Open communications channels between Government and citizens have become imperative for good governance in India
‘People at the Gate!’ was an alarming news headline in December 2012. Once again citizens’ anger had gone viral on social media and spilled out into the streets. Earlier, the anti-corruption movement had brought out millions of young and middle-class Indians onto the streets of many cities and to perennial protest spots in the Capital—Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Grounds. This time, the brutal gang-rape of a woman in the capital brought swelling crowds of young women and men to the gates of the President’s Palace. The people were standing up again, demanding action by Government.
Spontaneous movements of the people are difficult to control. Government’s attempts to police social media, and the movements of crowds of protestors on the streets—as was done in Delhi by cordoning off the homes and offices of senior Government functionaries from the people—cuts Government off from the voices of people, further alienating them from Government, at a time when we must talk. The President, then Finance Minister and chief trouble-shooter of the Government, had gone to the airport to meet a leader of the anti-corruption movement. Now, neither he nor anyone else from Government seemed willing to come out and meet the young protestors. Government functionaries do not know who is the leader of these people? Who should they talk to? The Home Minister said he could not be expected to meet whoever had a grouse and wanted to talk—there were too many.
‘Stand up for this! Stand up for that! Why don’t we just sit down and talk, yaar?’ pleads a young man (in a TV advertisement for a coffee café).There is much we, the people, have to talk about together. What sort of society and economy do we want? We do want our economy to grow. For which, we must release the ‘animal spirits’, the PM has said. ‘I must have it’ and ‘Do it now’ are greedy animal spirits, good for the economy perhaps. But when predatory animals must have a woman and do it now, we demand that Government increase surveillance, arrest them and even castrate them. Yet we don’t want to live in an ‘animal farm’ with big brother watching over us all the time, and so we protest when Government tries to regulate communications in social media and movement on the streets.
What do we value? We value our personal liberties. But we also value the quality of our commons: security in our communities, order and cleanliness of our habitations, and justice in our society. For the quality of our commons, we need good governance and Government. Therefore there is much that must be talked about between the people and their Government. The tension between, on one hand, values of individual liberties and free markets and, on the other, values of responsibility for the condition of others and for the shared environment—and therefore need for regulation, has become a principal challenge for 21st century governance. We must resolve what Governments are accountable for and what is the responsibility of us citizens.
Sadly, when we elect people to discuss these fundamental matters on our behalf, their debates in Parliament and State Assemblies, whenever they do take place, are about who must take the blame for the problems people are agitated about, rather than thoughtful deliberations of the issues on people’s minds. Indeed, it is a lack of confidence in constitutionally mandated processes of governance that is bringing citizens onto the streets. Mere pleas by government functionaries to people to trust their government are ineffectual. Trust cannot be merely demanded. It must be earned.
Fundamental requirements for a trusting relationship between Government and citizens are consultation and communication. It is not easy for Governments to consult masses of people as James Fishkin explains in When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. “If they used polls, they know the people do not have the information, or even opinions about the issue worth consulting. Alternatively, if they were to consult focus groups or small discussion groups, they know that they could never demonstrate that such small groups were representative. And if they were to hold town meetings, open to everyone, they would get forums dominated by lobbyists and organized interests.”
Government ministries say they have consulted the people by putting Government proposals on their web-sites. How many people noticed the proposals? Are those who responded representative of everybody? Ministries invite the ‘usual suspects’ to consultation meetings. Those who come to these meetings re-iterate their positions and depart. There is hardly any listening and genuine inquiry into the positions of others.
Reforming of communication channels between Government and citizens has become an imperative for good governance of India. The internet and social media make communication easier, on one hand, because they have an instant and wide reach. On the other hand, they make communication more difficult because it is not easy to aggregate, discriminate, and synthesize millions of raw opinions. For richness in communication, as contrasted to reach, face-to-face meetings are required to understand different points-of-view. New processes must be created integrating many channels.