Relevance: GS Paper 2 (Polity & Governance)
Source:
Introduction
Public Grievances are a significant indicator of the state of governance in any system. In a democracy, the legitimacy of government depends primarily on public trust and support, which is often contingent upon its capacity to deliver quality governance. Public discontent, however, simmers in the vortex of grievances. As grievances breed, discontent grows too. Public grievances, therefore, present the most domineering challenge before any government.
Resolution of public grievances
This challenge is complex and its resolution requires multi-dimensional focus and multilayered interventions necessitating:
- timely capture of grievances by creating spaces for their expression;
- effective redressal of existing grievances by creating robust redress mechanisms; and
- accomplishing grievance free governance by addressing the root cause and working on alternate policies or institutional reforms, where necessary.
The Grievance Complex
- Grievances exist in as many areas as governance institutions and processes, spanning various ministries, departments and organisations at the central, state and local government levels.
- Many grievances relate to appointment, work conditions, wages, allowances, service conditions, termination of service or other work related issues.
- Several of these pertain to schemes for development, their implementation, targeting issues, timely benefit transfer; or these may relate to non-delivery of services or entitlements related to health, education or other services like banks, communications, etc.
- Grievances around discrimination based on gender, caste or tribal identity or violation of specific rights or entitlements of involving women, SCs and STs have grown over the years.
Evolution of Mechanisms
- The post-independence India began to feel the growing pressure of public grievances.
- The drive to set up public grievance redressal mechanisms gained momentum following the Chief Ministers’ Conference in 1987 and the adoption of Action Plan for responsive and citizen-centric administration.
- What followed was a concerted effort to put in place three key mechanisms- citizen charters, information and facilitation counters and public grievance redressal machinery in all ministries, departments and organisations of government of India and state governments.
- Two significant milestones in the evolution of grievance redressal mechanisms in India were
- the constitution of public grievance cells in the Ministries/ Departments/ organisation, and
- the adoption of a web based Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS)- created to streamline and unify the process of receiving grievances of public with respect to almost 94 Ministries/Departments/Organizations in the Government of India.
Ineffectiveness of mechanisms
- A review of the grievance redressal mechanisms in government of India Ministries, Departments and Organisations undertaken in 2008, however, found that these remained largely ineffective in the absence of adequate authority, human resource support or poor commitment of officers, some of whom were found ignorant of their own citizen’s charter.
- Public grievance mechanism also faced the pressure of staff grievances more than public grievances.
- CPGRAMS was set up with very high expectations of making administration responsive. The mechanism, however, remained underutilized for lack of awareness, lack of access to technology and low level of public trust.
The Emerging Scenario
- Over the years, however, on account of rapid spread of information technology, growing internet access and increasing awareness about the mechanism, the utilization of CPGRAMS has grown manifold.
- There is also a renewed interest in strengthening the technology interface through other support mechanisms like PRAGATI (Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation) platform and social media too.
- Besides DARPG and DPG, PMO has also become an important nodal agency for receiving grievances.
- There is also a renewed interest in strengthening the technology interface through other support mechanisms like PRAGATI (Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation) platform and social media too. Besides DARPG and DPG, PMO has also become an important nodal agency for receiving grievances.
- The overall disposal rate has been quite high with 97 per cent grievances having been disposed.
Way forward
- Many grievances received on CPGRAMS are related to State governments-It is important to examine whether all State related grievances are forwarded to them or not; and in case the grievance is forwarded, whether the response is awaited or it is simultaneously disposed off.
- It is important to ensure that CPGRAMS plays the facilitator role for the public without impinging on the nature of federalism.
- Autonomy of grievance redressal institutions has its own challenges regarding the accountability of regulatory agencies. This necessitates public accountability of these institutions by making them transparent in exercising their responsibility.Making the process and the logic of decisions open to public comment can help reduce the grievances against them as well as help them effectively redress the grievances against the service providers.
- There is the issue of coordination across multiple authorities in case of many grievances. Rather than letting these issues and the aggrieved be kept revolving between multiple authorities, creation of appropriate mechanisms for such coordinated responses is desirable.
- There is need to simultaneously utilize other mechanisms like lok adalats, jan sunwais, social audit, mobile apps etc. to ensure inclusion of those who may not have access to CPGRAMS.
- The awareness of grievances is the first condition for effectively addressing them. Expression rather than repression of voice, therefore, should be encouraged if the objective is to win public trust or improve the state of governance.
- It is important to realize that a patriarchal approach to grievance redressal may sometimes prove to be less effective than a participatory approach, where suggestions to improve the functioning of institutions or policy, or to prevent the grievances are invited from the public and considered with an open mind. Undertaking systematic analysis of grievances and suggestions, or even queries, received from the stakeholders can provide insights into the possible ways of improvement.
- Since all grievances are not registered through formal grievance redressal mechanisms, and since barriers to communication come from issues of access as well as power structures, it is important to also take note of grievances received through informal channels of communications which can also help arrive at a better state of governance.
- One should not read too much into the absence of grievances, as this may be on account of poverty of mechanisms for expression, fear of reprisals or simply lack of public faith in the ability to get redress.
Conclusion
It is important to ensure the institution of multiple mechanisms for the timely capture and effective redressal of the grievances that may emerge and the course correction that may result after careful analysis of their reasons and possible remedies or prevention strategies.
