA: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a powerful pressure group that heavily funds political campaigns to prevent stricter gun control laws.
      • India: Trade unions like the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) have consistently opposed labour law reforms they deem anti-worker. Farmer associations like the Samyukt Kisan Morcha successfully pressured the government to repeal the three contentious farm laws in 2021. Business associations like the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) lobby for pro-business policies.

  • Instruments Used by Pressure Groups:

    1. Electioneering: Supporting candidates and parties who are sympathetic to their cause through funding, campaigning, and block voting.
    2. Lobbying: This involves direct engagement with legislators and bureaucrats to persuade them to support their interests. This can range from providing expert information for policy-making to more informal methods of persuasion.
    3. Media Campaigns: Using newspapers, television, and social media to shape public opinion and build wider support for their cause, thereby indirectly pressuring the government.
    4. Petitions and Prayers: Formally submitting requests, memoranda, and petitions to government bodies and legislative committees.
    5. Public Protests: Organising public rallies, marches, demonstrations, and strikes (bandhs, hartals) to showcase their strength and disrupt normalcy, compelling the government to take notice.

  • The Debate on Legalising Corporate Lobbying in India:

    • Context: Corporate lobbying involves businesses influencing public policy for their benefit. In India, it is not formally recognised or regulated, leading to opaque dealings and allegations of “crony capitalism,” where policy is tailored to benefit specific corporations in exchange for illicit funding or favours (e.g., controversies around the 2G spectrum and coal block allocations).
    • Arguments FOR Legalisation:
      1. Transparency: It would bring a currently clandestine activity into the open. Regulating lobbying would require registration of lobbyists and disclosure of their clients, activities, and expenditures, as is done in the USA under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, 1995.
      2. Reduces Corruption: By formalising the process, it can potentially reduce the role of unaccounted ‘black money’ in politics. The estimated expenditure of ₹60,000 crore in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections highlights the scale of unaccounted money in the system.
      3. Increased Tax Revenue: If lobbying expenses and political donations are made official and transparent, they can be brought under the tax net, generating revenue for the state.
      4. Informed Decision-Making: Legal lobbying allows policymakers to receive structured, expert inputs from various business sectors, which can lead to better-informed economic policies.
      5. Citizen Awareness: A transparent system would inform citizens about the nexus between politicians and businesses, enabling them to make more rational electoral choices.
    • Arguments AGAINST Legalisation:
      1. Socio-Economic Disparity: The USA is a developed nation with a high per capita income and robust social security. In contrast, India is a developing country where a significant portion of the population depends on the state for basic necessities (e.g., the National Food Security Act, 2013, covers about 67% of the population).
      2. Policy Capture: In such a context, legalising corporate lobbying could lead to ‘policy capture’ by powerful corporations. Their immense financial power would allow them to disproportionately influence policies, potentially leading to the dilution of welfare schemes, environmental regulations, and labour laws, thereby exacerbating inequality.
      3. Undermining Democracy: It would create an unequal playing field where the voice of money drowns out the voice of the masses, undermining the democratic principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’.
    • The Way Forward (Solutions): Instead of legalising corporate lobbying, the focus should be on comprehensive governance and electoral reforms to curb the influence of money power.
      1. Electoral Funding Reforms: Amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to enhance transparency. This could include banning cash donations and making all contributions through digital transfers or cheques. The opaque nature of Electoral Bonds has been a subject of criticism and was recently struck down by the Supreme Court. State funding of elections, as recommended by the Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998), could also be considered.
      2. Bringing Political Parties under RTI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled in 2013 that national political parties are ‘public authorities’ under the RTI Act. However, parties have refused to comply. Enforcing this would bring transparency to their internal functioning and finances.
      3. Inclusive Policy Formulation: Institutionalise a mandatory Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, where draft bills are placed in the public domain for feedback from all stakeholders, not just powerful lobbies. This makes the policy process more transparent and participatory.

Prelims Pointers

  • The 2nd ARC recommended replacing the Oath of Secrecy with an Oath of Transparency.
  • The 2nd ARC suggested establishing separate vigilance cells from the district level upwards to link transparency with accountability.
  • The concept of the state as a “Leviathan” was given by Thomas Hobbes.
  • Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) are entities that are not part of the market (for-profit sector) or the state (government).
  • Examples of CSOs include NGOs, Self-Help Groups (SHGs), pressure groups, trade unions, and religious institutions.
  • A key feature of a CSO is its voluntary and non-profit nature.
  • Pressure Groups are organisations that seek to influence government policy without aiming to capture political power.
  • Lobbying is a key instrument used by pressure groups to directly influence policymakers.
  • Crony Capitalism refers to a system where business success depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.
  • FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry) and CII (Confederation of Indian Industry) are examples of business pressure groups in India.
  • The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) is a CSO known for its pioneering work on RTI and social audits in Rajasthan.
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951, governs the conduct of elections and functioning of political parties in India.
  • The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) recommended state funding of elections.
  • Social Audit is a tool for community-led monitoring and accountability of government schemes.

Mains Insights

  • The Dichotomy of Governance: Transparency vs. Secrecy

    • The RTI Act, 2005, and the Official Secrets Act, 1923, represent two conflicting paradigms of governance. While RTI promotes openness, the OSA fosters a culture of secrecy. This inherent tension often leads to a tug-of-war where public interest in disclosure clashes with the state’s tendency to classify information, hindering effective accountability. Analyzing the recent amendments to the RTI Act which diluted the independence of Information Commissions is crucial here.

  • Role of Civil Society: From ‘Adversary’ to ‘Partner’

    • The relationship between the state and CSOs has evolved. In the 1970s-80s, many CSOs adopted a confrontational, rights-based approach. In recent decades, there has been a shift towards a more collaborative model, with CSOs acting as implementation partners for government schemes. However, this has raised concerns about the co-option of CSOs and the dilution of their role as independent watchdogs. The debate is further complicated by regulations like the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), which the government uses to control CSOs, alleging that some act against the national interest.

  • Pressure Groups: Catalysts or Impediments to Democracy?

    • Cause-Effect Analysis: Pressure groups are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they strengthen democracy by articulating the interests of various social sections, ensuring that policy is not made in a vacuum (e.g., environmental groups advocating for sustainable policies). On the other hand, powerful groups with vested interests can hijack the national agenda, leading to policy paralysis or outcomes that benefit a few at the cost of many (e.g., demands for loan waivers straining public finances). The key analytical question is how to balance interest group politics with the larger public good.

  • Corporate Lobbying and Crony Capitalism: A Threat to the Welfare State

    • The debate on legalizing corporate lobbying in India is not merely a question of transparency but goes to the heart of India’s political economy. In a country with vast inequality, legalizing lobbying could institutionalize the influence of money power over public policy, directly contradicting the Directive Principles of State Policy which aim for a more egalitarian, welfare-oriented state. The issue is deeply linked to the need for comprehensive electoral and political reforms to cleanse the system of illicit funding and restore faith in the democratic process.

  • From Representative to Participatory Democracy

    • CSOs and social movements are critical instruments for deepening democracy. Traditional representative democracy confines citizen participation largely to voting every five years. CSOs create continuous avenues for engagement through social audits, public hearings (jan sunwais), and participatory planning. This transition is essential for making governance more responsive, accountable, and inclusive, especially at the local level as envisioned by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.

Previous Year Questions

Prelims

  1. Which one of the following is not a feature of a pressure group? (UPSC CSE 2023 - modified) a) It tries to influence government policies. b) It aims to capture political power. c) It has a specific and often narrow set of interests. d) It can be formal or informal in its structure. Answer: b) Pressure groups seek to influence power, not capture it. Political parties aim to capture power.

  2. The term ‘social audit’ is best described as: (UPSC CSE 2021 - modified) a) A statutory audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). b) A process of reviewing official records by the people to verify the implementation of a scheme. c) An internal audit mechanism within a government department. d) A performance review of NGOs by the government. Answer: b) Social audit is a community-based process where citizens scrutinize and verify government records and physical implementation of projects.

  3. The Right to Information Act, 2005, makes the provision of: (UPSC CSE 2019 - modified) a) Dissemination of all types of information by public authorities to any person. b) Securing access to information under the control of public authorities. c) Providing information about the private sector to citizens. d) Automatic disclosure of all government files to the public. Answer: b) RTI provides a mechanism for citizens to access information held by public authorities, subject to certain exemptions.

  4. Consider the following statements regarding Self-Help Groups (SHGs): (UPSC CSE 2020 - modified)

    1. All members of an SHG take responsibility for a loan that an individual member takes.
    2. The SHG-Bank Linkage Programme is a flagship initiative of the Ministry of Rural Development. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? a) 1 only b) 2 only c) Both 1 and 2 d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: a) Statement 1 is correct as SHGs operate on the principle of collective responsibility. Statement 2 is incorrect; the SHG-Bank Linkage Programme was pioneered by NABARD, not the ministry directly.

  5. Which of the following are often described as ‘interest groups’ in the context of Indian polity? (UPSC CSE 2018 - modified)

    1. Trade Unions
    2. Caste Associations
    3. Tribal Organisations
    4. Business Associations Select the correct answer using the code given below. a) 1 and 4 only b) 1, 2 and 4 only c) 2 and 3 only d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Answer: d) All the given options are forms of associations that act as interest groups or pressure groups to influence policy for their specific communities or sectors.

Mains

  1. “The emergence of Self-Help Groups (SHGs) in contemporary times points to the slow but steady withdrawal of the state from developmental activities”. Critically examine this statement. (UPSC CSE 2017)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Define SHGs and their role in socio-economic empowerment, particularly for women.
      • Argument for ‘State Withdrawal’: Explain how SHGs fill gaps left by the state in areas like credit delivery (micro-finance), social security, and local entrepreneurship. Mention how the neo-liberal model of governance emphasizes a smaller state role.
      • Argument against ‘State Withdrawal’ (Counter-view): Argue that SHGs are not a substitute for the state but a partner. The state actively promotes SHGs through schemes like the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM). SHGs are a tool for deepening state outreach and making development more participatory, not a sign of its withdrawal. The state’s role changes from a ‘provider’ to a ‘facilitator’.
      • Critical Examination: Conclude that the statement is an oversimplification. The rise of SHGs represents a paradigm shift in the mode of governance towards a more collaborative and community-centric approach, rather than a simple withdrawal of the state.

  2. Pressure groups play a vital role in influencing public policy making in India. Explain how the business associations contribute to public policies. (UPSC CSE 2021)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Define pressure groups and their importance in a pluralistic democracy. State that business associations are among the most organized and influential pressure groups.
      • Mechanisms of Influence: Detail the methods used by business associations (like FICCI, CII, NASSCOM):
        • Lobbying and Representation: Direct meetings with ministers, bureaucrats; representation on government committees and task forces.
        • Policy Research and Inputs: Publishing research reports, budget recommendations, and white papers to provide data-driven arguments for policy changes (e.g., demanding changes in taxation, labour laws, environmental clearances).
        • Media and Public Opinion: Using media to advocate for a pro-business environment and influence public discourse.
        • Electoral Funding: Providing funds to political parties (historically through opaque means, more recently via electoral bonds).
      • Examples: Cite specific instances like lobbying for GST implementation, advocating for corporate tax cuts, or influencing trade negotiations.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while their inputs are valuable for economic growth, there is a need for greater transparency and regulation to prevent policy capture and ensure that policies serve the broader public interest.

  3. To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots? (UPSC CSE 2022)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Briefly explain the significance of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts as a step towards decentralisation.
      • Positive Changes in Governance Landscape:
        • Political Empowerment: Created a new tier of leadership, especially for women and marginalized communities due to reservations.
        • Participatory Governance: Strengthened participative democracy through institutions like Gram Sabhas.
        • Responsive Governance: Brought administration closer to the people, making it potentially more responsive to local needs.
        • Role of CSOs: Decentralisation has enabled CSOs and SHGs to engage more effectively with local governments.
      • Limitations and Challenges:
        • Lack of ‘3 Fs’: Inadequate devolution of Funds, Functions, and Functionaries to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
        • Bureaucratic and Political Interference: PRIs are often controlled by state governments and local MLAs/MPs.
        • Capacity Issues: Lack of training and capacity among elected representatives at the local level.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while decentralisation has fundamentally altered the governance landscape by creating democratic structures at the grassroots, its full potential remains unrealized due to structural and functional challenges.

  4. “The Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding its provisions.” Comment. (UPSC CSE 2022)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: Briefly state the progressive, rights-based vision of the RPwD Act, 2016, which shifted the disability discourse from a charity-based to a rights-based model.
      • Arguments Supporting the Statement (Act as a Legal Document):
        • Lack of Awareness: Low awareness about the Act’s provisions (e.g., reservation in jobs, accessibility standards) among officials and the public.
        • Implementation Gaps: Poor implementation of accessibility norms (the ‘Accessible India Campaign’ has had limited success), inadequate budget allocation, and slow certification processes.
        • Attitudinal Barriers: Deep-seated societal prejudices and a lack of sensitization among officials lead to discrimination and apathy. CSOs and disability rights groups constantly have to fight legal battles to get the provisions implemented.
      • Counter-arguments (Positive Impacts):
        • The Act has provided a strong legal framework for advocacy and litigation.
        • It has led to some policy changes and increased discourse on disability rights.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while the Act is a landmark piece of legislation, its success is severely hampered by a lack of sensitization and political will for robust implementation. Intense and continuous sensitization campaigns, accountability mechanisms, and active involvement of CSOs are crucial to translate its legal provisions into ground reality.

  5. Critically examine the role of the National Commission for Women in the light of recent incidents of violence against women. (UPSC CSE 2019 - modified context)

    • Answer Outline:
      • Introduction: State the mandate of the National Commission for Women (NCW) as a statutory body established to safeguard the rights and interests of women.
      • Positive Role of NCW:
        • Investigative Role: Takes suo motu cognizance of incidents, sets up inquiry committees, and makes recommendations.
        • Policy Recommendation: Reviews laws and suggests amendments to make them more stringent (e.g., on sexual harassment at workplace, acid attacks).
        • Awareness and Legal Aid: Conducts awareness programs and provides legal support to victims.
      • Critical Examination (Limitations):
        • ‘Toothless Tiger’: The NCW is primarily an advisory body; its recommendations are not binding on the government.
        • Lack of Independence: The appointment process is controlled by the executive, leading to perceptions of political influence and lack of autonomy.
        • Reactive rather than Proactive: Often criticized for reacting to incidents after they gain media attention rather than proactively working on prevention.
        • Limited Resources: Faces constraints in terms of funding and manpower to address the vast number of cases across the country.
      • Conclusion: Conclude that while the NCW plays an important symbolic and recommendatory role, its effectiveness is constrained by its limited powers and lack of autonomy. Reforming the NCW to grant it more powers (akin to the NHRC) and ensuring its political independence are essential for it to be a more effective guardian of women’s rights.

Graph View