Home

Notwithstanding the criticism or appreciation, the abolition of the Group of Ministers (GoM) and the Empowered Group of Ministers (EGoM) is one of the significant steps taken by the Modi government towards speedier decision-making. The implications of this pronouncement recently doesn’t bother the common man, but can bring about a substantial change in government functioning. Moreover, it reveals some similarities in the functioning of governments in the West.

Debates will continue between those who criticize this move as “symptomatic of autocratic regime” and those who are convinced that this would restore ministerial responsibility for coordination and speedy decision making.

Congress-led governments had set up a total of 68 GoMs and 14 EGoMs. These committees became almost indispensable in UPA coalition governments (2004-14) which had constituted 21 GoMs and nine EGoMs. All these are now disbanded. The aim obviously is to reduce levels of decision-making and streamline the system. This seems to be in keeping with the Prime Minister’s oft-repeated intention of cutting out excess administrative processes and provide quick, short, and highly efficient machinery. A decisive move towards “less government and more governance”!

It is expected that elimination of these committees would “usher in greater accountability in the system”. Any difficulty in resolving differences and arriving at decisions are to be handled by the Cabinet Secretariat and the PMO. A Committee of Secretaries headed by the Cabinet Secretary is already in place.

GoMs are different from EGoMs in one important aspect. The former can only discuss matters for submission to the Cabinet for decision, whereas the latter can ratify or approve decisions on behalf of the Cabinet and is, therefore, as powerful as the Cabinet itself. Issues such as fuel price hike, spectrum auction price, natural gas price, for instance, were decided by EGoMs during the UPA regime.

A GoM was constituted whenever a policy matter concerning more than one ministry came up for decision-making. Concerned ministries were asked to settle the issue – a process intended to save the Cabinet’s time. This was also a device to widen policy advice and facilitate deeper analysis of issues that involve conflicting interests and viewpoints. For example, GoMs were constituted to decide on caste census, verdict on Bhopal Gas Tragedy, water management, skill development, to mention a few.

The UPA government had been setting up GoMs for anything and everything – a strategy which critics labeled as “outsourcing” and which delayed decision-making and helpe only shelving knotty issues.

Along with the system of setting up GoM and EGoM, four Cabinet panels have been abolished--Unique Identity Authority of India, Management and Natural Calamities, Prices, and on WTO Matters.

In all governments across the democratic world, smaller committees to help the Cabinet to examine certain issues for taking a final decision are common. Such committees are required to resolve inter-ministerial differences also. There are Cabinet committees composed exclusively of Cabinet members and also ministerial committees composed of several ministers and some non-Cabinet members, who discuss issues thoroughly prior to the Cabinet meetings.

Need for such committees have been felt particularly by coalition governments run by parties which don’t have identical policies and views. There may be differences in priorities and even conflicting interests between coalition partners which have to be resolved. A glance through the arrangements in some other governments shows rather marked similarities in problem-solving machinery within the Cabinet system.

Tony Blair’s government in Britain was looked upon as “Prime Ministerial Government” in the sense that he was inclined to bypass “accepted standards of decision-making” and took decisions after consulting a few people. It meant that the process of decision-making was not broad based. Earlier Harold Wilson was accused of having his own “kitchen Cabinet” – meaning his trust and dependence on a small clique. Margaret Thatcher’s domination over her Cabinet colleagues was well known.

The Ministerial Code of 2010 in Britain prescribes that two types of issues should be brought before the Cabinet or committees for decision. – questions critically important to the public or involving major policy issues requiring collective responsibility and those on which there are differences between departments.

Committee system of work is back in Britain with the revival of the coalition government. Cabinet committees are presently the most important forum for decision-making and resolution of inter-ministerial differences.

In Canada, Cabinet committees are both legally and actually important mechanism to help Cabinet take decisions. These resolve differences before matters are taken up so that the Cabinet is enabled to concentrate on strategic policy issues.

The Australian and New Zealand Cabinet works through a number of standing committees and ad hoc committees constituted from time to time to discuss specific issues.

In Belgium too, policies and projects are first discussed in formal and informal inter-ministerial meetings of concerned departments before they are submitted to the full Council of Ministers. Differences are sorted out in association with experts and senior officials of the concerned ministries.

In Denmark, policies are prepared in smaller committees of ministers. Norway and Sweden do not need smaller Cabinet committees as the full Cabinet, which meets regularly, can manage to sort out inter-ministerial differences by direct discussions. Their systems cannot make a model for India.

The French system has strong PMO and President’s office. The task of coordination is done at various levels. Specialized civil servants are included as political appointees in the PMO. The PM himself handles important inter-ministerial conflicts, but is not bothered with differences over small matters. Unresolved conflicts in Cabinet committees are referred to the Cabinet and not the other way. These models only emphasize the importance of Cabinet committees.

During Jawaharlal Nehru’s period, only members were entitled to attend weekly meetings of the Cabinet, but Ministers of State, Chief Ministers, and technical experts would be invited for discussion on subjects in which they had special concern or knowledge. Normally there was no voting and decisions were taken usually by consensus. A study shows that only 2% of Government business was taken to the Cabinet and the rest were dealt with at the level of ministers and departments.

The advent of coalition government at the Centre since 1989 saw the emergence of GoMs. The NDA governments under Vajpayee had constituted 32 GoMs.

Surely one cannot condemn committees within the Cabinet wholesale where these are required for political, administrative, and technical reasons. These become subject to criticism because of proliferation of such committees and the delay in arriving at decisions.

Any Cabinet needs in-depth examination of issues by smaller groups. The present government must certainly be aware of this and needs no political tuition. Abolition of GoMs and EGoMs remotely doesn’t signify the advent of an autocratic era as perceived by some political opponents or a rash drive towards hasty decisions. There is no need to publicize a government’s strategy in arriving at consensus within the Cabinet.

A “lean, mean, and high efficiency machine” for governance is what the Prime Minister wants. The responsibility of individual ministries/departments is reinforced to deal even with complex inter-ministerial issues. The PMO will step in only in case of serious differences.

By taking this step, the Government has made it clear that it has no intention of hiding behind committees to escape from taking decisions. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

< Previous		Next >

[ Back ]