Transparency is the opposite of opacity, a condition
characterised by clarity, free of dust and distortions. It is as much true in the conceptual context as it is in
physical world. In order to appreciate transparency in physical things, clarity
has to exist where it is perceived-that is in our minds. Human actions are
eventually the product of human thought process-and to that extent, when
transparency is envisaged in the realm of human actions, the same holds true. Clarity
of mind remains the primary condition to appreciate clarity in actions. The
paradox, so to say, of transparency in actions of a public servant, the dilemma
“to err” or ‘to forgo” in taking a firm decision exists as long as the guiding
terms, the rules, the framework-under which the he operates remain opaque. It
is when subjectivity remains the essence of the “rules” or “laws” that the
bureaucrat refers to as guidance for his actions, he uses his
discretion-referred as “decision making”. This gives rise to the discussion of consequences
of his actions, right or wrong, beneficial or otherwise. Try and remove as much
subjectivity in the rules, laws, legislations etc and therefore as much
“discretions” from the table of the public official and then observe the
outcome. He no longer will have to carry
the burden of “error”for his
decisions and actions and no longer has any valid reason to remain inert. With
reduced options to play his whims around, a quick and a discrete decision would
be the most likely choice .Objectivity in legislation, rules and law is a very
viable answer to the whimsical application of its interpretations while dealing
with issues of the citizens by the the obstructionist babu. Therefore, any
attempt to bring transparency in public dealings by officials can be effective only
when we start from origin –“ The Thought “ applied at the time
of framing the law or drafting a rules. My guess is that the seasoned Indian bureaucrats
understands this too well, and, for whatever motives, sows the seeds of
subjectivity when they draft the rules or laws. Perhaps, the opacity that is
created gives them the vital “oxygen” in the bureaucratic biosphere so as to operate seamlessly and sustain the
dynamics of “heads I win, Tail you loose” vis-à-vis the public. Further,
Honesty will and should always remain the central virtue around which we weave
all our values that guide us for all our actions in case it is a just, fair
and rational system that we desire for our existence. There is no way that we
can have honesty half way or partially compromised in our public dealings. Degradation
in terms of efficiency as a possible outcome of a non-compromising honesty centric virtue system is an
inaccurate assessment and an easy alibi to maintain the staus-quo for our
sub-standard bureaucracy. A “good” decision is good only as long as it passes
the test of probity, whatever be the consequences of remaining non-compromising
to the integrity of truth. It is perfectly true that in an honesty-compromised
atmosphere of our society, installing a
system to oversee all actions by an overbearing “honesty” centric yardstick
will definitely cause undesired result
of inactions by officials who would prefer it to risking prosecution. The dominant values of
the society have to be tilted in favour of concepts such as truth, honesty and probity,
if we want the ultimate desired result. But till then, the objectivity of
legislation or law can effectively come to the rescue of an otherwise honest
but timid official. When the interpretation of legislation is not left to the
sweet will or discretion of the
bureaucrat, it is unlikely that he runs the risk of being charged for dubious intent. Besides
,we have the modern technologies at our disposal to wipe out a whole lot of
discretionary decisions draped in the possibility of ill-gotten considerations.
The digital world has opened revolutionary possibilities to make most, if not
all, aspects of public dealings one hundred percent transparent. An online display
of database with unrestrictive access is a one stroke solution for discarding
dubiously shaded file systems holding literally the fates of the citizens
wrapped in secrecy. Similarly, instant access to public utility information, status
of applications and disposal of cases by various departments of the government etc
is another example to enhance transparency. The dilemma, or the paradox of
transparency is therefore only as much in our minds as it appears around us.
kkr
No comments:
Post a Comment