Open Forum
New Delhi, 17 July 2009
Politicians &
Accountability
PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRIVATE
AGENDAS
By Ashok Kapur IAS
(Retd.)
It was General de Gaulle, a former President of France who had
this to say about the politicians in general: “He comes to you posing as your
servant (prior to the election). Once elected, he lords over you as your
master”. He said it in the context of his nation, and understood the ways of
politicians very well. Of course, he himself was not a professional politician.
But he could judge them as an objective outsider.
The Indian politician, in this game of deception, could
easily get a walkover vis a vis his counterparts anywhere else. He is a
champion of champions. One prominent reason he goes about virtually unscathed
is the fact that he is hardly accountable to anyone. Once elected to public office , he enjoys virtual immunity for
five years. The concept of accountability to the people, come elections, is a
neat theoretical formulation. It is hardly
effective in practice, at least in our democracy.
Lack of accountability breeds a certain disdain for
propriety and ethical norms amongst holders of public office. It has been going
on for long, since the time of
promulgation of the Constitution .Especially after the passing away of its
idealistic Founding Fathers, one by one. In theory , the nation boasts of the most comprehensive such charter
in the world, aptly described as a Holy Covenant between the state and the
people. The Constitution has established some of the finest institutions in the
nation to enforce the rule of law and compliance with democratic norms.
Trust the Indian
politician to subvert all institutions to further his private agenda, at the cost
of public welfare. A ruling chief minister of a north Indian state, who never
tires of proclaiming herself as a
messiah of the deprived and the discriminated has diverted crores of public
funds to build monuments to herself and her party colleagues. In India, the
expression generally used is ‘public funds.’ In the world’s oldest democracy -
U.S, a more evocative expression is
used- ‘tax payers’ money.
Accepted norms of public policy dictate that taxpayers’
money ought only to be utilized for overall public welfare in a secular state.
Ruling politicians formulate general
policy. The actual translation of policy into projects and schemes is done by
the civil service which is mandated to be politically neutral. Conceptually,
even the ruling party is not supposed to dictate to the civil service the
intended beneficiaries of welfare spending as long as it is done in a non-
partisan manner.
Constitutionally, the custodian of public funds is the
government of the day as represented by the cabinet comprising the elected
party members. Once the budget is voted by the Parliament or the legislative
assembly as the case may be, the priorities are undeniably determined by the
cabinet. But the cabinet does not have absolute discretion in matters of
public finance. It has to observe norms of propriety, in addition to
legal and constitutional requirements.
In principle, there can be no quarrel with raising statues
of public figures. But this is generally done by posterity, in public
recognition of a leader’s contribution
to overall public welfare and nation building. It is unheard of in a civilized
democracy for a ruling politician to squander public funds to project himself,
or herself, in so vulgar a fashion. Public money is entrusted to the executive
to work for common good in a welfare state. To divert funds in such a manner is
a breach of trust, in a manner of speaking.
The Constitution has set up a watchdog for overseeing proper
utilization of public funds- the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. He is
independent of the control of the executive, and reports directly to the Parliament.
It is his constitutional responsibility to ensure that all public authorities not only comply with legal norms but can also
justify all expenditure on grounds of propriety. It would be a fit case
for immediate intervention by the CAG as the financial impropriety by the state
government is continuing openly if not somewhat brazenly.
Parliament has not passed any law defining the functions of
the CAG. Apparently, this is a deliberate omission, in order to afford the
maximum freedom to the Constitutional functionary to scrutinize public
spending. The powers of the CAG were outlined by a former incumbent thus: “ He
himself determines the extent and scope of audit in regard to various types of
transactions. His audit transcends the mere formal or legal aspects of audit
and includes what may be called efficiency-cum-propriety audit.”
It is reported that taxpayers’ money has been diverted to build
statues of individuals who can hardly be described as public figures. Besides,
election symbol of the ruling political party has been carved out in stone,
paid for out of public funds and installed on public land. Apart from the
aspect of serious impropriety, it would be in overall public interest to
scrutinize the expenditure with reference to various Election Laws. It would be
a service to the tax payer if the state government could enlighten the CAG about the legality of public
funding of a political party even if it is ruling the state for the time being.
The CAG is the reincarnation of the Auditor General prior to the introduction of the Constitution
of independent India,
under the Government of India Act, 1935. Students of constitutional history
would recall that Lord Mountbatten, on his appointment as Fleet Commander of
India and Burma wanted to install something as trifling as his framed photos in
public offices. He was politely advised against it by his audit officers. A
stickler for democratic norms and propriety, like most British officials, he
dropped the proposal. It was a different era altogether, perhaps lost to us forever.
When the question of a Constitutional successor to the
erstwhile Auditor General of India
was being debated in the Constituent Assembly, there was a consensus to make
the CAG institution as a more effective and
powerful body than his earlier incarnation. The AG was redesignated as
CAG. He was modelled on his UK
counterpart. Unfortunately, the Assembly stopped short of adopting the European
model.
Many countries in Europe have
separate Audit Courts to look into cases of abuse of authority by holders of
public office to incur improper or extravagant expenditure to further private
agendas. A similar misuse by a Union minister comes readily to mind. The former
HRD minister of the Union Government made self -publicity an article of faith.
Hardly a day would pass when his photograph would not be splashed in national dailies on one pretext or another,
making grandiose announcements on behalf of his ministry.
For full five years, the unabashed campaign of
self-promotion was conducted by the HRD minister, without let or hindrance, all
at public expense. He set a very undesirable precedent, which is now being followed by the lady chief minister of the
north Indian state. Even at this belated stage, it would be in public interest to
have a Special Audit of the total amount of tax payers’ money thus squandered
by the former HRD minister. It may act as a deterrent for future holders of
public office should they be so tempted.
An astute American analyst studied closely the personality
of one of last century’s most brutal dictators, late Saddam Hussein of Iraq. He came
to the conclusion that such leaders have an irresistible urge to proclaim their
omnipotence publicly through symbols like grand palaces and mega statues. He
described Saddam Hussain somewhat colourfully, as suffering from an “ edifice
complex”. At the time, one drew comfort from the thought that a democracy was
spared such blatant exhibition of omnipotence. How wrong one could be.---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|