HOT TOPICS

SPOTLIGHT AGENCIES

The 'Upper house' concept - some replies

185

Written By Mani1972 - 21 October, 2010

governance Mysore suggestion Participation

Dear Friends, this is to clarify on the concept of ‘upper house’ which seems to be widely discussed some time ago in Praja.  I stumbled upon the comments of ‘Leo Saldhana’ which I am reproducing.

‘Having said that, I am appalled that you are supporting the "upper house" concept of Mr Manivannan. I am not sure what has gone wrong with his understanding of the Indian Constitution, by which he has sworn to join IAS. But surely he knows this much: that a House is constituted not by bureaucratic appointees (as his illegitimate upper house is), but instead it assumes the honour of due representation only when its powers flow from the Constitution. Ask him please to stop talking such nonsense. Further, ABIDE is Ananth Kumar's "upper house" as BATF was S M Krishna's.’

If we ignore the unwanted anger in his expression, we are left with the fact that, the ‘upper house’ concept is being mis-understood. Instead of trying to understand the concept, people are still boxing whether the term used is proper or not.

Let me clarify it further.

  1. ‘Upper house’ is not the appropriate term. For want of a correct term, and considering that it was an informal discussion, the word ‘upper house’ was used, hoping that readers will give more importance to the concept than the term!
  1. What is meant is, an institution, consisting of the eminent citizens in the society, who can’t get normally elected, but who can contribute positively to governance thru their wisdom. This will allow the professionalism and wisdom available in the society is tapped by the government, for the benefit of its citizens.
  1. The question will come, why can’t they get elected? The answer is: They may not be able to get elected, because of three reasons:
    1. The election system followed itself is not fool-proof. ‘First- past- the- post’ (FPTP) system has its serious drawbacks, like, giving a situation where a person getting less than 30% of votes getting elected as the representative. This problem is more accentuated in a pluralistic society like India, as the votes are always split.
    1. Even in this first-past-the-post system, there are further distortions in practice, like money-muscle power, caste equations, voter apathy etc influencing the outcome. It may take another 10 or 20 years to make the elections free from these distortions.
    1. With 60% of literacy (real ‘education’ to understand the concept of political rights etc will be much less!) the possibility of electorate understanding the issues involved it is less. Thus the electorate itself is not in a position to select what is good for us. Because, democracy’s effectiveness stands on the foundation of certain amount of maturity among the voters.
  1. Due to these distortions, the current system of election will not be able to throw the appropriate leaders to govern us. But, at the same time, the voice of the people has to get its due. Hence we have no option, but to continue with this system for time being-popularly elected houses and governments. (all three tiers)
  1. Does it mean that we have no way to get appropriate leaders to participate in the process of governance, rather than thru the distorted process? If we don’t have, we better invent one. Else, if we leave it to the society and election process to mature, we may take decades, why, even centuries, while all other countries would have marched ahead.
  1. Many options can be worked out. One among the option is the ‘upper house’ concept as mentioned. Let’s rename it into something better before Leo Saldana goes into a rage again! (Praja friends can think of an appropriate name!)
  1. Now, the essence of this institution/platform is ‘selection’. Means, members will be ‘selected’ and not ‘elected’. At the same time, it’s not that some babus will arbitrarily select whomever they want! There should be transparent, scientific process. Again, one example is what was attempted in both Hubli-Dharwar and Mysore.
  1. In both the cities, the members were selected thru a vast number of ‘citizen committees’ formed per each polling booth. Like, each polling both will have 9 representatives ‘selected’, and one among the nine will be the team leader. All such ‘team leaders’ will form a panel, from which the members can be nominated to the house.
  1. Another option is to make the heads of proven NGOs as ex-officio members. There may be better options and ideas. But, I hope the concept is now clear.
  1. The citizen committees in both Hubli-Dharwad & Mysore were formed very scientifically (a special software was made!), selecting citizens among those who applied, giving weight-age to relevant experience, educational qualification, reservation for women etc.
  1. Both BATF and ABIDe might have not been accepted as they did not represent the cross section of the society. Whereas the ‘citizen committee model’ makes provision to select members from grass roots. The system was accepted by the citizens.
  1. If members are interested in that Mysore model, I will send the details in next post. I hope the concept is clear now. Nothing is fool-proof. But, this will definitely make the governance better. Feel free to comment. ‘Participatory governance’ is my area of interest.

COMMENTS

Excellent analysis and

n - 21 October, 2010 - 16:18

Excellent analysis and information! I believe something similar was recommended in the governance recommendations for Bengaluru - that resident welfare association (RWA) representatives be given representation. Comments below are purely from an "armchair" perspective with no experience whatsoever and nothing (except praise) is meant to be personal.

- You have correctly pointed out that upper house is a misnomer and has snobbish connotations (British legacy?). Instead of lower and upper house, they could be called House of Elected Representatives (ERs) and House of Nominated Representatives (NRs). Or, other easily understood names.

- Very, very commendable and transparent selection procedure. There will be people who criticize; you cannot keep everyone happy.

- Participation in the process of governance should be clearly defined. In other words, are recommendations of NRs fully or partially binding? Will the NRs have veto powers on all items of discussion or on certain important ones?

- The biggest problems in India in general have always been the speed in decision-making and effective implementation (leaving out the elephant in the room - corruption).

- More number of people involved on a given issue directly translates to more delays in the decision-making process.

- The NRs do bring in their expertise and professionalism to most issues / projects.

- As long as the balance is struck between the professionalism and efficiency, the concept of ERs and NRs will be a success. The better the synergies, faster the decisions.

- Hopefully, weightage will also be given to locals experts who are domiciles for a long period.

- There is always the danger of excessive friction and status quo due to ego-clashes due to differences in age, position / power perceptions etc. There need to be well-defined procedures for quick resolution; these will be fine-tuned through experience. Perhaps, people with people-management skills (MBAs) might help. It wouldn't do to spend precious time firefighting than working toward development.

- Similar turf problems may occur with incumbent ERs being resentful of the "intrusion" by unelected NRs.

I am sure with your better experience, you would have already sorted through majority of the above issues.

Conclusion: an eminently workable and democratically suitable idea that results in professional, inclusive development but one that needs to be fine-tuned so that clarity of roles are well-defined. The requirement exists as the ERs are generally not technically qualified and bureaucrats have to handle multiple technical and other issues. In today's world of increasingly specialized professions, it is important to have experienced (not necessarily well-known) professionals. It might also help to include the most vociferous opponents of any development so they can see the big picture (of course, in the process stifling their voice to a great extent) ... ;-)

Why not elect "advisors" too ?

Naveen - 23 October, 2010 - 09:40

an institution, consisting of the eminent citizens in the society, who can’t get normally elected, but who can contribute positively to governance thru their wisdom. This will allow the professionalism and wisdom available in the society is tapped by the government, for the benefit of its citizens

requirement exists as the ERs are generally not technically qualified and bureaucrats have to handle multiple technical and other issues. In today's world of increasingly specialized professions, it is important to have experienced (not necessarily well-known) professionals

democracy’s effectiveness stands on the foundation of certain amount of maturity among the voters....Due to these distortions, the current system of election will not be able to throw the appropriate leaders to govern us

 

All very true - & explains the pathetic state of the country's governance mechanisms & the negligible progress that we have made for improving the same.

If India has to keep pace with other nations, it badly needs the expertise of professionals for governance in various fields. The current system leaves almost everything to the mercy of these "elected reps". In better evolved democracies such as the United states, even judges are elected.

Is it not time now to extend the election process not just to a set of "elected representatives" (who, though elected, are not competent to take decisions that need expertise in specialized fields), but also to a set of "advisors" to the govt in various fields ? This would legitimize their positions whilst also encouraging the middle classes (who so far have not shown any inclination to be involved in the election process) to visit the polling booths, at least to cast their votes for such professional "advisors", if not for MLAs or MPs.

Why not hire? Mandatory govt service !?

silkboard - 23 October, 2010 - 11:35

Wanted to understand the issues with Govt hiring industry professionals. Since babus are not made to specialize in given areas (silk worm today, electricity tomorrow :)), there is a need for resident groups to build and retain specialists. What would be the issues in hiring specialists?

  • There aren't enough people (capacity) with the required experties. Universities aren't teaching urban planning, egovernance etc. Right?
  • Govt can't compete with private sector (builders, developers, IT companies) for such expertise. Low salaries etc?
  • Can't hire many full time life-term employees? Project based temporary hiring could be an option.

Upper house, Nominated members in Metropolitan councils etc are all suggestions to address the quality/capacity problem on government side. Since this is such a critical need for our cities/governments, mandatory govt service for all professionals (say, any 2 years in your career) could be a radical approach here. Forces us all get our hands dirty, and at the same time exposes govt functions to all educated citizens.

Mandatory govt service would require someone to match jobs and skills. Some jobs would be more in demand than others. There would be more complications, but why not think different and force everyone to do their bit for the nation?

Citizens Committees, ABIDe, BATF!

kbsyed61 - 24 October, 2010 - 13:00

Mr. Manivannan,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject. I would propose the nomenclature to be "Citizens Committee" which gives the right impression and purpose.

ABIDe and BATF are not in the same league of Citizens Committees. As you have mentioned citizen committees are all about citizens say in planning and implementing civic works. It is about participation from citizen as part of their civic duty in keeping the agency and govt in check.

I am afraid ABIDe like groups are not meant for that. Basically they are formed to showcase that city would be turned into "World class" by having a parallel body which unleashes plans and policies which may or may not have any mechanism to listen to the citizens. What amuses me is the need for body like ABIDe. The fact is state govt,ministries and its agencies have failed in their duty to meet the citizen's demand for better PT system, garbage disposal system, transparent tax collection system & building permits regime and accountable governance. This is a grand wish list because of corruption, inefficiencies, indifferent public representatives and un-caring citizenry. Since government and ruling parties doesn't want to fix these, as these are the issues they feed and flourishes. Instead  a parrallel body like ABIDe to do some cosmetic changeover - more flyovers, More fancy buses etc.

[Edited for clarity and removing off-topic relevance]


 

Citizen Council, Why, What, Where,Who and How?

kbsyed61 - 25 October, 2010 - 02:25

SB,

 For a useful discussion It would be important to get answers for Why, what, where, who and how of 'upper house" or "Citizen Council". The questions would be:

  1. Why do we need these upper house or citizen council?
  2. Where does it needs to be?
  3. Who will form the council house?
  4. How will the council be formed? Appointed? Anointed?Selected?Elected
  5. What does it would do?

Hope we will find answers to these questions that would set the tone for a vibrant discussion.

 

PRAJA.IN COMMENT GUIDELINES

Posting Guidelines apply for comments as well. No foul language, hate mongering or personal attacks. If criticizing third person or an authority, you must be fact based, as constructive as possible, and use gentle words. Avoid going off-topic no matter how nice your comment is. Moderators reserve the right to either edit or simply delete comments that don't meet these guidelines. If you are nice enough to realize you violated the guidelines, please save Moderators some time by editing and fixing yourself. Thanks!