Till BJP mentioned it in its 2014 election manifesto, ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ was an arcane idea, discussed only in academic forums, because no nation, including India, had any practical experience of this kind of governance. Prior to Independence, we had a maai baap Government; apart from ensuring that the Union Jack flew high, the Government took all decisions for the public, and ensured a somewhat just, efficient, peaceful, more or less honest administration. The advent of democracy meant that decisions were made by the Indian public, through its elected representatives, but not much changed at the grass-root level; almost the same laws and rules operated and the same people manned the same administrative posts, consequently, governance was essentially the same.

Till liberalisation in 1991, the Government was present everywhere, in every home, office and business. Everyone had to purchase food grains from a Government ration shop, and had to take a licence even to own a radio set, n-number of permissions were required to get a passport. In the early years of Independence, the State broadcaster, Vividh Bharti, was enjoined to play only classical music, with film songs being a total no-no. Businesses were tightly regulated, quotas were laid down for purchase, production, and sale of most commodities; the first business-friendly political party, Swatantra Party, in late 1950s coined the term “Quota-Permit-License Raj” to describe this Indian model of socialism. It was against Government policy for citizens to get rich; at the highest income bracket, in addition to wealthtax, income-tax was levied at 97 per cent of income.

Advertisement

The economic liberalisation of 1991 did away with the most intrusive aspects of such governance, but vestiges still remained; multiple permissions were required for starting any new venture and there were long queues at all Government offices, including queues to buy train tickets and file tax returns. Sometime later, the advent of computerisation led to the introduction of e-governance, which eased the compliance burden for citizens considerably; many routine tasks could now be done without visiting a Government office. Still, egovernance did nothing to diminish the role of Government in a citizen’s life. Rather, the Government wanted to arm itself with additional powers to monitor citizens’ activities on the internet.

Five years after announcement of the ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ initiative, just before the 2019 General Elections, PM Modi was asked about the success of his efforts. In a widely reported interview, Mr Modi claimed that much had been done by his Government to further the cause of ‘minimum government, maximum governance.’ Mr Modi said: “Earlier my Cabinet note would take six months to reach the entire Cabinet. But now it takes only 15 days. This is what minimum government and maximum governance is. Same number of people but the result is more.” Mr Modi pointed out that under his aegis MOUs were being signed after video conferences, saving on costly foreign travel, and that he had cleared projects worth around Rs12 lakh crore in just an hour, which were pending for over 30-40 years.

In the classical sense “governance” means the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). But, in its modern sense, ‘governance’ means that the State increasingly depends on other organizations to secure its intentions, deliver its policies, and establish a pattern of rule (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Thus ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ would mean that the role of the Government, as an intrusive implementer is minimised, with regulators and market forces implementing its policies.

However, most people still understand ‘minimum government’ as an initiative to limit the size of bureaucracy, which has probably been achieved already ~ by keeping many top posts vacant and carrying forward 30 lakh vacancies in the Government. Many departments make do by outsourcing their functions, even in the law enforcement, healthcare and education sectors. Suffice it to say that the Covid-19 pandemic ruthlessly exposed the shortcomings of the outsourcing system. Evidently, haphazardly limiting the size of bureaucracy lowers the quality of service delivery to citizens, thus impacting the quality of governance.

Speaking at the launch of his book ‘The Third Pillar,’ former Reserve Bank of India Governor, Raghuram Rajan, on 27 March 2019, questioned the implementation of the ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ promise, saying that the State had gained more power without corresponding checks and balances, which had brought inefficiencies in its wake. According to Mr Rajan, the private sector had become “dependent and pliant” and the bureaucracy was doing many things for which it was not intended. Also, the Government’s presence in business, particularly the airlines and hospitality sectors, was not required. Mr Rajan pointed out demonetisation, and the re-introduction of protective tariffs in a number of sectors, had resulted in increased intrusion of Government in business. There can be no absolute concept of minimum government. For example, apart from defence, foreign relations and currency management, the government needs to provide healthcare and education, and fulfil aspirations of the people as a whole. ‘Minimum government and maximum governance’ is an idea implying that government will be efficient, and that a smaller bureaucracy with more trained and skilled people will be more effective than a large and untrained one. However, much needs to be done to put this principle in practice; despite launch of National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (Mission Karmayogi) there has been no impetus in the training of civil servants, and in many cases, the right person is not in the right position.

Additionally, there is a dearth of rigorous policy research on administration. The most important aspect for “minimum government” is the need to define the core functions of the government, and thereafter, stick only to those functions. Budget 2022 had a section on ‘minimum government and maximum governance’ which was aimed to be achieved by strengthening trust-based governance with Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) 2.0 and Ease of Living, and a spirit of increased cooperative federalism. However, no change on the ground, in this direction, is visible, so far.

Worldwide, the role of Governments is increasing. The Economist in its lead article lamented the expanding footprint of government in public life: “All around the world, the idea of limited gov-ernment is taking a beating.” After the rise in energy prices, European govern-ments were subsidising fuel prices and promoting use of renewable energy through Government policies, not market forces. Similarly, the New Cold War had made the US put up trade barriers against Chinese goods, and subsidise domestic industries. Not surprisingly, such market-unfriendly behaviour was found acceptable by a public used to handouts during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Undoubtedly, the Government needs to provide good governance to citizens, the essence of which can be summed up as: Rule of law, better service delivery, transparency and accountability in Governmental processes, citizen empowerment through information, improved efficiency of Government functioning, and improved interface with business and industry. E-governance, of which JAM (Jandhan, Aadhaar, Mobile) is a part, is a commendable initiative for good governance.

Currently, as Rajan had pointed out, licence raj is gone but some part of inspector raj remains, which distorts governmentbusiness interactions. We also have gaps in service delivery, lack of accountability and poor efficiency of civil servants ~ manifest deficiencies that the government should address, sooner rather than later.

A number of factors hinder good governance; the need of the Government to appease all constituencies and stakeholders, which often results in compromises between different recommendations, leading to flaws in policy design. At the operational level, a culture of performance is lacking in Government employees. Archaic standards are used to measure performance, and promotions are hardly ever based on performance. Quickness in decision-making is often questioned by the omnipotent 3 Cs, CBI, CAG and Courts.

Some changes are required to promote good governance; responsibility and accountability need to be enforced in Government functioning, which would require a move away from wide discretion, the absence of transparency, and the current trend of centralization. The bureaucratic propensity of hobbling institutions of self-governance needs to be curbed, rather, the Government should enable greater public participation in its functioning. In a nutshell: “Good governance is the art of putting wise thought into prudent action in a way that advances the well-being of those governed.” (Diane Kalen-Sukra, Save Your City: How Toxic Culture Kills Community And What to Do About It).