The ruling dispensation at the Centre has laid major emphasis on “good governance”, which continues to be bogged down with colonial administrative processes. Good governance would, foremost, require a critical analysis of the existing system to identify and understand errors and mismanagement. Therein lies the paradox: Critique and critical analysis are anathema to the Indian system, which stands on almost all “outstanding” (as per annual performance reviews) government employees. Criticism is taken personally, with little or nil professional consideration. Nonetheless, it is important to pinpoint flaws in the system to be able to move towards better governance.

Inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the system arise from a lack of definitive processes, rules, and regulations, which are currently fluid and open to multiple interpretations. This works well when forward-thinking individuals are at the helm, but it is a major roadblock when individuals averse to risk and decision-making take charge. The absence of definitive processes makes the system individual-centric. Good governance must be process-driven and functional, independent of the individual. With nebulous processes, ownership lies with individuals and not the system; projects suffered when the lead person(s) moved on. This is especially true for........

© hindustantimes