This blog is part of a series unpacking the ‘PAISA for Municipalities‘ research which analysed urban local body finances in Tumakuru Smart City of Karnataka. The first part offers why the study was conducted, the backdrop to the study, and the researchers involved. It can be found here. The previous blog is available at this link. 

For long, an uncontested thesis of accountability aficionados has been that once real-time data on governance functioning is revealed to the citizen, they will jump to action and hold their governments to account. They will crowd into citizens’ meetings where they will respectfully hear each other out and contribute to collective decision-making. Ongoing works will be reviewed closely by them. Bureaucrats will resemble cats on a hot tin roof. Bouncers will be bowled to elected representatives and the next time that they come around begging for votes, report cards will be waved in their faces and they will be told that they will be voted out.

I’m still waiting.

Let’s see how far we are from seeing such dreams turn to reality.

For one thing, data is not available, yet. Many promises have been made on revealing data, but they have not been kept. That is amply clear from our research into the flow of funds in Tumakuru, a ‘Smart’ city. At best, what one can expect is that city-local government performance, which includes financial information, will be revealed after a certain time lag. Truth be told, that time lag is narrowing, certainly where I live.

This year, when the Bangalore City Corporation announced its budget, they were able to provide expenditure details till December of the previous year. A commendable achievement, considering that in previous years, there was a gap of 14 months plus before such details were provided. However, there is no hope that other departments and entities – and there are multitudes of them fooling around in the urban areas – will provide up-to-date, detailed financial and physical progress data on their developmental work.

So what substitutes for data?

Social media.

What we see, instead of boring numerical tables, are cute pictures of so called progress on the Twitter handles of bureaucrats and politicians. Of slippery smooth granite floors ‘smartly’ laid down in vegetable markets, of interlocking concrete blocks on roads made over. Try and get the expenditure details of such works; that’s next to impossible.

Of course, we are not getting anywhere when it comes to the strengthening of participatory mechanisms. The same stalwarts; poorly funded but perseverant NGOs, citizens groups, and some political formations are plugging away at making Wards Committees more participatory. However, the bureaucracy and higher-level politicians have been able to wield another potent instrument to block such efforts. Simply postpone local elections, on the pretext of the pandemic, and you have a foolproof reply to those seeking accountability.

Since we do not have elected bodies, the question of constituting Wards Committees does not arise, they say.

What next for the citizen? It is to keep the tinder dry, to light the flame of participation when things return to normal; whenever that happens. So we have meetings to discuss drafts of the Public Grievance Law, we participate in the meetings held by some in the government who still have a twinge of conscience, and contribute to the development of software solutions that will deliver what has been promised a decade back. Some of us file Public Interest Writs in the Courts. We may get some Obiter Dicta passed by the Justices, which the government will stonewall anyway.

It was whilst reflecting upon these depressing stalemates, that last week, I was in an interaction with a politician who has had a track record of excellent performance in her chosen field of interest. She has been instrumental in transforming an important public service to perform well. While doing this necessitated increasing financial allocations, meaningful change was catalysed by making decisions participatory. Not only were citizens involved by the reviving of long-defunct participatory systems, but government staff were mobilised and energised by involving them in planning how these funds would be best used.

Towards the end of her talk, this outstanding politician mentioned something that is worthy of repetition.

She said that 20 per cent of all government department staff – and she dealt with one that had a large staff component – comprise outstanding individuals, who would stick to the path of commitment, excellence, and integrity no matter what the impediments in their paths. Correspondingly, 20 per cent of the staff are incorrigibly bad, beyond any change or reform.

She said that she focussed on the 60 per cent who were ambivalent. They preferred to sail with the flow, to be compliant to the reigning ethos of the organisation. If the organisation tended towards mediocrity, they turned mediocre – they did not want to stand out by becoming efficient. Yet, if the sense was that the organisation appreciated the 20 per cent who were excellent and promoted excellence, the 60 per cent of middle-of-the-road officials did not obstruct such moves; they would happily change their attitudes and strive towards excellence.

She ended by saying that both positive and negative change had to be triggered by the persons at the top. If the politician at the top, and the bureaucrats who translated a political vision into administrative action formed a healthy and positive collaboration, change would be radical, and faster than one thought.

I wonder when we might see that magic in urban governance.

T.R. Raghunandan is an Advisor at Accountability Initiative.

Also Download: Report on PAISA for Municipalities

Also Read: Government Perception of Citizen Participation