The Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee) made a range of recommendations to fight the menace of corruption. It recommended the constitution of the Central Vigilance Commission, and administrative vigilance divisions in all Departments and major organizations of the Government. The Committee suggested rules to be framed for governing the conduct of civil servants. Some suggested changes in the rules were filing of assets and liabilities statement instead of immoveable property statement by government servants, rules regarding receipt of gifts and raising of contributions, and rules regarding dealing in stocks and speculations. Changes were also suggested in Art. 311 of the Constitution of India for conducting disciplinary proceedings against government servants. The Committee also suggested a systematic review of the laws, rules, procedures and practices of the Ministries so that the possible scope and modes of corruption may be identified and remedial measures prescribed. Changes in the Indian Penal Code were also suggested to strengthen anti corruption measures. Economic offences, evasion of taxes, profiteering, black-marketing, misappropriation of public properties, trafficking in licences and misuse of position by a public servant in making contracts and issuing licenses etc, it was suggested, should find a prominent place in the general criminal law of the country. It was also suggested that the Law Commission should further look into these issues. The definition of public servant was recommended to be widened under the IPC to include Ministers, employees of PSUs etc. It was also recommended that offering of bribes should be made a substantive offence. The Committee further suggested that on completing 25 years of service or 50 years of age, a government servant may be retired without prescribing any reason, if the government thinks it fit. This was subsequently incorporated in Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules. The first ARC recommended that the departments and organizations which were in direct charge of development programmes should introduce performance budgeting. The ARC also recommended the establishment of two special institutions, the Lok Pal to deal with complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers and Secretaries to the government at the Centre and the Lok Ayuktas to deal with such complaints in States. The Hota Committee recommended that Sections 13 (1) (d) and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be amended to protect honest civil servants from malicious prosecution and harassment. It also recommended that a Code of Ethics should be drawn up for civil servants incorporating the core values of integrity, merit and excellence in public service. Another recommendation of the Hota Committee was that each department should lay down and benchmark services to be delivered, methods of grievance redressal and public evaluation of performance. It also recommended that a Model Code of Governance should be drawn up benchmarking the standards of governance to be made available to the citizens. It further recommended that an annual State of Governance Report, benchmarking the performance levels of each State/department/Ministry should be brought out.
Definition and Nature of Accountability:
The general sense of accountability is required or expected to justify actions or decisions. This is the dictionary meaning of accountability. But in governmental affairs particularly in public administration it has special implications and the concept is regarded as an important part. It implies that the representatives elected by the people must give explanations of the electorate for all these policies and actions. This is a very important part of democracy-particularly representative form of government. This is a very common cause that a person by whom he is elected is accountable to him or them. This is not only a common sense affair but the very foundation of democracy.
A quite reasonable definition of the term is: “The requirement for representatives to answer to the represented on the disposal of their powers and duties and act upon criticisms.” The ministers are accountable to the legislature, and the members of the legislature are accountable to the electorate. It may be explained in another way.
When a person is entrusted with a job or duty he is supposed to do it to the best of his ability, experience, honesty and efficiency. But if he fails to satisfy his employer, the latter can claim explanation, or the latter can ask him the cause of failure. This is called accountability. Hence accountability means one is bound to give explanation for the policy or work done by someone.
In Greek city-states the citizens assembled in open places and took decisions on legislative and administrative affairs. But the citizens appointed some persons to do the job on their behalf and, in that system, there was some sort of accountability. In other words, the citizens could demand explanation from the officers.
The contractualist Rousseau did not directly deal with the concept of accountability. But in his analysis of body politic and structure of government there was a concept of sovereignty which was general will and all were accountable to the general will because it was formed by all the able-bodied adult citizens. Everyone was legally bound by the principles of general will. It implies that the citizens are accountable to the general will. None could violate the general will because he was also the part of the general will.
With the progress of democracy and rapid progress of representative type of government the accountability has earned added importance. It is chiefly due to the fact that there is no scope of direct participation by the people in the administration. But while people elect someone or some number of people for transaction of some job, it is a general expectation that he or they will do the job satisfactorily. Any failure will call for an explanation. This is accountability. The key idea of accountability is to ensure a balance in the administrative system.
Here the word balance is used in a special sense. It means that someone is entrusted with a job and he is supposed to do it. But if his performance fails to satisfy then he Is required to be called for an explanation of his failure. Here lies the balance and it constitutes the very foundation of democracy. The idea of accountability has another meaning-it is control. Whenever one is asked to do a job, there must lie the system of controlling the process. Long ago Aristotle raised an interesting question-quis custodiet upsos custodcs-“Who will guard the Guardians?
Accountability and Bureaucracy:
In all state systems-developed, developing and underdeveloped-there is bureaucratic structure. Bureaucrats are not elected by people and naturally, like ministers and members of legislature, they are not accountable to the general public. Naturally, they are not bound to give any explanation for their policy or work and this has posed serious question as to the concept of balance. One is empowered to rule but to what extent that satisfies the people that poses an important question.
The greatest shortcoming of Weberian model of bureaucracy is it remains outside the scrutiny of the general public and ethics of public administration demands that control or scrutiny is indispensable. For that reason there arises the idea of the control of bureaucracy. In this connection we quote Ball and Peters: “The need for controlling bureaucratic discretion and power is apparent in every political system.
In all forms of government-particularly in liberal democracies-need for controlling bureaucracy has been strongly felt. In such systems there are two types of executives-one is permanent executive-bureaucrat and the other is temporary executive-that is minister. The ministers perform executive functions for a fixed period of time.
Normally the tenure of ministers is tied with the tenure of the legislature. But the bureaucrats enter the job and continue up to retirement. For some misdemeanour or wrongdoing they may be removed from service. The ministers are doubly accountable. They are accountable to the legislature-and again, to the people. If bureaucracy is the stamina of public administration it must be accountable to somebody.
At the beginning of the twentieth century Weber invented his model and he thought that administration without bureaucracy is simply an impossibility. If so, it is essential to control it through the process of ensuring accountability. Some people have suggested that the civil servants must be inculcated that they are servants of the people or society and their rudimentary duty is to help the amelioration of society through their services.
They are selected, trained, appointed and paid for their service to the society. Any failure is an up-pardonable misconduct. This inculcation, through various ways, will make them accountable. In other words, the bureaucrats must be made conscious of their responsibility to society. It is the duty of the state to do the job.
The common people must be made conscious of their rights and duties to the society. This type of alertness will make civil servants conscious of their responsibility to the society. But any form of callousness on their part will make the bureaucrats forgetful of their duty to society. This is possible through socialisation and spread of education among the people.
It has been suggested that internal control is sometimes more effective than external control. Internal control suggests that in the entire bureaucratic structure self-regulatory mechanism is to required be introduced. Some of the self-regulatory mechanisms are internal coordination, self-discipline, checks and balances, introductions of hierarchical system etc. The administrative structure is to be so arranged that no one shall get the opportunity to be powerful and unmindful of this responsibility or accountability to society.
A statutory body is to be constituted to ensure the accountability. It is said that people shall have freedom and opportunity to lodge their grievances to this body without any fear or hurdle. This system will make the bureaucrats accountable. They will be conscious of their responsibility to society.
After the Second World War (1939-1945) a large number of countries of Asia and Africa got their political freedom. For the purpose of economic development the most important and powerful machinery is administration. It is to be remembered that the public administration will do the necessary job of development. But the work requires to be assessed and here lies the question of accountability.
So both bureaucracy and its accountability to society are of primary importance. But in the developing states there is a brain-storming problem. The people are not politically educated and conscious and because of this the activities of bureaucracy remain beyond scrutiny of the general public. The inevitable consequences are corruption, nepotism, inefficiency in the department of public administration.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that the politicians in general and ministers in particular are corrupt and the top bureaucrats exploit this situation in their favour-they do not hesitate to follow corrupt practices for the gratification of their personal gains and desires This has eroded the sphere of accountability of civil servants to the society The ordinary people are helpless. So is the importance of accountability of bureaucracy to society. Rather, it may be treated as the central part of bureaucratic administration.
Forms of Accountability:
When the question of accountability arises we generally mean the accountability of bureaucrats to the general-public or society. But the experts of public administration have made a research about its several forms or aspects and we want to throw light on them.
It is said that first of all a civil servant is accountable to the administrative system It is because he is a member of civil service or bureaucracy. It has certain rules and norms. Every member of bureaucracy must show respect to these rules that is, they scrupulously obey the rules. None can violate the rules of the organisation.
In a democracy-particularly in parliamentary system-the ministers-that is political personalities-became the head of each ministry and beginning from top bureaucrat to an ordinary officer-all work under the authority of the minister and the decision of the minister is final. Of course the departmental head or secretary of the department can give suggestions to the minister and he can even warn the minister of the possible consequences of the policy which, the minister is going to announce. But if the minister refuses to comply with his secretary the latter must submit to the minister. This is called political accountability
There is another form of accountability and it is legal accountability. This is of course, not new. Legislature enacts laws, judges give verdict on different cases.
The decisions of judges are treated as law. A civil servant must obey all these laws which implies bureaucrat’s accountability to all sorts of laws. Specially a civil servant has no scope to show disrespect to the law of the legislature.
In a developing or transitional society there are customs, traditions, or old habits which are as valuable as laws of legislature or decisions of the judges. A civil servant cannot disobey such traditions, old systems. They are also accountable to the tradition or the traditional laws. Old customs and habits are also parts of social system. The planning of administration and development is to be made in this background.
There is an accountability to ethics or morality which is called bureaucratic morality or, what some public administrationists call, bureaucratic ethics. Simply stated it means that a bureaucrat must be sincere, honest, and efficient. He should remember that his perks come from the state exchequer which is filled up by people’s taxes. He should remember that public money is to be properly spent. He should do his duty efficiently and honestly. It is his duty to discharge his functions with utmost sincerity and efficiency.
Henry raises the question “Of what use was morality to a person who did no more than execute the will of the state according to certain scientific principles? Provided that public administrators accomplished their given terms efficiently and economically, they were moral in the sense that they were responsible” This is morality in public administration and the civil servants must be accountable to this special type of morality.
The accountability to morality may also be explained in terms of accountability to consciences. A bureaucrat must always remember that he is performing his duties with utmost sincerity, efficiency, and responsibility. When a policy is adopted, it is the duty of the officer to so execute it that the benefits of the implementation reach the people for whom the policy has been formulated.
There is another type of accountability to conscience. It is a very well-known fact that the ministers in a democracy are temporary executives. Whereas, the bureaucrats are permanent executives and they are fully aware of numerous aspects of public administration.
Whenever a minister is going to make a policy it is the primary responsibility of the bureaucrat or the secretary of the department or ministry to give or furnish all the details of the ministry including the odds. If he fails he will be responsible to his conscience. To put it in other words, by not providing the darker aspects of the ministry the civil servant has failed in his duty. He has not acted according to his good sense or conscience. Accountability to conscience has failed.
It is also the duty of the bureaucrat to warn the minister whenever the latter is going to adopt a wrong policy. In a democracy the minister is the final authority, but it is also a fact that so far as the policy-making is concerned he is fully dependent on his departmental secretary. Naturally, it is the primary responsibility of the secretary to aware the minister of the complexities and other aspects of the department. If the bureaucrat fails he will be solely responsible for his duty.
Here arises the accountability to conscience. A well-known authority — while explaining the relationship between the minister and his departmental secretary-said that it is the duty of the secretary to furnish necessary facts to the minister, to warn him about the possible bad consequences of a policy which he is going to adopt and, finally, to surrender to the minister because he should know that the minister is his political master.
New Public Management and Accountability:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In the fields of public administration and management America is always a pioneer. It devises new techniques or methods to tackle situations or problems. During the last six or seven decades America has introduced new systems or methods of public administration and these are followed by other countries. A new method in this series is the New Public Management (hereafter NPM). The NPM is not only a new method of public administration, it throws ample light on the issue of accountability.
In the last decade of the twentieth century the federal government of America realised that the advent of Cold War, and its recession, the disintegration of the then Soviet Russia as a superpower, the emergence of unipolar system etc. had brought about certain changes in the administrative system. Again, in the USA there emerged large and powerful corporations or multinational corporations, innovative systems were introduced in corporations, both globalisation and liberalisation were advancing rapidly.
The top public administrators of America felt the necessity of devising new methods of public administration to cope with the new changes and problems. Both public administration and management must be fully restructured or remodelled in the light of the new situation. A book was published in 1992 — Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. This paved the way for a new look in administrative system.
In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected US president and in January 1993 he assumed charge. Immediately after assuming charges Clinton declared a policy of public administration. He made the following comment: “Our goal is to make the entire federal government both less expensive and more efficient and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement towards initiative and empowerment”.
Bill Clinton took the initiative to restructure the entire administrative system of the federal government. His sole aims were to make the public administration efficient, accountable and to remove complacency from the body of bureaucracy. Top bureaucrats, public administrationists, scholars and experienced persons met together and discussed various ways of reinventing and restructuring public administration. Towards the end of the twentieth century the general principles of public administration were adopted and it is known as New Public Management.
The New Public Management offers the following ideas:
1. The New Public Management, introduced in the nineties of the last century, emphasised on the improvement of “accountability to the public interest, which should be understood in terms of law, continuity and shared values”. This is a clear emphasis on accountability.
2. In order to ensure that accountability is functioning properly the government shall evaluate the performance of bureaucrats.
3. The New Public Management has talked about empowering the citizens to assess the activities of government.
The New Public Management is also associated with good governance. Good governance is a slogan of most of the states, particularly the liberal democratic states. From the second half of the twentieth century, to achieve the goal of “good governance”, USA has made a lot of attempts and introduced a number of measures. Experts are of opinion that goodness of governance is to be measured by its performance. Again, this depends on several factors such as decentralisation, downsizing, proper budgeting. All these objectives are to be achieved through the successful execution of accountability. The New Public Management stresses both accountability and good governance.