hich, details of the resource, both financial and
non-financial, used by public agencies for
development initiatives are shared with the
people, often through a public platform. Social
Audit allows people to enforce accountability
and transparency, providing the ultimate users
an opportunity to scrutinize development
initiatives.
The principal issue in this section however is
as to what are the essential prerequisites of the
process of social audit and whether the
instrument of social audit is serving its
functionalities, as expected, on the ground and
what could be done to make this instrument of
enforcing accountability on public functionaries
sharper.
Let us examine the above issues with the help
of a case study mentioned by the vision
foundation in its report on Social Audit to the
Planning Commission. This was an initiative by
Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS),
Rajasthan and was called as HAMARA PAISA
HAMARA HISAB. This and several other similar
initiatives also served as building blocks which
ultimately matured into the enactment of the RTI
Act, 2005. The MKSS, born in 1990, is a big
grassroots organization that grew out of a local
struggle for minimum wages and its ideology is
that change for the local people will only come
through a political process.
People in Rajasthan have always had
difficulty getting paid the minimum wage.
Politicians would always promise to secure the
minimum wage in return for votes. However,
these promises never translated into lasting
change and, over time campaigners realized that
they had to obtain the relevant documentation,
in particular the muster rolls. The right to
information and the right to survive thus became
united in peoples’ minds. The campaign initially,
demanded to see the muster rolls, but was met
with refusal on the grounds that these were
‘secret documents’. These refusals led to a long
agitation for the right to access information. By
1994, the MKSS hit upon a new, empowering
strategy, based on the idea of a Jan Sunwai or
‘public hearing’. The MKSS brought people
together and simply read out official documents
that they had procured, either through
surreptitious means or from officials who had
no idea of their import. The documents related
to construction records for school buildings,
panchayat bhawans, patwari bhawans, dams,
bridges and other local structures.
A serious effort was made to ensure that the
debate was transparent and accessible to the
outside world. The government boycotted the
first four hearings. To ensure openness and
publicity, anyone could attend and an
independent outsider chaired each hearing.
Local officials and public representatives were
invited, including those likely to be criticized.
Despite the expense, the proceedings were
videotaped. This deterred speakers from
misrepresenting information and put them on
oath as they knew what they said could be
referred to later. When the records were read
out it was sometimes immediately obvious that
they contained false information. Examples were
items like bills for the transport of materials over
6 km when the real distance was only 1 km, or
people listed on the muster rolls who lived in
other cities or were dead. The documentation
also proved that corrupt officials and others were
siphoning money and that minimum wages were
being paid only on paper. The exploitation of
the poor in two ways — by denial of their
minimum wages and through corruption by
some of the village middle class — was revealed
at the Jan Sunwais in front of the entire village.
People who would have been intimidated on
their own now had a platform where they could
speak out. This process also brought together the
poor and sections of the middle class who had
not previously supported them but now spoke
out against corruption, which they realized hurt
them too. The MKSS in Rajasthan demanded and
got information on minimum wages and
government infrastructure programs, sparking
off, in the process, a national movement for
freedom of information. After a long battle, the
government announced a change in the
Panchayat Act, so that the people could inspect
local documents pertaining to developmental
works.
The above case study brings to fore the
following major points:
1. The basic input to the process is information
availability – willingness of the Government
Officials to provide information and ability
of people to ask questions. Thus Social audit
can only be imagined in conjugation with
the right to information vested in the people.
We cannot imagine social audit without the
right to information, further the effectiveness
of the right to information is diluted if we
do not pair up the information with social
audit. The quality of social audit is in direct
semblance with the quality of information
or in other words the effectiveness of the
Social Audit largely depends upon how well
the people are satisfied with what they get
under their right to information. Thus social
audit is a recent phenomenon in India,
which has started taking roots only after
the RTI-2005 was passed. Moreover, the
evolution of social audit has a special
significance in view of the responsibility
reposed by the 73rd and 74th amendment
acts on the local governments under which
one of the important functions of the local
governments is the monitoring and
evaluation of the developmental and other
activities conducted in their areas
particularly with government funds.
2. This examination brings to fore another
prerequisite which is as crucial as
information, and that is the capacities of
the people to acquire information, to
process the information into usable form,
to scrutinize the information, to crystallize
the issues and to question the responsible
staff on matters of concern. This is of
ultimate importance because information
in itself is of no use until the people are in
a position to utilize it effectively. This point
is relevant both in the sense of technical
skills of the people to understand and
process the information and the sociopolitical
skills of the people to overcome
the resistances if any posed by the secretive
tendencies of the state or by some other
people or groups guided by their vested
interests.
3. Most importantly the fact that capacity
building whether it is technical, organizational
or socio-political is an exercise which hardly
needs any dedicated training program, rather
it is something which grows on its own over
the period of time provided the people start
participating in finding solutions to their
problems themselves and they are guided by
some able and dedicated leadership at least
in the initial stages.
Thus we zero down on the twin issues of
information and the capacities of the people, as
the most crucial aspects relevant for the success
of the whole exercise of social audit. Further,
objective analyses of various case studies also
reveal that the success of the social audit in any
environment revolves around the quality,
availability, affordability, accessibility and
usability of information and capacities vis-à-vis
people.
Presently, the process of Social Audit has
become a regular feature of most of the
government programs both in the rural and the
urban areas. The process of social audit starts
with the seeking of the program related relevant
information by the people from the concerned
government departments under the RTI act. This
information is then processed and converted to
usable form after which it is subjected to scrutiny
by the people. The results of the scrutiny are
shared in a common platform with the
authorities and the people. Elaborate discussions
take place on the issues which crop up during
the course of scrutiny wherein the responsible
government functionaries are subjected to
questioning to explain their stand on the issues.
If the explanations are found to be genuine
corrective remedies are evolved and suggested
to be executed, however if the explanations are
not found to be satisfactory penal actions are
imposed there and then.
Presently, this initiative is in its infancy and
is carried out at the lowest levels under the
leadership of some NGO. Moreover, there have
been two major concerns starving the process of
its best results. One of them is of course the
limited penetration of NGOs willing to interfere
in initiating the process of Social Audit both at
the territorial level as well as the coverage of
programs level. Still numerous hinterlands are
waiting for some leadership to evolve and show
them the potentialities of this instrument which
have been made available to them by the RTI
act-2005. Although, the Gram Panchayats has
been assigned this job to conduct social audit of
various government programs from time to time,
but the Gram Panchayat functionaries are yet
to appreciate the wide potentials of Social Audit.
Further apart from some important programs like
MNREGA there have been very few instances
involving the use of social audit.
Secondly there have several reports of the
collusion between the NGO people or the Gram
Panchayat functionaries, responsible for the
social audit exercise, with the local politicians
or the local bureaucracy or the local contractors.
The people responsible for social audit, in
collusion with the local politicians, have started
using it as an instrument to extract money from
the local bureaucracy or the local contractor by
threatening them with complaints of non
fulfillment of the ‘watertight’ norms of the
developmental works. This phenomenon is both
concerning and saddening as if the local
leadership itself which has been entrusted the
job of extracting accountability for the people
through these instruments, start indulging in
such malpractices there is hardly any way out
for the ordinary poor man in the village or on
the street.
Thus, we feel that the corrective strategy has
to be a twofold exercise. One there is a need to
galvanize the Panchayati Raj functionaries along
with the NGOs to come forward and bring honest
and effective leadership at the grassroot levels,
so as to ensure accountability of the government
functionaries. Further, on the part of the
administration, the government should start
deliberations to bring about a legislation which
would introduce some sort of regulation on the
Panchayati Raj functionaries as well as on the
NGOs operating especially in the rural areas
which normally stay away from media scrutiny.
For example, permitting the CAG to audit the
accounts of the PRIs and putting them on the
internet could be the first step in this direction.
non-financial, used by public agencies for
development initiatives are shared with the
people, often through a public platform. Social
Audit allows people to enforce accountability
and transparency, providing the ultimate users
an opportunity to scrutinize development
initiatives.
The principal issue in this section however is
as to what are the essential prerequisites of the
process of social audit and whether the
instrument of social audit is serving its
functionalities, as expected, on the ground and
what could be done to make this instrument of
enforcing accountability on public functionaries
sharper.
Let us examine the above issues with the help
of a case study mentioned by the vision
foundation in its report on Social Audit to the
Planning Commission. This was an initiative by
Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS),
Rajasthan and was called as HAMARA PAISA
HAMARA HISAB. This and several other similar
initiatives also served as building blocks which
ultimately matured into the enactment of the RTI
Act, 2005. The MKSS, born in 1990, is a big
grassroots organization that grew out of a local
struggle for minimum wages and its ideology is
that change for the local people will only come
through a political process.
People in Rajasthan have always had
difficulty getting paid the minimum wage.
Politicians would always promise to secure the
minimum wage in return for votes. However,
these promises never translated into lasting
change and, over time campaigners realized that
they had to obtain the relevant documentation,
in particular the muster rolls. The right to
information and the right to survive thus became
united in peoples’ minds. The campaign initially,
demanded to see the muster rolls, but was met
with refusal on the grounds that these were
‘secret documents’. These refusals led to a long
agitation for the right to access information. By
1994, the MKSS hit upon a new, empowering
strategy, based on the idea of a Jan Sunwai or
‘public hearing’. The MKSS brought people
together and simply read out official documents
that they had procured, either through
surreptitious means or from officials who had
no idea of their import. The documents related
to construction records for school buildings,
panchayat bhawans, patwari bhawans, dams,
bridges and other local structures.
A serious effort was made to ensure that the
debate was transparent and accessible to the
outside world. The government boycotted the
first four hearings. To ensure openness and
publicity, anyone could attend and an
independent outsider chaired each hearing.
Local officials and public representatives were
invited, including those likely to be criticized.
Despite the expense, the proceedings were
videotaped. This deterred speakers from
misrepresenting information and put them on
oath as they knew what they said could be
referred to later. When the records were read
out it was sometimes immediately obvious that
they contained false information. Examples were
items like bills for the transport of materials over
6 km when the real distance was only 1 km, or
people listed on the muster rolls who lived in
other cities or were dead. The documentation
also proved that corrupt officials and others were
siphoning money and that minimum wages were
being paid only on paper. The exploitation of
the poor in two ways — by denial of their
minimum wages and through corruption by
some of the village middle class — was revealed
at the Jan Sunwais in front of the entire village.
People who would have been intimidated on
their own now had a platform where they could
speak out. This process also brought together the
poor and sections of the middle class who had
not previously supported them but now spoke
out against corruption, which they realized hurt
them too. The MKSS in Rajasthan demanded and
got information on minimum wages and
government infrastructure programs, sparking
off, in the process, a national movement for
freedom of information. After a long battle, the
government announced a change in the
Panchayat Act, so that the people could inspect
local documents pertaining to developmental
works.
The above case study brings to fore the
following major points:
1. The basic input to the process is information
availability – willingness of the Government
Officials to provide information and ability
of people to ask questions. Thus Social audit
can only be imagined in conjugation with
the right to information vested in the people.
We cannot imagine social audit without the
right to information, further the effectiveness
of the right to information is diluted if we
do not pair up the information with social
audit. The quality of social audit is in direct
semblance with the quality of information
or in other words the effectiveness of the
Social Audit largely depends upon how well
the people are satisfied with what they get
under their right to information. Thus social
audit is a recent phenomenon in India,
which has started taking roots only after
the RTI-2005 was passed. Moreover, the
evolution of social audit has a special
significance in view of the responsibility
reposed by the 73rd and 74th amendment
acts on the local governments under which
one of the important functions of the local
governments is the monitoring and
evaluation of the developmental and other
activities conducted in their areas
particularly with government funds.
2. This examination brings to fore another
prerequisite which is as crucial as
information, and that is the capacities of
the people to acquire information, to
process the information into usable form,
to scrutinize the information, to crystallize
the issues and to question the responsible
staff on matters of concern. This is of
ultimate importance because information
in itself is of no use until the people are in
a position to utilize it effectively. This point
is relevant both in the sense of technical
skills of the people to understand and
process the information and the sociopolitical
skills of the people to overcome
the resistances if any posed by the secretive
tendencies of the state or by some other
people or groups guided by their vested
interests.
3. Most importantly the fact that capacity
building whether it is technical, organizational
or socio-political is an exercise which hardly
needs any dedicated training program, rather
it is something which grows on its own over
the period of time provided the people start
participating in finding solutions to their
problems themselves and they are guided by
some able and dedicated leadership at least
in the initial stages.
Thus we zero down on the twin issues of
information and the capacities of the people, as
the most crucial aspects relevant for the success
of the whole exercise of social audit. Further,
objective analyses of various case studies also
reveal that the success of the social audit in any
environment revolves around the quality,
availability, affordability, accessibility and
usability of information and capacities vis-à-vis
people.
Presently, the process of Social Audit has
become a regular feature of most of the
government programs both in the rural and the
urban areas. The process of social audit starts
with the seeking of the program related relevant
information by the people from the concerned
government departments under the RTI act. This
information is then processed and converted to
usable form after which it is subjected to scrutiny
by the people. The results of the scrutiny are
shared in a common platform with the
authorities and the people. Elaborate discussions
take place on the issues which crop up during
the course of scrutiny wherein the responsible
government functionaries are subjected to
questioning to explain their stand on the issues.
If the explanations are found to be genuine
corrective remedies are evolved and suggested
to be executed, however if the explanations are
not found to be satisfactory penal actions are
imposed there and then.
Presently, this initiative is in its infancy and
is carried out at the lowest levels under the
leadership of some NGO. Moreover, there have
been two major concerns starving the process of
its best results. One of them is of course the
limited penetration of NGOs willing to interfere
in initiating the process of Social Audit both at
the territorial level as well as the coverage of
programs level. Still numerous hinterlands are
waiting for some leadership to evolve and show
them the potentialities of this instrument which
have been made available to them by the RTI
act-2005. Although, the Gram Panchayats has
been assigned this job to conduct social audit of
various government programs from time to time,
but the Gram Panchayat functionaries are yet
to appreciate the wide potentials of Social Audit.
Further apart from some important programs like
MNREGA there have been very few instances
involving the use of social audit.
Secondly there have several reports of the
collusion between the NGO people or the Gram
Panchayat functionaries, responsible for the
social audit exercise, with the local politicians
or the local bureaucracy or the local contractors.
The people responsible for social audit, in
collusion with the local politicians, have started
using it as an instrument to extract money from
the local bureaucracy or the local contractor by
threatening them with complaints of non
fulfillment of the ‘watertight’ norms of the
developmental works. This phenomenon is both
concerning and saddening as if the local
leadership itself which has been entrusted the
job of extracting accountability for the people
through these instruments, start indulging in
such malpractices there is hardly any way out
for the ordinary poor man in the village or on
the street.
Thus, we feel that the corrective strategy has
to be a twofold exercise. One there is a need to
galvanize the Panchayati Raj functionaries along
with the NGOs to come forward and bring honest
and effective leadership at the grassroot levels,
so as to ensure accountability of the government
functionaries. Further, on the part of the
administration, the government should start
deliberations to bring about a legislation which
would introduce some sort of regulation on the
Panchayati Raj functionaries as well as on the
NGOs operating especially in the rural areas
which normally stay away from media scrutiny.
For example, permitting the CAG to audit the
accounts of the PRIs and putting them on the
internet could be the first step in this direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment