Any organization has a three step process - recruit, train and then deploy.
The Government also follows this, but their training process is a little different. Some of these unique training processes have been adopted by many private organizations, too but the efficacy of the government process is on a different scale altogether.
In addition to the other standard training processes the specialized ones are those of selective hearing, selective eyesight and selective actions. To an extent, all these are supplemented by a specialized communication system.
Before you jump to conclusions, this is not just about politicians but about the entire administrative mechanism which includes the bureaucracy- right from the lowest ranked staff to the head of organizations, the law enforcement agencies, the Judiciary and the quasi judicial bodies. It is also valid irrespective of political ideology, political leanings, or the manifestos of different parties - without exception.
The first lesson that they are taught is to identify who needs to be served, and who does not. Lets call is selective vision. This is fairly easy to do. Anyone who hopes to gain access has to possess at least one of the valuable assets - money (quite a lot of it), proximity to a person of importance (either directly or indirectly) or ability to create a significant nuisance for persons of importance. The rest do not stand a chance! And the rest is a very large majority but unfortunately not important enough. This rest of the population is faceless though not necessarily poor. This rest has also been taught to hope endlessly and yo keep lowering expectations with every passing day.
Once the government recruit has mastered this initial art - which is fairly elementary, the next lesson is dissociation and delegation.This skill is a little more sophisticated and complex. No government member worth his salt will ever be caught not taking action on any problem that was brought to him.Irrespective of whether the problem is simple or complex, it will either be marked up or down to someone else, who might be so impressed by this that he might replicate the same action. This might go on endlessly so that people can see that some action is being taken, but also ensures that the problem is never solved.
Try this with any government organization - the municipality, the ministry, the courts...... the process is still the same, irrespective of political colour, position, control.
The people in question value time greatly - theirs, not ours!Talk to anyone there - he is so busy, that he has, of course, no time to do everything himself, but talk to the petitioner, did he get the problem solved - the answer is nearly always the same - no! The people in the government have also mastered the art of using time - so that either time solves the problem (rarely) or till the petitioner gives it up as a lost cause. Time is the friend of the government, but an enemy of the common man. No one knows this better than the courts - for them the time is the best thing that nature gave them. This is certainly true, after the filter of selective vision has been applied.
These people have also mastered the skill of selective deafness. You present a problem, and see how they perceive the same problem. their understanding may or may not have any link to your problem, therefore the solution offered will certainly not address it.This has no bearing on their intelligence - since they come from the same stock as we do. It is directly linked to the way they have been trained. Listening and understanding is a problem - it creates a burden on their conscience (I don’t know if that has also been marked down to a subordinate), it might, God forbid,push them to act, it might cause health issues - which will not do at all! Best way to avoid all these hassles is use selective deafness, which is simple and elegant at the same time. No listen, no pain! Great strategy!
A clear example of this is when you listen to any of the speeches that they give - either in official functions, or in social gatherings - it is all about what they did (really!?!?) and never about what they have to do. In their mind, they have had a glorious past and collectively if you believe them, common regular folks should be thanking their stars to have them as the administrators. Surprisingly, the views of those that had been apparently served is absolutely contrary. This tendency also increases with time spent in the government and peaks in the years after retirement. just listen to any retired civil servant (in the most general sense of the term which includes anyone at any level who is paid by the government for his employment) at any gathering and it will make you wonder whether your experience of government interactions are an illusion.
This training has been so good and so uniform that it bolsters your belief that the government is capable of achieving wonders if they put their minds to anything. Exceptions, though they do exist, are almost impossible to find - and usually you will see that these exceptions are a lot who have not had it easy. They are the pariahs who refused to conform - it certainly takes great courage and strength to swim against the tide. It is due to these minuscule tribe that people have not lost complete faith in the administration.
However, coming back to our Goliath, the epidemic has reached levels that it seems impossible to breach. But certainly it can be broken - with simple acts.
The first act has to be to limit time and place a different measure for success.
Step 1
Any problem placed before the administration has to be underlined with a sign off within just two days between the petitioner and the official so that the understanding of the problem is common. trying to pluck and orange from a banana tree is impossible and has to be avoided at all cost. If the understanding is not signed off within two days, it has to be escalated within a day and signed off. If even that cannot be achieved, the administration has to put its understanding on paper and along with the petition send an acknowledgement to the petitioner that it failed to understand the actual problem. This document becomes the basis of court intervention which needs to appoint a standing committee on perpetual basis to dispose off this matter on the same day that it is brought to them by the petitioner. This committee will have one junior judge and two people from the common population (on rotation basis for a month) to decide if the official understanding is in line with the actual complaint or not. In either case their decision will be binding on both sides. If there is a wide divergence in understanding the real issue by the administration, the concerned official has to pay 10% of his monthly salary for each such case. If more than three such cases are decided in favour of the petitioner with wide difference in understanding the official should be either demoted or terminated on grounds of incompetence. This will not only force the official to be more in sync with the real issues, but will also create a common man with hope in the system. As a byproduct, this may also result in reduction of avoidable litigation in the courts.
Step 2
Once the common sign off of the problem has been done the administration will have to identify the source of the problem and the corrective measures to address it within three days. If there is understanding of the complaint a prima-facie verification and chalking out the course of action can certainly be done in three working days. If the administration does not find the prima-facie grounds for proceeding with the case it has to inform the petitioner in writing the reasons for not doing so. This written admission, signed by the head of the organization can serve as a means of scrutiny by the courts about its correctness and if negligence or collusion is found by the administration it should result in fine, termination and jail for the concerned official. This will serve as a strong deterrent.
if prima-facie grounds for action are accepted by the administration, the steps for addressing should be clearly defined along with realistic timelines for each step and conveyed to the petitioner. The actual steps may take longer to implement but the responsibility for followup has to still lie with the department and failure to do so will also result in daily penalties, which have to be paid by the department by deducting salaries proportionately from the officials concerned, including the Head of the organization.
If other Departments are involved in the correction process it will be the responsibility of the initial department to follow the same action as the petitioner along with the same timelines as defined in Step 1.
Step 3
If a problem is identified as a general malaise a blanket order for implementation of solution has to be issued covering the same class of disputes. This will effectively ease the pressure on the Department in tackling multiple complaints of the same nature over a period of time.
Ideally the legislature, either at the state level or at the Central level should every quarter assess the prevalence of the malaise and enact common laws to prevent it. This will curtail replication of the virus and ease the pressure on the administration.
The epidemic of corruption and inaction cannot be treated with minor actions. It needs surgery and that surgery involves pain and at times amputation. Left untreated, it has the potential to kill ordered society and create a lawless state. god forbid, it may result in widespread chaos which can result in great harm to everyone - as has happened many times in history.
Step 4
The courts have to especially vigilant, empathetic and in touch with the value of work alloted to them to retain and increase their relevance. Firstly, they will have to stop taking up activities which are in the domain of the executive and if they find that the executive has been lagging in performance, they have to keep an arms length correction.
Courts have to also consciously refrain from being selective in taking up cases depending on the persons involved - which can invite irreverence from the common man.
The courts have to get rid of the feeling of superiority because they deliver judgment. Each professional does it daily and repeatedly in his domain and under severe time constrains in their own domains. The courts do so in the domain of interpretation of law, which is more structured and they face virtually no time constraint. Hence, they are performing a job as per the skills that they have been trained in, every professional does the same thing, nothing special about that.
Most importantly, they will have to value time of the petitioners and the respondents, otherwise they are not upholding the law, which by constitution has been allocated to them. What is the reason for giving unlimited deferments for a variety of reasons. The decision has to be taken on the basis of facts presented before the courts at the allocated time and deferments do not serve any purpose. If there are unavoidable genuine reasons, one deferment for each side may be allowed at the limit but the next hearing should be held at the latest within 15 days, where is the problem with that? A decision after years serves no purpose. And if the courts believe that taking early decisions may lead to wrong judgments, that is not an argument. Even after taking a long time, courts do make mistakes as any human is likely to do. What is important to see that the decision has been taken within reasonable tome and properly based on the facts of the case.
The courts also have to receive briefs, not epics in the form of briefs which hide more than they reveal. Each petition must mandatorily start with a brief points which form the basis of the arguments. the main petition may be detailed, but there must be no dissonance between the summary and the main petition, that will be treated as misrepresentation and the petition should be summarily dismissed with strictures and penalty for the lawyer doing so. To protect the petitioner, the lawyer shold be directed to pay a fine to the client and the client be permitted to file the petition again.
The courts should have a preliminary hearing level and frivolous cases should be rejected outright to give the courts time to concentrate on real issues. People filing cases which are primarily frivolous should be heavily penalized as a deterrent. The lawyers filing the cases should act as officers of the court and before filing any such cases should do a primary assessment. Even after this if they file such frivolous cases strict penal actions, including suspension and disbarment should be initiated against them.
Lastly, why does the court need hard paper filing in this day and age? are they still living in the stone age? Wastage of paper, difficulties of storage space constraints are completely avoidable indulgences which the nation can hardly afford.
This will, in my view not only help enhance the trust of the common man on the system, leave the system more time to perform its allocated duties and therefore reduce stress all around. This will also help get rid of the feeling of lack of fear and respect in the offenders for the rule of law.
But, I am afraid, this might all be wishful thinking, because we seem to have lost the one thing essential to make all this a reality - a genuine intent!
No comments:
Post a Comment