Executive, legislature and judiciary are the three organs of a State that have to synchronize their constitutional mandate to run the affairs of the State smoothly. Obviously, a sort of unwritten understanding among them is the pre-requisite of good governance. The understanding incorporates checks and balances essentially meant to deny wayward decision making and policy perception to any one of the three organs. The crux of the mandate, when closely examined and analyzed, converges on one simple inference, viz. general good of the people governed by the system. This being the system, the ultimate authority empowered to pass judgement on the performance of the actors on political stage are the masses of people represented by their elected leaders. That is why the legislature is empowered to frame the laws, which is a privilege bestowed upon it by the vote of the people. Put crudely one can say that legislature has a very special place in the entire construct.
In this theoretical backdrop, the Executive has to understand that what ultimately will prevail is the will of the people and not the lever of administrative instrumentation. The State Legislature has constituted a Committee on Government Assurances. Its mandate is to check and report to what extent the Executive has implemented the assurances given by the ministers either in their normal addresses or by way of reply to the questions posed by the Legislators during the session of the Assembly. These assurances emanate from the debates that ensue in the course of questions and answers. The assurances reflect the policy of the Government approved by the house. As such, these assurances have something of sanctity in them because assurances are given primarily keeping the interests of the people in mind. That is the very soul and spirit of democratic dispensation.
Consider how disappointing it is if the Committee on Government Assurances finds that the Executive is advertently or inadvertently either rubbishing the assurances or indefinitely delaying their implementation on the ground? It is contrary to the vey spirit of division of power in a given State. The ultimate sufferers of the gap between the Legislature and executive in their perceptions are the people of the State. How surprising the Committee on Government Assurances has found that no fewer than 20 Departments of the Government, including important ones like GAD and Finance, have not sent in the Action Taken Report (ATR) in respect of the assurances contained in the 19th Report of the Committee on Government Assurances (CAG) despite the fact that 20th report of the Committee was finalized in its meeting held on December 30, 2016.
Usually, when replying to questions posed by the members of legislative assembly during session, the Government brings forth clarification of its policy and desists from making any assurances or promises. However, as the questioner usually comes with full preparation and is equipped with adequate background information, many times the deliberations take a lively shape of a debate and then on auxiliary issues, the Minister is obliged to give certain assurances. These assurances are usually meant for the consumption of the people and the Executive is only an instrument of implementing these once properly formulated and submitted by the office of the said Minister.
It is unacceptable on the part of Government Departments to dump the assurances made by the Ministers on the floor of the house. They are supposed to reflect on technical, legal and administrative aspects of these assurances but they are not supposed to dump it as something irrelevant and non essential. We believe the Chief Secretary has the duty of ensuring that departments implement these assurances and within a given time frame. That should be the desk book formula.
Follow our WhatsApp channel