Disregarding commitments

Democracy is a protracted and sluggish system of governance. It does not find quick solutions to problems but it does try to go to their roots. There are times when it disappoints stakeholders because it leaves many safety levers for the Government to act or not to act. The Parliament/Legislative Assembly is not only a pathfinder but also a strong forum for accountability of the achievements and failures of the Government. The Government must account for its policies and it must answer the questions of the members.
These principles of running a state along democratic norms notwithstanding, Government is supposed to honour its assurances and commitments when these are made on the floor of the house. In the first place, the members take the word of the Government seriously and since it enjoys the trust of the majority, there is likelihood of the government carrying out the assurances given and commitments made. Obviously, any assurance given in the house is given on the basis of the Government fully weighing the pros and con of a matter under discussion. When it feels convinced that it can deliver goods, it results in the Government giving an assurance of its fruition.  The question is that the 18th report of the Committee on Government Assurances has listed no fewer than 424 assurances made on the floor of the house that have not been yet implemented thereby creating an embarrassing situation for the Government. The report has listed department-wise defaults of assurances and we do not intend to repeat the names of these defaulting departments. By and large, every department has fallen victim to non-implementation and this asks for deeper assessment of the situation rather than taking up individual cases for analysis or confining to superfluous debate.
We have been discussing in these columns some of the major lapses and defaults on the part of the government in carrying forward the work of development. Inability to implement centrally sponsored schemes, lack of cohesion among various administrative departments of the State government, absence of accountability, lack of deep sense of patriotism and cursory attitude towards official responsibility etc.  all combine to result in not implementing the assurances given by the Government. This is a state of helplessness, and why the Government tolerates it is beyond one’s comprehension. Are there other serious reasons that make the   Government helpless in implementing the assurances? There is nothing wrong for the Government to admit the shortcomings on the floor of the house instead of providing misleading or unconvincing replies that trigger more awkward questions. The concerned departments should not have at least failed in submitting the Action Taken Report to the Assembly Secretariat even if it had not been in a position to implement given assurances.
The impression gathered by not submitting the Action Taken Report is that either the Government takes a casual and non-serious view of its assurances or that it has no real intention of being answerable to anybody or any organization for its acts.
The Government should pull up all the concerned departments that have failed to submit Action Taken Report on the assurances given by the Government and enlisted in 17th report of the Committee on Assurances. The Government must realise that the Committee on Assurances has constitutional sanctity and is empowered to suggest punitive measures for non-compliance of its directives. Moreover non-compliance also means denial of justice to the party/parties, and that too can become a serious matter under Services Act. It is absolutely misplaced thinking with the bureaucracy that there is any attempt of snatching away its powers. The truth is that there is certainly a strong move to empower the people and more especially those who suffer for want of action by the departments concerned. Dilly-dallying on the implementation of Government’s assurances puts the governance in bad light. When the Government harps on good governance as its priority, non-implementation of its assurances reflects contradiction in that thinking.