'Development' Heroics in Democracy

'Development' when tied with successful delivery of the populist programs and schemes throws the mass leader into the run for the larger claim and longer political stint. Competitive politics of development are often loaded with political claim of the ownership. The people in general are made to believe that, the development is under control of political class and parties often take 'development' as they perceive or brand. The basic items of the development remains same in India, the states like Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Gujarat have thrown their populist development heroes to the limelight. The agenda of the politicians to deliver the schemes often funded by the central and state governments their own brand of politics. Though the party ideologies remains, to be right, centre or left, the development packaging remains more or less identical. The delivery boys i.e. the political leadership often presents before the people his version of the development in supply of water, access to roads, health care and economic doles in their frameworks.

The delivery of the 'development' through the hard work of the government machinery is often disregarded for their efficiency and the political class takes the hold of the credits of the works done on the efforts of the executives. The scores of departmental employees engaged in the departments to deliver the government programs becomes hapless victims of political bogey often targeted to benefit the political masters. The presence of feudalism in the Indian society does not let away the peoples psychic to follow the leaders not as their representative but as masters. The master do decide to tame the people and guide them to believe that its they who have delivered the required 'development' than the other competing masters. The game plan of the political class continues till it gets dethroned in elections by equal measure of falsehood created on the basis of non-delivery of the 'development'. Caught in the mirage the people tend to defend and shift from their political masters to new comer in the hope of better delivery of 'development' acts.

The recent election 2014 in India would write in the stories of such non deliveries, and promises of the new political players who intend to benefit from change in the governance. The emergence of the new hero in the development scene would also be treated as example of positioning of the political class to dethrone the incumbent political group. The lack of the development and poor delivery of the schemes would be often taken over by the new form of delivery often characterized by the path to be followed by new leadership.

The regional parties and their 'development' heroes would be important role players in delivery of such packages suited to their own people. The political masters located in the regions often do not allow a larger leadership to take control of their people and loosely termed vote bank. They often fight with the nationally relevant political class to agree with their regional deliveries of 'development'. The faith of people in the delivery of the 'development' depends on the nature of political leadership available to them often different than the national. If they have to survive on catching the fruits of 'development' they need to align with the local leaderships. The strength of the local leadership cannot be converted into the national leadership unless there is promise of delivery. The hollowness of national political class and their disconnect with the regional requirements often throws weak national governments. Hence the 'development' heroes at the national level is hard to come by, during last 30 years India has not accepted the single largest party at the centre and promise of the such delivery in the near future remains to be weak. 

Carrying Development beyond elections too...

These are election time and people are discussing the development, and political parties are claiming to be one who can perform and deliver the development to the people. After the elections the parties interfere in the functioning of the police, judiciary, independent agencies and influence the reports to rake up their performance. The National Development Council (NDC), where all the CMs are the members are often used to bring the view point which are politically motivated and used to point finger at the Centre and State.

The people have the right to know about the functioning of the departments and their performance. India has yet to see a day when most of the department publishes their progress in tasks, money spent and results achieved. If we all can understand that, the system of governance is independent of the political class in its day to day activities it would be better. The people representatives were given enough rights to represent the people and head the departments to oversee the development works, even then the leaders fail to deliver in most of the cases.  The parties once win the election are not seriously bothered about the constituency they are elected to serve instead people who are not chosen as minister often show little interest in the works of various ministries. The absence of MPs and MLA from their respective assemblies during the functioning shows the real development works which can be carried out.

Out of the 365 days the Corporators, MLA and MPs have less than 90 days of contact hours with the policy making we all can assume the seriousness of the development agenda in the years to come. The system which does not have grievance redressal system has to depend upon the leaders to listen to the voice of the people. With the improvement in the system and service delivery (which is an ongoing process) the development would be more or less would be free from political interference. Most of the interaction of the executives with the departments needs to be accountable and transparent to have assured delivery mechanism, the need for the political class to serve the people would be more directional.

The poor monitoring and decision making system does not allow the development works to be planned, monitored and executed well by the concerned departments. The state does not have full idea of the projects in the districts, and district misses the consistency in the development projects in the habitations (both rural and urban). The central government is virtual entity which has except the union territories have little control over the functioning of the state. With devolution of the powers of the Centre and State it would have been wise all to understand that who are supposed to work on the development and which agency is responsible for facilitating. The central and state governments are more to be working as facilitators for the local bodies, the pitty issue of cleaning street, supply and managing the water supply, drainage and others are the task of local bodies. Where is the question of Prime Minister and Cheif Ministers to look for the such demands of the people. People do not attempt to raise complain on the day to day problems in the localities to respective ward or panchayat offices instead they try to use the powers of the ministers for the petty works.

The work towards the poor and down trodden is often forgotten since they seldom have access to the political masters after the election. They have to wait till eternity to get satisfactory demands of their development needs. Why does the political leaders assume supreme authority in clearing all the doubt of people that they only can deliver once it comes to the development needs of the people? The lack of public education and knowledge are creating a situation where even after corruption at local level the people are made to think about the national level mismanagement, They instantly forget about since corruption upto certain amount was proved to be tolerable in the election debates. Leaders are talking about corruption of Rs.500 rupees instead they should talk about Rs.500 crores.

Post elections lets not forget about the need for the 'development' discussion with all the stakeholders and try to bring the reform in the service delivery by the local bodies. The state and central government together should facilitate the local level functioning and make the 'development' fruits accessible and achievable for the people of India.

Minimum government, Maximum Governance

The concept of  'good governance' has reached to a political tone lead by a political party since last 5 years, after 2008 when they realized the importance of unnecessary expenditure by government. The smart governance does not mean doing away with conventional method of governance. The structure remain same, whereas the networks between the offices are improved in order to increase the efficiency. This may not limited to any one state in India, the e-governance change lead by the Government of India, with National Informatics Centre helping the state to have 'e' ready infrastructure in place to have minimum goverment, for the people. The setting up of information kiosks, information centres, service centers by the authorities for the citizens in an approach not limited to a state. There are many state who has pioneering the idea of minimum government including, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. The learning from each other is done by the central departments, state departments and e ready organisations to provide the necessary service. There is nothing new in the ideas however the implementation in the smaller states have been better with quick outreach to the maximum citizens. The larger states where the internet penetration is low, the idea of minimum government and maximum governance has not yeilded the desired result.

The citizens needs to take the services with the new hope when the government reaches to them via their mobile phones, where e-services in at the door steps of the people. The governments through their efforts can reach to the citizens, and no state in India is left in these approach, only the time and money required to understake the project varies. The national agencies like NRSC, BSNL & DOT, revenue departments, NIC etc has done tremendous job to reach to the citizens, however the lack of interest at the grass roots have hamphered the programs. These might be due to lack of e-readiness of the people and often lack of trained manpower at the village levels. There are many changes required at the grass root level which are already covered under the national programs but poorly implemented at the state to make effective governance.

The lack of understanding of the concept by people who might tag themselves to an activity in a state is not always right, the national policy are in place since 2006, to workout a reform in the governments to improve the governance across the nation. Some states have lead the change in one sector, while others may have done better in another, but there is no doubt the people needs to be connected to the information segment and to be made available with required information. The technology penetration is weak in the governments decision making where the changes in information technologies are not treated well because of the politicians and persons loosing power to control the same. The easy access to information and rights would bring significant change at grassroots often bringing true era of 'Minimum Government, Maximum Governance'. 

'Development' in Political Debates: Beyond People Just Elections

Whatever had been our development philosophies the elections have covered a close agenda with parties after parties have not accepted that there is some requirements which can always grow. The needs are endless and thereby no one can satisfy the needs of people to a hundred percent centrality. Thats why we also see the 'development' now equated with 'roti, kapda aur makan' along swasth aur shiksha (Food, Cloth and Shelther along with Health and Education) as the basics of development.

For any development analysis this would be easy plan,

(a) Even America fails on this pretext because these are growing demands and government often do not reach to the target because of many of the people are out of reach to the governments. India too stands on similar line but more harsher, if you want to target any government you may find plenty of instances where they fail on these counts. There are people who are out these circle of development needs (as mentioned above) because they are wealthy and support themselves. In countries like India 80 percent are dependent on the government for these 'development' needs. Even countries like USA, UK and France more population is dependent on state lead mentioned 'development' doles.

(b) Nine out of the ten country would move along with the population growth, but high growth of population and lack of economic attainment do not allow the people to catch up with others. The cycle of poverty catches them since they seldom have resources to match up with the growing demands. What then a 'development politician' can do to serve the people? The promises to supply them enough finance and materials to fight with needs the governments does not reach to all the citizens groups. May be due to priority and difference among those who are authorized to supply. The different and specific approaches benefits only few but harms many for the want of 'development needs'.

(c) Politicians often claim my development is better than yours, but they often forgets the coffers are same, the finance and ability to meet the requirements of the citizens can not be different during the various political regimes. Recent claims and counter claims of the political parties to become messiah of one or other citizen groups often fall flat due to inabilities of the leaders to understand the development sourcing which are same. No amount of work can satisfy the hundred percent population and opposition would always puncture the long lasting claims of ruling parties.

(d) The media houses across the globe is used by the political parties to fool the citizens in favour  of their idea of development, which revolves around the similar development wheel. The image maker overs to market the 'development' products, which are packaged to suit the party and their ideologies. In countries like India there seems to offers from the media managers to take the political leaderships to these development rides advertising the political campaign to sell the 'development products' offered to citizens. 

Election in democracy is chance for the political leaderships to claim the development efforts by the governments, forgetting that they are by chance the trustees of such works. Its the who system which functions to provide for the 'development needs' of the people. Why do the claims of the parties to correct the wrongs be accepted, which in a way justifies the role of political class to claim the development outcome. The scores of industrialists, academicians, scientists and others who toil hard to reach to there goal thereby contributing to the development requirements often feel neglected and fooled by the political class. The assumed power of the political class and their debates often circles around reducing the development to their party framework, forgetting the needs of the people. 

Development: Must be removed from the shackles of Bad Economics

Election once again has started throwing data on the public forum, when the services of the economists are being used to measure the merits of the development. The key holed eyed economist are again judging using the time and variables which they only can define as the unit for the representation of their argument. The reinvention of the data takes place which even the original collectors of information like NSSO, RBI, WB, or others would have imagined to use. The deconstruction of the economy in the claim to be politically correct development jumps out of the economic boxes and does a shadow boxing for the political masters. The utility of the Nobel and ultra Nobel, elite economists thrown out of race of award often fight for the opposition whom this gentlemen represent. The representation of data in the favour of the parties who tries to disown the economic preferences of the ruling parties often treat the data from the government as farce and not to be quoted. In most of the cases they build the economic argument based on the political notion of the justification as if the data (if its so) can be manipulated to suit a political agenda.

In a way the political masters do not control the economic affairs as it is made to believe, they are not one who can feed the poor or even stop the down slide of the economy. They are no way responsible for the development status of the people, why the economists make us believe that what you are looking at is the outcome of the political gentlemen/women who tried very hard to save you from economic oblivion.

The international development forums have often rejected, economic indicators as true representative of the 'development' of the people and regions. What macro economy represents anyway..a state of health regarding the country. There are some who tries to overthrow the planning commission, who rather shall be strengthened for whatever they would have done in last 60 plus years. Is it so easy that for the sake of the political freedom the division of the nation should be accepted. Whether there is political nexus between a national and regional parties to weaken the development strategies from central organisation, for more federal power to the state in the name of financial autonomy. In the competition between the political parties, which in India is getting transformed into the state autonomy (which on the ground is not true) in the macro economic debates turns out to decentralization of power for the sake of political benefits. If at all the states transfers similar financial autonomy to the constituent districts.

Development in the election year have become a show game for the political parties often reflecting the feudal mindset with exclusive political strategies to corner maximum funds from the corporate. The deprived social class as always were granted little political mileage in the development  debate since they rather contribute little to the national and state domestic product. The growth charts cannot be filled while the poor are serviced by the state, the free education, land rights, rights to health, forest rights, creation of wealth at grassroots shows no insight from the popular economic theorists and thinkers who run after the political masters for the sake of intellectual acceptance. The realization of the development inputs cannot only be take if there is public-private participation where public means government and private means corporate. The sectors which were limited to the government departments mainly tribal, forest, irrigation, education, health etc were privatized by the government citing bad economics after the post liberalization. But these social change by installing the corporate partners did not help in improvement of social sectors. Most of the economically developed states are examples of giving not so good human development indicators. In fact HDI is common indicators where the economic development has lesser impact if the fundamental resources of the respective states remain intact.

In fact the economic principles practiced by many intellectual who often que before the political class are nurtured by desire to gain the power to have say in handling millions of rupees often at the cost of the common men. The idea of the projects and crores of rupees in the schemes gives immense satisfaction to such who are often not bothered to understand the outcome or forget about the social audit. Most the million rupee scheme are wasted on the lack of monitoring, where outcome is not the goal to which economists have worked rather they limit themselves to the funding.