[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

accountability




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Postings not related to the writing of the Manifesto or policy chapters
are likely to be summarily rejected. Thanks for your understanding. IPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
revised proposal:

a)	Accountability: Both the elected and non-elected officials of
India are paid by the taxpayer and are accountable to the Indian people
for their deeds being in abidance by the laws laid down by the People.  

Except for state secrets relating to critical matters of defence of the
country, and those relating very clearly to the internal security of
India, nothing else shall be considered to be an Official Secret.
Bureaucrats in free India will be Citizen bureaucrats. They will have
rights to speak out as citizens, both on general issues of governance as
well as on the private secrets of political leaders, which are not
covered under the Official Secrets Act. They will not merely watch as
helpless spectators of the decadence they observe around themselves. To
allow a corrupt Minister to linger on in power through negligence to
build a proper case, is a crime and would be treated as such. Speaking
out on general matters of governance would be completely permitted.

In order to protect discipline, though, the bureaucrats would have to
report instances of misdemeanour by elected representatives to the Lok
Pal with full details who would be bound to release all details on the
internet and cause necessary investigations publicly and in full view of
the media.

On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Umesh Tiwari wrote:

> (The only thing that ought to be permanent, and supreme, are the liberty
> and freedom of the people. There should not be a statutory guarantee of
> permanence on a bureaucratic staff. Also important is discipline. Power
> of
> the elected representatives ought to be supreme. Allowing a bureaucratic
> 
> staff to go directly to public has the inherent danger that he/she may
> misinterpret his perception of an individual fact for someone's
> misconduct,
> or outside forces with nefarious designs may act to malign the image of
> an honest public servant. To avoid such potential exploitation a much
> better
> approach would be allowing judiciary to act as intermediary to decide on
> 
> such matters and within a strict time limit, the judiciary must grant or
> 
> deny a request of such a bureaucrat to make the individual concerns
> public).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------