E-governance: Learning from Karnataka

Introduction

The term ‘governance’ is today increasingly being used in the domain of public administration, particularly in the context of a gradual rollback of the state in terms of leading the macroeconomy and delivery of social services. Thus, the term ‘governance’ has come to connote a ‘thin government’ with a ‘thick market’ and the corporate sector and civil society sectors, wherein most functions of the state are carried out either by the market or by the civil society or such private entities. The word ‘governance’ itself denotes a minimal neo-liberal state. The definition of governance denoting efficiency, economy and effectiveness originates from new public management schools (R.K. Sapru & Sapru, 2014). Therefore, it must be clarified at the very outset that governance reforms are considered by ideological critics as neo-liberal, to the extent of at least serving the neo-liberal agenda of the state. This criticism, however, lacks clarity as it is silent on whether technological reforms such as the introduction of electronic governance (e-governance) per se also amount to a neo-liberal agenda. We argue in this article that technology per se is value-neutral and can serve both a ‘welfare state’ and a ‘neo-liberal state’.

Governance also means higher levels of efficiency, effectiveness and productivity on the part of governments and quasi-government institutions in view of them being mandated with the basic function of public-service delivery. The term ‘governance’ came to be used increasingly in the 1990s. Governance in the broadest sense means ‘a pattern of rule’ (Bevir, 2011). In the present context the term ‘governance’ is used to mean a pattern of rule with an active role for non-state, quasi-state and social and market actors. By non-state and quasi-state actors, we mean civil society organisations and consultancy bodies such as World Bank and IMF and by market actors, we mean the corporate sector. The governance terminology has become co-terminus with combining government with privatisation, increasing the use of civil society in the delivery of services and public sector and social sector functions (ibid.). As per another definition, it makes governance more effective, efficient and economical by reducing bureaucracy and ensuring accountability, transparency and effectiveness (Chitlangi, 2008). The major outcome of these definitional changes, which are eventually implemented, is that the rule by the government becomes hybrid and plural besides acquiring a multi-jurisdictionality.

The technological revolution in the 20th and early 21st centuries has helped the state carry forward the above mentioned types of changes. Particularly the revolution in information and communication technologies (ICTs), combined with the definition of governance amounting to effectiveness, transparency and accountability, has led to an increased computerisation and digitisation of governance-related functions.

Governance is also used to denote ‘decline’ of the centralised state, increased delegation and decentralisation of powers, that is, both the horizontal partnership of the state with the market and vertical delegation and decentralisation. This also means lessening the task of public service and welfare functions of the state. As such, it means a slender state and more civil society and market players in such a ‘pattern of rule’.

There is also another version of the state which has become famous for good governance and this means an accountable, accessible, transparent, less corrupt and effective state (ibid.). One should keep in mind all these definitions of governance: (a) governance as partnership; (b) the vertical delegation of public service delivery to lower rungs; and (c) good governance—all these changes have come about in the wake of the growth of market fundamentalism and decline of the welfare state.

The technological changes mentioned earlier have fundamentally altered the governance scenario. The growth of computer technology, digital technologies and telecommunications has drastically changed the way the state conducts its functions. Technology is no doubt driven by capitalism; one should also acknowledge that innovations in technology of the type mentioned earlier have already altered the function of governance and has an enormous potentiality to alter it further. It is when these technological changes are introduced in governance that it comes to mean electronic governance or e-governance. According to one definition:

E-government is about a process of reform in the way governments work, share information and deliver services to internal and external clients. Specifically, e-government harnesses information and communication technologies (ICT), such as internet, the web, and mobile phones to deliver information and services to citizens and businesses. (Bhatnagar, 2008, pp. 246–247)

Bhatnagar explains the significance of e-governance in the following words:

Everything about information technology in India is characterised by both hype and substance; so is the case with e-government. E-government is at an early stage of implementation, with just three or four Indian states having built a few service delivery applications. However, e-government applications are expected to grow in scope and also to cover more states. E-government represents a win-win situation for all stake holders: the private sector gets new markets, governments increase efficiency and effectiveness and the citizens get more convenient services with greater transparency and less corruption. Some states have already reaped benefits. (ibid.)

Another definition, by Dawes (2009), says that e-governance as ‘E-governance comprises the use of information and communication, technologies to support public services, government administration, democratic processes, and relationships among citizens, civil society, the private sector and the state’.

According to Bhatnagar ¹ :

India is a leader among the developing countries in e-government. Amongst the twenty-five cases on e-government on the World Bank website, thirteen are from India. These include those dealing with delivery of services to urban and rural citizens, tax collection from businesses, and websites focusing on promoting transparency and reducing corruption. E-government applications have been used in India for e-procurement, tax collection, processing license applications, sharing budget/ expenditure information, and sharing information across departments. Citizens have benefited in service delivery through convenient service delivery locations and significant reduction in service delivery time. (Bhatnagar, 2008, pp. 248–249)

Thus, the introduction of ICTs in general has proved its critics wrong. With increasing use of computers and mobile telephony, the basic nature of governance is fast changing; this is certainly true in some states which have adopted this technology as a governance measure. E-governance also depends on the nature of the society. The more literate, aware and educated a society, a better use of e-governance can be undertaken. If the users of e-governance are not aware of its consequences, there is a possibility of it being misused. E-governance has both positive and negative dimensions.

Historically, the e-governance initiative in India began in the 1970s, with focus on computers, and evolved from the computerisation of government departments into varied initiatives, with the objective of speeding up e-governance implementation across the various departments of the government at the national, state and local levels. For instance, the contribution of the National Informatics Centre (NIC) in terms of connecting all the district headquarters during the 1980s was remarkable. From the 1990s, e-governance adopted IT for wider sectoral applications with a policy emphasis on involving both the private sector and NGOs too. It spread across sectors such as telemedicine, e-commerce and community information centres besides promoting access to the internet in order to bring economic benefits to the people. All these initiatives (some of them are discussed later) were unified into a common vision and strategy provided by the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) in 2006. The NeGP takes a holistic view of e-governance initiatives across the country, integrating them as part of a wider vision. Against this backdrop, a colossal country-wide infrastructure was planned to be installed to facilitate access to internet. E-governance is seen as one among the main elements of the country’s overall governance and administrative reform programme. The ultimate objective of this is to bring public services closer to citizens, as expressed in the NeGP ‘Vision Statement’. The NeGP includes twenty-six mission mode projects and eight support components to be implemented at the central, state and local government levels. The plan attempts to cover all the important areas relating to e-governance—policy, infrastructure, finances, project management, government process re-engineering, capacity building, training, assessment and awareness across the central and state governments.

Some examples of e-governance are provided later. E-seva centres are present in both Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (AP) for citizens to easily pay different taxes and obtain different certificates from government departments. Some positive examples of e-governance that have promoted effectiveness of the government at the national level include introduction of voting machines; introduction of voter identity cards on a national scale; introduction of Aadhar cards; and further digitisation of citizens’ financial data. Some positive uses of e-governance among many others introduced in at least Karnataka and former united Andhra Pradesh (which has continued even after the division of the latter state) include computerisation of registration of property and related processes in AP and Karnataka as also the computerisation of land revenue records in Telangana. Karnataka has also initiated ‘mobile governance’, which is India’s first mobile governance system—Karnataka Mobile One—a single platform to access over 4,000 government services. Below we elaborate some of the examples from Karnataka.

Social Impact of Technology

Technology is Janus-faced. The social impact of technology can be both positive and negative. It is positive in terms of improving societal cohesiveness and unity and negative in terms of increasing social disruption. As noted earlier, technology can make delivery of services easy, but it can also centralise information in the hands of the state. Technology can improve what the constitution envisages as ‘fundamental rights’; technology can violate rights to privacy and reduce the social and political space for individual citizens. Technology can create employment but does not ensure that wealth thus generated is equally distributed among all the sections of society. Technology can improve efficiency but does not ensure for what aims or purposes this efficiency is used. Thus, technology is value free. Any society, while using technology, also needs social, political and economic values. Thus, technology can certainly enhance democracy but can also centralise power in a few hands.

In other words, to return to the point earlier mentioned, the more aware, literate and enlightened the citizens are, better can be the use of technology. They can use it to enhance fundamental human values such as equality, dignity, democracy, freedom and individual rights. On the other side, the same technology can also turn out to be stifling. During the Industrial Revolution, when the steam engine and spinning jenny were invented, they were considered revolutionary technologies. The same, however, combined with military power, led to the devastation and subjugation of large parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America by colonial expansionists. What was true of steam engine and spinning jenny can be equally true of all technologies. They can liberate humanity from excruciating labour but can also empower a few and enslave vast others. ⁷

One positive dimension of technology in a liberal democracy like India is that it can enhance participation. In large democracies like India, where a substantial section of the society is still poor, and where there are large inequalities among states, technology can promote equality and participation. Whether or not different social groups are economically equal, technology can enhance political equality. Unlike the West, India obtained democracy before industrialisation; that means a large section of the society is new to industrialisation, urbanisation and other forms of modernity, leave alone cutting-edge technologies. And also, despite being a diverse liberal democracy, India continues to remain characterised by a highly stratified and discriminatory society, although currently undergoing a rapid economic change. In such a context equal access to technology can enhance political equality, even though this may not alter economic inequality. Political and social equality in a liberal democracy can be promoted with an equal and enabling access to technology. For example, computerisation of land revenue records is socially and politically neutral. Whoever has or does not have land can obtain information about land ownership. Likewise e-governance can improve delivery of services and reduce the transaction costs involved. Also, e-governance can promote transparency and thereby reduce corruption and red-tapism.

E-governance is thus accepted at the state level by states that actively participate in economic reforms. Governance reforms are often seen taking place together with economic reforms. The union government and the state governments are increasingly adopting ‘single-window’ clearances, that is, all the necessary clearances by the state/government for investment are given by approaching a single office or through electronic means. There is also competition among the states to attract investments and this is leading to the introduction of electronic mechanisms to facilitate capital flows. A free flow of investments, on the other hand, is creating an increased need for regulatory measures. However, free capital can flow, it still needs regulation even in a globalised environment and open economies. Governance, thus, has also come to mean governance of economic reforms. Since the last 2.5 decades, the economic reforms in India have been continuing with a fair degree of competition to provide favourable conditions for capital investments among all the states. In these conditions, e-governance assumes significance, as ‘ease-of-doing-business’ reports in the media often show.

At present, even the governments and their ministries and departments are on the internet and social media. Thus, unless deliberately done, it is not possible to withhold information by the state/government. This also raises issues of cyber security, extent of internet freedom and the necessity of privacy laws of internet use. Thus, in countries where there is market freedom but no regulation, e-governance can be problematic. Often for governance partners such as markets and the civil society, this creates a need for either the state to create a regulatory authority or elect a regulatory authority. All the classic questions of politics thus come to the forefront. What should be the role of the state? Where should it limit its reach? What should be the freedoms of civil society, markets or the individual? What should be the limits of individual freedom and what should we do with normative social structures and values that a society of human beings needs and so on? To what extent individuals owe obligation to the state and fellow human beings? These are the questions that political philosophy concerns itself with (Wolff, 2006). These questions reappear time and again even in the information society.

As mentioned in the beginning, governance by definition involves introduction of non-state or quasi-state, market and/or civil society actors into a pattern of rule. This results in, besides hybridity and plurality, a multi-jurisdictionality (Bevir, 2011). That is to say, the different actors involved in governance have or come under different jurisdictions. And, therefore, they are either to be brought under the jurisdiction of the state or should have their own regulatory authorities. Even if all the partnerships are forged by the state, we need to understand that the state retains its primacy all the same. For example, civil society in India is certainly unwilling to come under a strict regulation of the state for many reasons of its own. In that case partnerships of governance with civil society require the latter creating its own regulatory body. For example, multinational corporations enter the governance process with partnerships on a competitive basis, in that their jurisdictionality becomes multinational. How does the state manage its partnerships in that context? The point is that governance partnerships of the state with quasi-state or non-state actors lead to questions of multiple jurisdictions. ⁸ And, therefore, the state needs to create independent regulatory bodies to organise these partnerships. Governance and plurality and hybridity of the state, therefore, necessitate some kind of regulation.

So far as e-governance is concerned, as a public service-delivery mechanism, it has proved itself beneficial. The efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and economic nature of services have certainly improved wherever e-governance has been applied.

The major challenges to e-governance include:

Economic inequality: Economic inequality is a major barrier to accessing e-governance. Unless the equipment used in e-governance becomes cheaper, economic inequality can enable some to access e-governance better than others. This is the problem of digital divide. Inequality in access to economic resources translates into digital divide and non-economic sources of inequality add to this.

Inequality other than economic inequality: Inequality in India is complex and multi-dimensional. There is social inequality, educational inequality, inequality of literacy, inequality of regions and places and inequality among various socio-economic groups—all these can affect equal access to e-governance. Ironically, information is supposed to level these inequalities so far as governance and delivery of public services are concerned. An information society is supposed to be a ‘flat society’, without hierarchies of the social order coming in the way of reach of information to individuals. However, how far this is true in a society like ours is open to question.

Resistance from traditional bureaucracy: There is often resistance from bureaucracy which does not appreciate transparency. In an unequal society, information too is a privilege. Bureaucracy feels insecure with increasing digitisation and is likely to fear either retrenchment or lessening of recruitment. It is indeed true that governments want a thinner bureaucracy and less of state bureaucracy than earlier times.

Lack of regulation of electronic governance: E-governance also requires vigilance. Cyber crimes are a reality. With increasing online transactions, trade and commerce taking place via electronic means, the vulnerability of ordinary citizens to cyber crimes too has become a reality. This is the major reason why e-governance needs cyber security.

Lack of privacy laws: When e-governance is introduced, strict privacy laws for protecting individuals from the over-reach of the state and non-state entities too are necessary. Mostly it appears that developing countries are introducing e-governance enthusiastically but commensurate privacy laws are either missing or still in the formation. This dimension of governance is as much important as the protection of individual dignity and rights.

As a result of the above mentioned challenges, e-governance and digitalisation of governance can easily lead to a surveillance society. This is particularly because the information about citizens is placed in the hands of the state. This can increase the power of the state over citizens. Interestingly, with weak privacy laws, the electronic information can also be collected by non-state entities and may, in the process, lead to the misuse or use of vested corporate interests.

In the context of rural governance, the above danger is more serious because the beneficiaries of schemes and programmes of the governments and in fact all the persons who enrol in digitisation are not only poor but are also likely to lack literacy, leave alone digital literacy, and hence there is the fear of a surveillance state.

The above mentioned issues are some of the benefits and concerns associated with e-governance and digitisation. It would be wrong to think that power over individuals in society, through collection of information and through use/misuse of it, is exercised only by the state; in a world without strict privacy laws, the misuse and wielding of power over individuals can be done by parallel societal forces as well, such as the corporate sector or corporate media. Therefore, as we mentioned, technology is Janus-faced and its use and misuse depend on the ethical foundation of a society, as also the democratic control that citizens can wield over state entities and parallel social forces.

From E-delivery of Public Services to Digitisation of Economy

While e-governance is often criticised on the grounds of serving the neo-liberal agenda of the state, digitisation is critiqued on the grounds that it also serves the same agenda of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG). These are often sweeping criticisms without a nuanced view of technology. Even the Marxian point of view takes technology as a productive force very seriously. It is the dialectics between the productive forces and social relations that constitutes the mode of production and class contradictions that lead to social change. In this context, the criticism that technology only serves the interests of the state or the ruling classes is incorrect. What is missing in this point of view is the revolutionary role technology plays in bringing about change (Fulcher, 2004). While technology revolutionises old social relations, it also creates conditions for new contradictions such as digitisation hastening the progress of integration into global financial markets and at the same time, intensifying contradictions at the national level. Therefore, the usual criticism that technology only serves ‘LPG’ should be taken with a pinch of salt. A more nuanced view of technology is necessary.

In the light of the previous discussion, what emerges is that there are two distinct dimensions to e-governance and digitisation. E-governance is supposed to limit itself only to the delivery of public services, whereas digitisation involves the entire economic system; thus, there is a difference between the delivery of services by e-channels at the level of different state governments and digitisation of the entire economy. We began this article mentioning the benefits of e-governance. Largely, the picture available from the states which are implementing the same is positive.