Internal Security and Good Governance: The Linkage

Governance and internal security are deeply linked. Good governance means participatory, responsive, non-discriminatory and responsible administration with full accountability, honesty and transparency; promotion of inclusive development (education, economic and infrastructural development, employment opportunities, natural resources etc.); improving the moral fibre of the population through education from the primary to the tertiary levels and promoting values like tolerance, secularism, democracy, accommodation, mutuality, and handling dissent. In short, the hallmarks of good governance are legitimacy, participation and distribution. For good governance, it is essential that “the political, economic, executive and judicial authority of the state is exercised in a manner which ensures that the people are enabled to enjoy their rights, discharge their obligations and resolve their disputes within the parameters of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”[1] In short, it is much more than the ‘function of the executive branch’ of the state.

Despite the fact that India has all the resources – human and natural – that are needed to achieve a high level of development, sadly for a number of well-known reasons, mostly to do with governance, we have lagged behind. Failure of the political executive to devote sustained attention to its constitutional responsibilities has led to the governmental functioning in the States being marred by gross delays, inefficiency, insensitivity, unaccountability and pervasive corruption. The issue is, as a former bureaucrat points out, “The chain of accountability from the civil service to legislature and political authority is weak; follow-through at higher levels of administration is poor.”[2] Corruption seems to have become a way of life in the country. It poses a serious danger to the Indian Republic – to its political system, its social cohesion, moral fabric and its economic development.[3]

Governance cannot be carried out in the absence of internal security; internal security cannot be safeguarded if governance is delivered by an inefficient and corrupt administration. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has pointed out, “Corruption strikes at the roots of good governance. It is an impediment to faster growth. It dilutes, if not negates, our efforts at social inclusion. It dents our international image and it demeans us before our own people.”[4] Extensive corruption becomes a national security problem because of the alienation it generates among the population and the amount of ‘trust deficit’ it brings about. It erodes and weakens the very foundations of the administrative and legal framework and disrupts the ‘Rule of Law’. Corruption, in fact, is a sign of bad governance. Most worryingly, corruption destroys discipline in government apparatus, leading to unaccountability and, in turn, paving way for dreading ‘political-criminal-bureaucratic nexus’.

Seen from economic growth point of view, it increases the transaction costs in our goods and services, thereby adversely affecting our international competitiveness. It also reduces the sense of security for investors – both foreign and domestic – as often corruption is accompanied by extortion, protection rackets and delays in implementation and rise in infrastructure costs. In a globalising world, where the power and influence of a nation are measured also in terms of its economic power, impediments to economic growth can be considered a security threat. In that sense, corruption in the political system and bureaucracy stand out as the major security threat.

If left unattended, violent non-state actors may try and exploit the weaknesses in the governance structure of the state and attempt to run parallel administration where possible. The Naxalites, for instance, hold Jan Adalats essentially to dispense quick and crude justice and redress local grievances, as it would take years for normal course of judicial system to pronounce justice. This way, naxalites try to supplant the State machinery and assert their hegemony over rural tracks. Projecting themselves as a best alternative, the Maoists justify thus:

The people know that our party is fighting for an India structured around principles of equality. We want an India where individuals cannot amass capital and private property while simultaneously driving large sections of the society into poverty. We are here to make a corruption-free India where corruption, dishonesty and lies have no place; and where honesty, labour and truth are rewarded. They also know that we are fighting against discrimination based on gender, caste, religion and other sectarian identities.[

Unless urgent and ruthless steps are taken to check maladministration and corruption, the anger and disgust of the common people, particularly the disadvantaged and oppressed elements, could lead to their alienation. The main issue, however, is that there is no systemic response that reduces opportunities for corruption in India. Competition, greater choice and modern technology could cut down the chances for graft, but they have to be institutionalised, formalised and popularised. Most importantly, present anti-corruption mechanisms at both central and state government levels have numerous deficiencies like lack of resources, right manpower, powers of prosecution, enough scope and freedom. While it should be acknowledged that good governance by itself cannot counter all threats to India’s internal security, lack of it would seriously undermine the security.