Federal government of the United States

The Federal Government of the United States (U.S. Federal Government) is the national government of the United States, a republic in North America, composed of 50 states, one district, Washington, D.C. (the nation's capital), and several territories. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislativeexecutive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the President, and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

Naming

Political system of the United States
The full name of the republic is "United States of America". No other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which it is a party (Charles T. Schenck v. United States). The terms "Government of the United States of America" or "United States Government" are often used in official documents to represent the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. In casual conversation or writing, the term "Federal Government" is often used, and the term "National Government" is sometimes used. The terms "Federal" and "National" in government agency or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal government (Federal Bureau of InvestigationNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Park Service). Because the seat of government is in Washington, D.C., "Washington" is commonly used as a metonym for the federal government.

History

The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution. The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republics.[1]
The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make the case for expansive federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to individuals, the states or other recognized entities.
Since the American Civil War, the powers of the federal government have generally expanded greatly, although there have been periods since that time of legislative branch dominance (e.g., the decades immediately following the Civil War) or when states' rights proponents have succeeded in limiting federal power through legislative action, executive prerogative or by constitutional interpretation by the courts.[2][3]
One of the theoretical pillars of the United States Constitution is the idea of "checks and balances" among the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of American government: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. For example, while the legislative (Congress) has the power to create law, the executive (President) can veto any legislation—an act which, in turn, can be overridden by Congress.[4] The President nominates judges to the nation's highest judiciary authority (Supreme Court), but those nominees must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court, in its turn, has the power to invalidate as "unconstitutional" any law passed by the Congress. These and other examples are examined in more detail in the text below.

Legislative branch

Seal of the U.S. Congress
The United States Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Makeup of Congress

House of Representatives

The 435 seats of the House grouped by state
The House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom represents a congressional district. The number of representatives each state has in the House is based on each state's population as determined in the most recent United States Census. All 435 representatives serve a two-year term. Each state receives a minimum of one representative in the House. In order to be elected as a representative, an individual must be at least 25 years of age, must have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and must live in the state that he or she represents. There is no limit on the number of terms a representative may serve. In addition to the 435 voting members, there are six non-voting members, consisting of five delegates and one resident commissioner. There is one delegate each from the District of ColumbiaGuam, the Virgin IslandsAmerican Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico.[5]

Senate

In contrast, the Senate is made up of two senators from each state, regardless of population. There are currently 100 senators (two from each of the 50 states), who each serve six-year terms. Approximately one third of the Senate stands for election every two years.

Different powers

The House and Senate each have particular exclusive powers. For example, the Senate must approve (give "advice and consent" to) many important Presidential appointments, including cabinet officers, federal judges (including nominees to the Supreme Court), department secretaries (heads of federal executive branch departments), U.S. military and naval officers, and ambassadors to foreign countries. All legislative bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The approval of both chambers is required to pass any legislation, which then may only become law by being signed by the President (or, if the President vetoes the bill, both houses of Congress then re-pass the bill, but by a two-thirds majority of each chamber, in which case the bill becomes law without the President's signature). The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution also includes the "Necessary and Proper Clause", which grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers". Members of the House and Senate are elected by first-past-the-post voting in every state except Louisiana, and Georgia, which have runoffs.

Impeachment of federal officers

Congress has the power to remove the President, federal judges, and other federal officers from office. The House of Representatives and Senate have separate roles in this process. The House must first vote to "impeach" the official. Then, a trial is held in the Senate to decide whether the official should be removed from office. Although two presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), neither of them was removed following trial in the Senate.

Congressional procedures

Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives each chamber the power to "determine the rules of its proceedings". From this provision were created congressional committees, which do the work of drafting legislation and conducting congressional investigations into national matters. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) had 19 standing committees in the House and 17 in the Senate, plus four joint permanent committees with members from both houses overseeing the Library of Congress, printing, taxation and the economy. In addition, each house may name special, or select, committees to study specific problems. Today, much of the congressional workload is borne by subcommittees, of which there are some 150.

Powers of Congress

The United States Capitol is the seat of government for Congress.
The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated in Article I, Section 8, these include the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, issue patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, combat piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute powers. Over the two centuries since the United States was formed, many disputes have arisen over the limits on the powers of the federal government. These disputes have often been the subject of lawsuits that have ultimately been decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Congressional oversight

Congressional oversight is intended to prevent waste and fraud, protect civil liberties and individual rights, ensure executive compliance with the law, gather information for making laws and educating the public, and evaluate executive performance.[6]
It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions and the presidency.
Congress's oversight function takes many forms:
  • Committee inquiries and hearings
  • Formal consultations with and reports from the President
  • Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties
  • House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials
  • House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the President becomes disabled or the office of the Vice President falls vacant.
  • Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials
  • Congressional membership: each state is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in the House of Representatives. Each state is allocated two Senators regardless of its population. As of January 2010, the District of Columbia elects a non-voting representative to the House of Representatives along with American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Executive branch

The executive power in the federal government is vested in the President of the United States,[7] although power is often delegated to the Cabinet members and other officials.[8][9]The President and Vice President are elected as running mates by the Electoral College, for which each state, as well as the District of Columbia, is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in both houses of Congress.[7][10] The President is limited to a maximum of two four-year terms.[11] If the President has already served two years or more of a term to which some other person was elected, he may only serve one more additional four-year term.[7]

President

Seal of the U.S. President
The executive branch consists of the President and those to whom the President's powers are delegated. The President is both the head of stateand government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution". The President presides over the executive branch of the federal government, an organization numbering about 5 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel and 600,000 postal service employees.
The President may sign legislation passed by Congress into law or may veto it, preventing it from becoming law unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to override the veto. The President may unilaterally sign treaties with foreign nations. However, ratification of international treaties requires a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. The President may be impeached by a majority in the House and removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for "treasonbribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". The President may not dissolve Congress or call special elections but does have the power to pardon, or release, criminals convicted of offenses against the federal government (except in cases of impeachment), enact executive orders, and (with the consent of the Senate) appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges.

Vice President

Seal of the U.S. Vice President
The Vice President is the second-highest official in rank of the federal government. The office of the Vice President's duties and powers are established in the legislative branch of the federal government under Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 4 and 5 as the President of the Senate. By virtue of this on-going role, he or she is the head of the Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President is allowed to vote in the Senate, but only when necessary to break a tie vote. Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College. As first in the U.S. presidential line of succession, the Vice President duties and powers move to the executive branch when becoming President upon the death, resignation, or removal of the President, which has happened nine timesin U.S. history. Lastly, in the case of a Twenty-fifth Amendment succession event, Vice President would become Acting President, assuming all of the powers and duties of President, except being designated as President. Accordingly, by circumstances, the Constitution designates the Vice President as routinely in the legislative branch, or succeeding to the executive branch as President, or possibly being in both as Acting President pursuant to the Twenty-fifth Amendment. Because of circumstances, the overlapping nature of the duties and powers attributed to the office, the title of the office and other matters, such has generated a spirited scholarly dispute regarding attaching an exclusive branch designation to the office of Vice President.[12][13]

Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies

The day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the various federal executive departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of national and international affairs. The heads of the 15 departments, chosen by the President and approved with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate, form a council of advisers generally known as the President's "Cabinet". Once confirmed "cabinet officers" serve at the pleasure of the President. In addition to departments, a number of staff organizations are grouped into the Executive Office of the President. These include the White House staff, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The employees in these United States government agencies are called federal civil servants.
There are also independent agencies such as the United States Postal Service, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Agency for International Development. In addition, there are government-owned corporations such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

Judicial branch

The Judiciary explains and applies the laws. This branch does this by hearing and eventually making decisions on various legal cases.

Overview of the federal judiciary

Seal of the U.S. Supreme Court
Article III section I of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States and authorizes the United States Congress to establish inferior (i.e., lower) courts as their need shall arise. Section I also establishes a lifetime tenure for all federal judges and states that their compensation may not be diminished during their time in office. Article II section II establishes that all federal judges are to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 subdivided the nation jurisdictionally into judicial districts and created federal courts for each district. The three tiered structure of this act established the basic structure of the national judiciary: the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeals, 94 district courts, and two courts of special jurisdiction. Congress retains the power to re-organize or even abolish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court adjudicates "cases and controversies"—matters pertaining to the federal government, disputes between states, and interpretation of the United States Constitution, and, in general, can declare legislation or executive action made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent for future law and decisions. The United States Constitution does not specifically mention the power of judicial review (the power to declare a law unconstitutional). The power of judicial review was asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (1803). There have been instances in the past where such declarations have been ignored by the other two branches. Below the U.S. Supreme Court are the United States Courts of Appeals, and below them in turn are the United States District Courts, which are the general trial courts for federal law, and for certain controversies between litigants who are not deemed citizens of the same state ("diversity jurisdiction").
There are three levels of federal courts with general jurisdiction, meaning that these courts handle criminal cases and civil lawsuits between individuals. Other courts, such as the bankruptcy courts and the Tax Court, are specialized courts handling only certain kinds of cases ("subject matter jurisdiction"). The Bankruptcy Courts are "under" the supervision of the district courts, and, as such, are not considered part of the "Article III" judiciary and also as such their judges do not have lifetime tenure, nor are they Constitutionally exempt from diminution of their remuneration.[14] Also the Tax Court is not an Article III court (but is, instead an "Article I Court").[15]
The district courts are the trial courts wherein cases that are considered under the Judicial Code (Title 28, United States Code) consistent with the jurisdictional precepts of "federal question jurisdiction" and "diversity jurisdiction" and "pendent jurisdiction" can be filed and decided. The district courts can also hear cases under "removal jurisdiction", wherein a case brought in State court meets the requirements for diversity jurisdiction, and one party litigant chooses to "remove" the case from state court to federal court.
The United States Courts of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals of cases decided by the district courts, and some direct appeals from administrative agencies, and some interlocutory appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court hears appeals from the decisions of the courts of appeals or state supreme courts, and in addition has original jurisdictionover a few cases.
The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress; a U.S. treaty; cases affecting ambassadorsministers and consuls of foreign countries in the U.S.; cases and controversies to which the federal government is a party; controversies between states (or their citizens) and foreign nations (or their citizens or subjects); and bankruptcy cases (collectively "federal-question jurisdiction"). The Eleventh Amendment removed from federal jurisdiction cases in which citizens of one state were the plaintiffs and the government of another state was the defendant. It did not disturb federal jurisdiction in cases in which a state government is a plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant.
The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. The interplay of the Supremacy Clause and Article III has resulted in a complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Federal courts can sometimes hear cases arising under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state courts can decide certain matters involving federal law, and a handful of federal claims are primarily reserved by federal statute to the state courts (for example, those arising from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Both court systems thus can be said to have exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.
The U.S. Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office "during good behavior"; in practice, this usually means they serve until they die, retire, or resign. A judge who commits an offense while in office may be impeached in the same way as the President or other officials of the federal government. U.S. judges are appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Another Constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any Article III judge (Congress is able to set a lower salary for all future judges that take office after the reduction, but may not decrease the rate of pay for judges already in office).

Relationships between state and federal courts

Separate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the court systems of each state, each dealing with, in addition to federal law when not deemed preempted, a state's own laws, and having its own court rules and procedures. Although state governments and the federal government are legally dual sovereigns, the Supreme Court of the United States is in many cases the appellate court from the State Supreme Courts (e.g., absent the Court countenancing the applicability of the doctrine of adequate and independent State grounds). The Supreme Courts of each state are by this doctrine the final authority on the interpretation of the applicable state's laws and Constitution. Many state constitution provisions are equal in breadth to those of the U.S. Constitution, but are considered "parallel" (thus, where, for example, the right to privacy pursuant to a state constitution is broader than the federal right to privacy, and the asserted ground is explicitly held to be "independent", the question can be finally decided in a State Supreme Court—the U.S. Supreme Court will decline to take jurisdiction).
A State Supreme Court, other than of its own accord, is bound only by the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law, but is not bound by interpretation of federal law by the federal court of appeals for the federal circuit in which the state is included, or even the federal district courts located in the state, a result of the dual sovereigns concept. Conversely, a federal district court hearing a matter involving only a question of state law (usually through diversity jurisdiction) must apply the substantive law of the state in which the court sits, a result of the application of the Erie Doctrine; however, at the same time, the case is heard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence instead of state procedural rules (that is, the application of the Erie Doctrine only extends to a requirement that a federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction apply substantive state law, but not procedural state law, which may be different). Together, the laws of the federal and state governments form U.S. law.

Elections and voting

Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union, 1862.
Suffrage, commonly known as the ability to vote, has changed significantly over time. In the early years of the United States, voting was considered a matter for state governments, and was commonly restricted to white men who owned land. Direct elections were mostly held only for the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures, although what specific bodies were elected by the electorate varied from state to state. Under this original system, both senators representing each state in the U.S. Senate were chosen by a majority vote of the state legislature. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, members of both houses of Congress have been directly elected. Today, U.S. citizens have almost universal suffrage under equal protection of the laws[16] from the age of 18,[17] regardless of race,[18] gender,[19] or wealth.[20] The only significant exception to this is the disenfranchisement of convicted felons, and in some states former felons as well.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the national representation of U.S. territories and the federal district of Washington, D.C. in Congress is limited: while residents of the District of Columbia are subject to federal laws and federal taxes, their only congressional representative is a non-voting delegate; however, they have been allowed to participate in presidential elections since March 29, 1961.[21] Residents of U.S. territories have varying rights; for example, only some residents of Puerto Rico pay federal income taxes (though all residents must pay all other federal taxes, including import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes and federal payroll taxes, including Social Security and Medicare). All federal laws that are "not locally inapplicable" are automatically the law of the land in Puerto Rico but their current representation in the U.S. Congress is in the form of a Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate.[22]

State, tribal, and local governments

The states of the United States as divided into counties (or, in Louisianaand Alaskaparishes and boroughs, respectively). Alaska and Hawaii are not to scale and the Aleutian and uninhabited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands have been omitted.
The state governments tend to have the greatest influence over most Americans' daily lives. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising any power not delegated to it by the States in the Constitution; as a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals within their jurisdiction. Because state governments are not authorized to print currency, they generally have to raise revenue through either taxes or bonds. As a result, state governments tend to impose severe budget cuts or raise taxes any time the economy is faltering.[23]
Each state has its own written constitution, government and code of laws. The Constitution stipulates only that each state must have, "a Republican Government". Therefore, there are often great differences in law and procedure between individual states, concerning issues such as property, crime, health and education, amongst others. The highest elected official of each state is the Governor. Each state also has an elected state legislature (bicameralism is a feature of every state except Nebraska), whose members represent the voters of the state. Each state maintains its own state court system. In some states, supreme and lower court justices are elected by the people; in others, they are appointed, as they are in the federal system.
As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. GeorgiaAmerican Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments subject to federal authority but, in some cases, outside of the jurisdiction of state governments. Hundreds of laws, executive orders and court cases have modified the governmental status of tribes vis-à-vis individual states, but the two have continued to be recognized as separate bodies. Tribal governments vary in robustness, from a simple council used to manage all aspects of tribal affairs, to large and complex bureaucracies with several branches of government. Tribes are currently encouraged to form their own governments, with power resting in elected tribal councils, elected tribal chairpersons, or religiously appointed leaders (as is the case with pueblos). Tribal citizenship and voting rights are typically restricted to individuals of native descent, but tribes are free to set whatever citizenship requirements they wish.
The institutions that are responsible for local government within states are typically town, city, or county boards, water management districts, fire management districts, library districts and other similar governmental units which make laws that affect their particular area. These laws concern issues such as traffic, the sale of alcohol and the keeping of animals. The highest elected official of a town or city is usually the mayor. In New England, towns operate in a direct democratic fashion, and in some states, such as Rhode IslandConnecticut, and some parts of Massachusetts, counties have little or no power, existing only as geographic distinctions. In other areas, county governments have more power, such as to collect taxes and maintain law enforcement agencies.

CHILD BEGGING IN INDIA – CAUSES, CURRENT SITUATION AND SUGGESTED REFORMS

CHILD BEGGING IN INDIA – CAUSES, CURRENT SITUATION AND SUGGESTED REFORMS:
Children comprise 50% of the earth’s population currently. Extremely vulnerable children can be seen begging on the streets and this is a glaring reality in every corner of our country. Even Norway, which is considered as one of the richest countries in the world is not free of this evil business. Every country has laid down laws to tackle this issue but success has been minimal. Though our Constitution expresses concern for upbringing children in safe, secure and healthy manner through various provisions but on the ground, all of those are still a long shot looking at the current state of affairs. There are not many studies on child beggars in India, however, with the limited ones available, let us explore the reasons and possible solutions for this in detail:

CAUSES OF CHILD BEGGING:
1.       Abject Poverty leads adults of families into begging and they also coerce their children into this business.
2.       Orphaned & abandoned children and the ones who run away from their native places due to poverty or any other reasons.
3.       Refugees.
4.       Religious sanctions provided by Indian culture & religion, where people believe feeding beggars outside religious places or the ones carrying a God’s picture in a steel bowl with oil is an act of good karma and wards off evil.
5.       Malnutrition.
6.       Juvenile Delinquency & Drug addiction.
7.       Manipulated and exploited by Adults.
8.       Organised Gangs/Begging mafia working who kidnap, buy & sell children (Human Trafficking) and maim them for this purpose.
9.       Psychological & Physical coercion.
10.   Easy money with no labour.
11.   Cross generation begging since no education prevails in many generations of beggars.
12.   No knowledge of their rights and rehabilitation provisions and afraid of their gang-lords.
13.   Nexus between organised gangs and law enforcers.
14.   Failure of Govt. schools to retain children.
15.   Failure of Governance to implement policies for such children effectively.

 INTERNATIONAL, CONSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL PROVISIONS (INDIA) FOR CHILDREN BEGGING:
 1924: The League of Nations adopted the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which established children’s rights as means for material, moral and spiritual development; special help when hungry, sick, disabled or orphaned; first call on relief when in distress; freedom from economic exploitation; and an upbringing that instills a sense of social responsibility.
1948: The UN General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which referred in article 25 to childhood as “entitled to special care and assistance.” In 1959 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which recognized rights such as freedom from discrimination and the right to a name and a nationality. It also specifically enshrined children’s rights to education, health, care and special protection. 1979 was declared as the International Year of the Child.
1989: The UN General Assembly unanimously approved the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force the following year.
1990: The World Summit for Children was held in New York. The leaders signed the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of Children as well as a Plan of Action for implementing the Declaration, setting goals to be achieved by the year 2000.
1999: The Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour was adopted.
2000: The UN Millennium Development Goals incorporate specific targets related to children, including reducing sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
2002: The UN General Assembly held a Special Session on Children, meeting for the first time to specifically discuss children’s issues.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Article 15 (3) enables the state to make special provisions for children.
Article 24 explicitly prohibits child labour and hazardous employment of children.
Article 39(f) further directs the state in its policy towards the well-being of the children.
Article 39 ( c ) provides that children of tender age should not be subject to abuse and should be given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner.
Article 45 makes provision for free and compulsory education for children.
Article 47 states that it is the duty of the state to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health. The courts in India have stated that a child cannot be treated as an inanimate object or like a property by the parents.
Exposure and abandonment of children by parents or others is a crime under section 317 of IPC. Kidnapping is a crime under sections 360, 361, 384, 363, 363 A (kidnapping for begging), 366, 367, 369 of IPC.
There are certain crimes against children which are punishable under special and local laws such as immoral traffic prevention act. The child labour act banned child labour in hotels, restaurants and as domestic servants. The Government of India passed the Children Act 1960 to introduce uniformity and to establish separate child welfare boards to handle cases relating to neglected children.
In 1974 the government adopted a National Policy for Children. The Indian legislature has enacted several legislations to improve and protect lives of children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and its amendment in 2006, and Right to Education Act 2009 are significant in this regard.
Bombay Prevention of Begging Act in 1959 made begging a crime, and extended to other States including Delhi.

CURRENT SITUATION IN INDIA:
In India, by official statistics, roughly 60000 children (the real number is estimated to be much higher) disappear every year and an estimated 300000 child beggars in India. Even some people of the medical fraternity are also involved with the mafia gangs to help maim the children for a huge sum. In spite of a number of policies and laws set up for these purposes of helping such children, the govt. has been a big failure in curbing this due to lack of political will.  Apart from that, the unholy nexus between the begging gangs/mafia and the law enforcers is a big impediment in removing this social evil. Also, there is no coordination at all between the policy makers, bureaucrats and law enforcers as well as civil society and the lack of public awareness in this matter has led to an even more deteriorated situation than before.
REFORMS NEEDED:
· Compulsory schooling for all children which has already been laid down in Law via the RTE Act but the implementation and awareness needs to be spruced up in a major way and also the corruption involved in it need to be checked by a stringent body/mechanism in place.
· Sympathetic teachers and child friendly environment in schools because govt. & MCD schools lack these and that is the reason that the children dropout or abandon studies completely for life. A routine report and regular inspections/meetings need to be carried out for this purpose.
· No alms drive to educate the public.
· Adult guardians as well as those who criminally (mafia/gangs/traffickers) coerce children in to this trade need to be caught upon information gathered, and punished to make an example of to the others in this dirty business.
· Strict and speedy sentences meted out to the criminals as a punishment for kidnapping and maiming of children.
· Welfare policies for child beggars and their families such as monetary help, health and residence etc. 
· Good and more number of orphanage/ shelter homes for children without close relatives and advertise this everywhere for awareness.
· Railways should become more watchful as most of beggars are trafficked through this route and one can see a huge amount of beggars on the railway stations.
· Help to lower income/ poor including temporary emergency assistance and long term skill development for stable income and occupation.
· Increasing awareness of the general public of child helpline numbers and NGOs and Govt. Homes and Laws to help such children.
· Providing an incentive to parents along with counselling to send their wards to schools.

· In depth and a lot more studies and research into this issue to understand it in totality and issues with current schemes & policies. Increased coordination between the civil society, policy makers and implementers/law enforcers to bring their experience and authority to the table and work out a detailed and holistic plan to tackle this menace and eradicate it completely.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION


Today we begin with what is Public Administration. The definition,nature and scope of this complex and very young discipline.
To begin with, Public Administration though practiced through time immemorial ( it is as old as humanity) on all parts of the earth,recently carved an identity for itself a few decades back as a seperate discipline.
It swirled into the limelight through Woodrow Wilson's controversial paper in the Political Science Quarterly ( Journal) in 1887 that advocated a seperate field of study for the art and science of Public Administration since Political Science did not have the answers to many questions of Public Administration. He advocated a comparative study of public administration with other nations to know our strengths and weaknesses of Public Administration as being practiced in US at  that point in time. He asserted that if US wanted to become the best then it had to get skilled in the art and techniques of public administration by making it more businesslike and totally cut off from the interference of the political executive who knew nothing about the technicalities of implementation of public policy.

This was called the era of the politics-administration dichotomy(divide) that continued till the 1920's. 


Thus began a spate of theories that helped in the evolution of Public Administration as a seperate discipline and matter of great research and analysis.

Now since today we are to talk about the basics we will proceed with the stages of evolution of the discipline of Public Administration in my next blog.

Definition:
Public Administration is the State Administration or Government Administration. Here Public is used as a synonym for Govt/State and not in the traditional sense of the word 'public'. So it is the govt's administration activities in process i.e. implementation of all its programmes and policies as well as other routine jobs. It is the management of the state/govt affairs at all levels - national,state and local. It is the govt. in action that implements and realises the purposes and goals. It is run by bureaucrats working under various ministries/departments.

Nigro & Nigro sum up Public Administration as follows:


  • It is a co-operative group effort in a public setting.
  • Has an important role in public policy formulation
  • covers all three branches of the govt./state - i.e. executive,legislature and judicial.
  • different from private administration(profit oriented businesses)
  • is closely associated with private groups and people in providing services to the community smoothly and directly.
  • Is non-polictical though operating in a political system.
  • deals with goal achievement of the govt,the sovereign will of the people's interests and laws.
  • It is interdisciplinary in nature as in it draws from many other social sciences and their theories like sociology,psychology,economics,law,etc.

NATURE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRAION:

Nature means the type or main characteristic of something and what is to be expected from it as per its behaviour/nature.
Public administration's nature and the study concerning it approaches it through two views: Integral view and Managerial view.

Both are quite plain to understand. The Integral view states that Public Administration is each and every activity that is performed in an organization working towards a particular goal of the stae/govt. This means right from the top managerial officers to the very bottom manual workers,all are part of public administration as a process.

On the other hand the Managerial view only takes into account the managerial activities of an organization.
It is bothered only about the activities that get things done instead of doing things(as stated in integral view).

Now you have to understand that both of these views are necessary and hold water in particular organizations.

The integral approach is suited for the postal dept since over there everybody from the top job to the post man's job is of importance. Whereas the mangerial view can be applied to each and every organizations, since POSDCORB ( Planning,organising,staffing,directing,co-ordinatinating,reporting and budgeting) activities as prescribed by Luther Gulick are present in every organization.


SCOPE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:
As a activity and a discipline(area of study) Public Administration entails the following processes:


  • Luther Gulick's POSDCORB(already explained above) activities of an organization.
  • Walker's Administrative theory - that studies the structures,organisations,functions and methods of all types of public authorities at all levels. And the APPLIED ADMINISTRATION which studies the exec-legislative relationship and minister-official relationship,delegated legislation,preperation of budget by officials,educational administration,military administration,social policies,economic activities of the govt.,foreign policy,problems and techniques of imperial domination over other nations and local administration.
  • Pfifner - he talks about management of personnel,public financing and administrative accountabilty to the people throught their ministers alongwith the abovementioned.
  • SUBJECT MATTER VIEW: Certain organizations cannot follow the straightjacket formula and way of functioning as listed above as their subject matter is totally different,like for example the police department and intelligence bureaus have their own procedures and techniques followed to gather intelligence and protect the people.


DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ADMINISTRATION:


  • Public admin is bureaucratic whereas pvt administration is businesslike.
  • public admin is political(ministerial responsibility) whereas pvt admin is non political.
  • there are high instances of red tapism in public admin whereas pvt admin is free from it.
  • Public admin follows uniform laws whereas pvt admin follows dynamism in  its way of working.
  • public admin is controlled financially from outside through the legislature,pvt admin is free from such processes.
  • no profit motive/marginal return policy of public admin whereas pvt admin is built for profit
  • breadth and scope of public admin is mammoth.
  • public admin is accountable to the public.
  • public admin acts an agent of change and transformation in society.
  • anonymity of officials in public admin.
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PVT ADMIN:
  • Common skills and techniques for management process.
  • both serve people and be informative toward them.
  • in modern times profit motive is not peculiar even to public administration.
  • pvt organisations have taken a lot from the personnel mgmnt practices of the public admin organizations.
  • similar type of hierarchy and management systems.
  • both carry on continuous efforts to better themselves and provide efficient delivery of services to people or customers.

IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:


  • It is the basis of govt. - A govt. can exist without a legislature or even an independent judiciary but not without administration.
  • An instrument for providing services to people.
  • Instrument to implement policies through qualified and skilled officials.
  • Stabilising force in society.
  • Instrument of social change and upliftment and economic development.
  • it has a technical character to it.


REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION:


  • Industrial revolution that brought in socio-economic disparities and made the rich richer and poor poorer and so the govt. had to assume a new role to protect workers and the weaker sections of society.
  • Emergence of Welfare and democratic State: To serve all sections of society and reduce the disparity of socio-economic status of people in society due to the above and other factors by controlling pvt enterprises and meeting state objectives.
  • Economic Planning- very important in developing countries for socio economic development.
  • Scientific and technological development for betterment of people and society.
  • population growth,warfare,increased natural and man made disaster,communalist activities causing violence,terrorism,etc.

Conflict Resolution - A Redefinition


Loomis and Loomis state that Conflict is an ever present process in human relations. Conflict may define, maintain and strengthen group boundaries,contributing to the group's distinctiveness and increasing group solidarity and cohesion.


CHANGING NATURE OF CONFLICT:
Earlier theories and discussions regarding conflicts were only done with regards to organisations and to a limited extent to the environment of organisations and even these were confined to efficiency and productivity of enterprises. But now, policies are not made in isolation, as globalisation has made it a universal and worldwide process involving all types of stakeholders which are not limited to groups or nations but triggered by ethnic,religious,racial and economic differences as well, therefore conflict resolution has now been redefined or updated to help resolve these issues of international conflicts/disagreements between stakeholders.



PHASES OF CONFLICTS:
1) Potential Conflict Phase : At this stage conflict is present at very low level of intensity. Structural factors and underlying causes create division among groups along socio economic, cultural and political lines. Mobilisation of collective discontentment begins but not organised, thus, preventive action at this point is not risky and has high potential payoff.

2) Gestation Phase: Consolidation of mobilisation is the characteristic of this phase as inter-group relations are politicised and popular mobilisation puts pressure on decision makers to address the issues. Polarisation between groups increase but one must take note that issues are still negotiable though preventive actions may cost initially but the potential payoffs are still much positive.

3) Triggering and Escalation Phase : There is a real and visible change in the group's economic,social or political conditions can trigger the escalation of conflict. Inter elite ties break down and social interactions focus on organised reaction as political exchanges fade and conflicting parties lose confidence in each other and feel they cannot compromise. Intervention at this phase becomes risky as well as costly.

4) Post - Conflict Phase : In this phase preventive interventions aim at reestablishing communication channels between the conflicting groups,in order to avoid a new round of conflict.

These need not occur in the manner laid out and often the lack of information or incentives to act fast are barriers to resolving conflicts.


CONFLICT RESOLUTION AT THE MICRO LEVEL:
1) Intra Organisational Level - These are conflicts occurring within organisations.

A) Task conflict - Disagreement about the Communication or directions from superiors among subordinates as some of the orders may lie outside their " Zone of Acceptance". The leadership should make sure that they substantiate their communications among the subordinates to resolve this and the ways to do this are suggested by Mary Parker Follett:
i) Domination to resolve a conflict- Here only one party wins which is the stronger one. The weaker party remains disgruntled and this will lead to very ugly consequences later. therefore this should be avoided.
ii) Compromise - Where no party benefits but settle mutually for the time being. But this sort of resolution is only a short term one and the conflicts keep building up internally and become more dangerous when it shows its face again and then it might become out of hand to even try to settle it. This method also she did not suggest much.
iii) Integration to resolve a conflict - Follett considers this technique to be the best. As under this method there is a feeling of win-win equation & both conflicting groups see their issues addressed. And this is long term solution.

THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION(in detail):
This process unfolds in three steps:
a) Surfacing of conflict or identification of existing issue.
b) Analysis of the conflict and development of a solution - A solution should be such that it no way leaves any room for the conflict resurfacing or a new conflict arising and it should benefit all and a circular response should be evoked where every member gets to vent out his feelings so that he feels heard.
c) Anticipation of results.

HINDRANCES TO THE SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCESS OF INTEGRATION:
a) It requires high degree of knowledge and analysis.
b) It requires high order of creativity and innovation
c) It may require more resources.
d) Superiors may have the tendency to continue domination.
e) True integration may not be achieved as groups may not agree to substitution.
f) Rushing to the application of scheme may create problems as its proper comprehension may require time.
g) Groups may feel inadequately represented but may not show at that particular time when integration is seemed to be achieved.


B) Inter Group Conflict: It deals with relationships among people/teams in an organisation more than a task and it is inevitable, so to manage it for optimal group maintenance, a six step process has been described:
a) Recognition and acknowledgement that conflict exists
b) Analysis of the existing situation
c) Facilitation of communication
d) Negotiation
e) Provision for necessary adjustments,reinforcements,confirmations
f) Realisation of living with conflicts as all conflicts cannot be resolved


C) Procedural Conflict : It occurs when group members disagree about the procedure to be followed in accomplishing the group goal. Solutions are-
a) New procedures may be formulated and a new agenda suggested.
b) Group goal may be modified
 This along with Task Conflict is of productive nature and brings in many reforms in the way of doing things more efficiently in the eyes of the higher management/decision makers.


That was about Intra - Organisational conflicts or within an organisation conflicts. Now we move on to discussing Intra Organisation Conflicts or conflicts occurring amongst two or more organisations.

INTRA ORGANISATIONAL CONFLICTS:
It has two aspects.
A) Environment of the particular organisation-: Two organisations may be in the same environment but clashing goals. For example - Scheduled Tribes ( Recognition of forest rights) Act 2005, while Ministry of Environment and forests may be concerned about the depleting forest cover by allowing more and more rural people into them for livelihood, on the other hand the Ministry of Tribal Affairs may be tackling the livelihood issues of the tribals. Thus such incompatible goals create conflicts that may lead to jurisdictional conflicts as well as the issue would be the control over areas given to tribals.

B) Institutional Pluralism -: In an effort for efficient governance and government services sometimes many service delivery agencies operate in the same domain, both in the private and public sphere and compete with each other. Conflict and competition may not be confused here as though they both have a common root cause of individuals striving towards incompatible goals, yet the major difference is that interference that hinders attainment of the goal, if done by established rules and regulations is termed as competition but when no rules are followed then it turns into a conflict.



CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AT THE MACRO LEVEL:
i) Policy making as Conflict Resolution,here all interest groups, protest groups and civil society as well as all stakeholders of a policy initiative should democratically contemplate and arrive at policies suitable to all so that conflicts do not arise as far as possible.
ii) Proactive Conflict Resolution. Catch the conflict when it is young instead of letting it escalate.
iii) Integrated Conflict management systems.
iv) Strengthening all government and non government institutions to tackle conflicts.
v) A central coordinating point for all conflict resolution efforts. A very good example of which is the prime minister's office in India where it intervenes between conflicts of ministries.
vi) Strong system evaluation and monitoring mechanisms.
vii) Capacity Building of individuals and institutions.
viii) People's participation as much as possible
ix) Civil society organisations
x) International Organisations of Conflict Resolution ( UNO,ICJ,etc) who work by international treaties and  charters,mandates while negotiating and arbitrating international disputes brought before them 

The perennial generalist vs specialist debate - TSR Subramanian

Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged. The room for abuse is enormous


The specialist vs. generalist debate in India’s civil services resurfaces periodically. One has seen a chief of the electricity board, an excellent engineer who managed his power plants and transmission systems extremely well, totally clueless in matters relating to power policy. One has also seen a first-rate irrigation chief engineer taking over as secretary of the irrigation department and floundering from day one on administrative issues. On the other hand, there have been many scientists, long abdicating their scientific work, turn into fine administrators and policymakers. It is not uncommon to find IAS secretaries, with excellent reputation, often unable to find their feet in ‘alien’ departments. There is no hard and fast rule in such matters; the suitability and background of each officer for a post is more relevant than his label.

Having said that, it has often been found suboptimal to have a specialist to head a department – say the ministry of energy or ministry of power. By definition, all specialists focus on their own specific fields, and each technical field has a hundred branches. An expert on electrical transmission may not have better advisory capability in the field of solar or hydrogen energy than a non-engineer with an open mind; in most fields rapid development has taken place in the past decades – our expert has learnt his specialty years back, and may be out of date even in his own specialisation. The generalist is not afraid of asking questions, consults many experts before a position is taken – more often than not the specialist tends to take the view that he knows all in his field, and often shuns other opinion. 

The author of this piece had occasion recently to prepare a study for the government on two separate fields – environment, and post office reforms. In the area broadly referred to as ‘environment and climate change’, it was an eye-opener to find at least a hundred separate fields of specialisation; often experts and agencies working in one may not be aware even of the existence of many others. Thus, forestry itself has any number of branches – if you add technical, commercial and social forestry issues, the fields of specialisation get multiplied. The arena of pollution – air and water – itself accommodates hundreds of expert fields. The committee that did the study would not have really been able to take a holistic view by talking just to one expert, however renowned – they met over a hundred, to get the picture. Likewise, the issue of postal reform covered a variety of fields – telecom spectrum, optical fibre connectivity, Unique Identity issues, insurance for life / accident / crops, logistics for e-commerce, to mention a few; doubtless, each of these would open up into many more specialised fields of expertise. Thus only an officer with intimate knowledge of the system, with decades of background and experience (needless to say with some imagination, insight and innovation), could bring together different experts to tackle each element of a new strategy. These illustrate the fallacy of repeatedly referring to need to replace ‘generalists’ with ‘specialists’.

The management of public affairs, as practised in India, is a highly specialised field; practitioners have to learn this profession, by working in the field – the university or training institutions will not prepare a person to deal with politicians, crooks, public grievances, riots, floods, policy-making in hundred fields, dealing with the police and the judiciary – none of these is taught in engineering schools or in MBA courses. Robust commonsense, coupled with a sense of dedication, pride, professionalism, and experience from years of working as a field officer and in the secretariat are the key requirements to make an administrator. 

Another metaphor may be drawn to make comparison – should a senior citizen, with many ailments not unusual for his age, have only one ‘expert’ doctor as his consultant, or should he rely on a ‘generalist’ doctor? This is not a hypothetical question. A person with high BP and diabetes (standard for most Indians), a weak spine (not unusual for government servants, particularly for those who have one), and poor lung capacity (normal for Delhi citizens, indeed of any city in India) – should he take advice directly from six different experts, without the assistance of a generalist all-round doctor, to interpret, moderate and balance the frequently conflicting ‘expert advice’? This is the role that the professional generalist, with two to three decades of experience is able to play in the system.

The question then may be asked that when the minister himself is a generalist, why one needs a secretary who is also a generalist. The minister is an expert in politics, manoeuvring public opinion, making wild promises, generally shrewd but weak in comprehension of complex issues; without being overly uncharitable, his main management task is to ensure that the ruling party’s political image remains intact; that in most cases, the special interest groups (aka ‘mafias’) that he is beholden to is benefitted; and that everything he does will ensure a good chance of his re-election. Do not be fooled by appellations – our ministers, especially in the states, do not have the same IQ or probity or experience quotient displayed by their counterparts in developed countries; the minister is just not cut out to be an administrator.

The UPSC is a key institution, one of the few which has maintained pristine standards; none has seriously questioned its process of selecting the best candidates for the civil services. The IAS is selected through a competitive examination – not on pass or fail basis; the system is designed to test overall comprehension, analytical ability, and optimal approach to situations, rather than specialisation; it would not make a difference whether a ‘generalist’ or a ‘professional’ is inducted into the service.

The second administrative reforms commission had recommended ‘lateral’ recruitment at the additional secretary and secretary levels. Many, at first sight, may see this as logical. The fact is that even now, at the government of India level, the secretary-level posts are evenly divided among all-India service officers, and experts in their own fields – most of them spending their career in government, rising to the top. Having worked in the system at the secretariat, the ‘expert’ may not have field experience (so essential to any policymaker or administrator whose recommendations / decisions would have impact on the citizen); however, he has understood the governmental system, which itself is highly specialised. Thus an Abdul Kalam or a Kasturirangan, who contributed during their time to governance, were both products of the system; the likes of Montek Singh Ahluwalia also were experts in their own field, but they thrived within the environment of the governmental milieu. It is a moot question whether an outside expert brought in, so to speak cold-turkey, to a line-department like telecom or agriculture or commerce would be able to hit the deck running – he would take at least a couple of years to understand the way decisions are examined and taken within the system, the operation of various institutional factors such as party politics, the judicial system, the  parliament, the CAG and other statutory and constitutional agencies, not to speak of the impact of media or the NGOs or the social media on decision making. This is not to belittle or downplay the role of experts – they are of vital importance to provide high quality technical inputs, and raise the quality of approach to complex issues. Do not downgrade them by asking them to be ‘pen-pushing’ babus. 

Do not demean our talented experts to waste their time dealing with inconsequential parliamentary questions. Equally, do not demean the senior professional civil servant, chosen from among the best talent available in India, with two-or-three-decades of relevant experience – he is generally irreplaceable. 

One other significant point needs to be highlighted. India has borrowed its administrative structure from Whitehall – not from the US, where each minister is allowed to choose his own senior advisers, who leave their private jobs as experts to join the minister’s team for a five-year stint; in the US they are team members, and identify their personal interests solely with that of the minister. In India such a concept will have disastrous impact – will make a corrupt system infinitely worse, in most situations. In India the governance pattern is ‘adversarial’ – the secretary’s role is to render dispassionate non-partisan advice; he is also responsible, as a career functionary, for the propriety of the advice he tenders. Besides, Indian administration does not have the checks and balances that US has, where most proposals are looked at through committees at different levels. Only a person who does not understand the basics, as well as the complex nature of Indian administrative practice, would trust short-term advisers at the highest levels, who will exercise authority without responsibility. Lateral entry will spell disaster, particularly in states where methods will be found to induct persons with limited expertise but dubious integrity, to loot the system. Again, before lateral entry is considered, there needs to be a clear understanding of what the current gaps are, and how – if at all – lateral entry will fill them. 

The present system of postings and transfers is frequently irrational, especially in the states. However, it needs to be ensured that at the additional secretary/ secretary level it will be unwise and counterproductive to post a career civil servant, who does not have previous experience in that broad field. At the level of secretary, there is no time to learn the broad milieu and general features of that particular field, indeed its ‘lingo’; there is no place for people with no previous exposure. Career planning for the services should ensure that the officer posted at the secretary level should have done at least one assignment at deputy secretary / director / joint secretary levels, to give him a sense of familiarity, as also to ensure that he is fully effective from day one.

No one questions the need for reform of the civil service, which ought to be a continuous process, as in every other sphere. Politicisation of the civil services has taken roots. The level of corruption in many civil services has reached worrisome, if not alarming, levels – though miniscule compared to the political arena. The morale of the civil servants themselves is low, particularly in the states. Some, who have little understanding of Indian governance, have even asked whether the time has come to abolish the all-India services. 

Don’t throw the baby with the bath water. What is needed is reform, not scrapping the system. Civil servants should be enabled to perform with freedom, efficacy and accountability. For this, one should reach out to tackle the core problems, not just tinker with peripheral issues. The necessary political will has to be summoned, if such a thing were possible, to tone up and cleanse the civil services.

The core problems afflicting the civil services stem from larger political causes, relating to unstable state governments, rampant corruption in the states and operation of mafias, and an insecure political executive exploiting the public servant for narrow personal ends. Politics having become the most lucrative business in the country, with few checks and controls, there is compulsion for the minister or political leader to tempt or coerce civil servants to collude with him for mutual benefit. Frequent transfers, ministers hand-picking the officials to work with them and sidelining of efficient but honest officers are common now, especially in the states.  An array of weapons is used: arbitrary transfers, control over the annual character roll entry, and unleashing of departmental inquiries to keep civil servants off balance and submissive, prodding them to collusion. These are the key issues which need to be addressed, for a meaningful reform.  

The main weaknesses in our governance structure do not emanate from the civil services. Currently, the real problems lie elsewhere. The political scene is unprincipled, unscrupulous, and untrammelled – there is no effective check against excesses and delinquency of the political executive. Political reforms should be highest on the agenda. This is possible only if there is significant election reform. Judicial reform, about which much is not yet talked about, also ranks in the forefront. One should avoid the temptation to look for ‘easy’ solutions, barking up the wrong tree – since the civil servant is the easiest target to hit. Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged – the room for abuse is enormous. 

Subramanian is a former cabinet secretary.
(The article appears in the June 16-30, 2015 issue)
Courtesy: http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/the-perennial-generalist-vs-specialist-debate