Power Struggle in Delhi: Balancing Democracy, Governance, and Accountability

The power battle between the Central government and the Delhi government has seen a significant development recently. The Delhi government’s jurisdiction over administrative services was unanimously recognised by the Supreme Court, emancipating the will of the people. However, the Central government’s subsequent publication of an act to overturn the court’s ruling has undermined the Delhi government’s authority and restored it to appointees of the Central government.

The battle for control by the Delhi government

Loss of Control: In 2015, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs transferred administrative functions from the elected Delhi government to the Lieutenant Governor (LG), a person appointed by the Union government. The Delhi government’s ability to function was significantly hampered by this choice.

Day-to-Day Problems: The transfer of control over services resulted in day-to-day problems in the functioning of important departments. Secretaries were frequently changed, leading to a lack of continuity, vision, and efficiency in governance.

Frequent Transfers of Officials: The Delhi government witnessed frequent transfers of officials, hindering their ability to familiarize themselves with the departments they were working in. This constant reshuffling minimized the potential for effective governance and hindered the government’s relief efforts during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lack of Functional Control: As the elected government had no functional control over services, it faced challenges in punishing errant officers and addressing issues such as vacancies, vigilance enquiries, and corruption cases. The government also witnessed a high number of vacancies in crucial positions due to mismanagement by the Lieutenant Governor.

Conflicting Directives: Officials faced a dilemma in following directives as they felt duty-bound to honor the will of the elected government expressed by the people, while also staying under the functional control of the LG. This created confusion and hindered effective decision-making.

Lack of Answerability: The Services Department, under the control of the LG, refused to answer questions raised by Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in the Vidhan Sabha. This limited transparency and accountability, preventing MLAs from obtaining crucial information related to vacancies, corruption cases, and other issues.

Penalization of Officials: Honest and efficient officials were often penalized for their merits and subjected to punishment postings. This created an environment of uncertainty and discouraged officials from performing their duties effectively.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Delhi government’s struggle for control

Recognition of Delhi Government’s Control: The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, recognized the control of the Delhi government over administrative services. A five-judge Bench unanimously upheld the government’s authority, ensuring that decisions on appointments and transfers would be made by the elected government.

Restoration of Chain of Accountability: The Court’s judgment restored the chain of accountability involving the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It reinforced the principle that elected governments have the power to govern and make decisions regarding the bureaucracy.

Empowerment of the Elected Government: The Supreme Court’s decision empowered the elected Delhi government to make appointments and transfers based on performance and merit. It allowed the government to take action against errant officials and implement its policies effectively.

Efficient and Compassionate Bureaucracy: The Court’s ruling paved the way for an efficient, honest, responsive, accountable, and compassionate bureaucracy. It provided clarity on the roles and responsibilities of officials, enabling them to work towards the development of Delhi and the welfare of its people.

Clarification on Services Department: The Court’s intervention brought clarity regarding the Services Department, which had previously refused to answer questions raised by MLAs in the Vidhan Sabha. The judgment ensured that the elected government had functional control over the department, enabling transparency and answerability.

Encouragement for Overhauling the Bureaucracy: The Delhi government, empowered by the Court’s decision, planned to overhaul the bureaucracy. It sought to establish a skilled administration model, leveraging the success of its health and education models.

The significance of the Supreme Court judgment

Upholding Democratic Principles: The Supreme Court judgment recognizing the control of the Delhi government over administrative services upholds democratic principles. It affirms the importance of elected governments in decision-making and governance, ensuring that the will of the people expressed through their votes is respected.

Restoration of Accountability: The judgment restores the chain of accountability involving the people, the legislature, the government, and the bureaucracy. It clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the elected government and the bureaucracy, fostering transparency and answerability.

Unraveling Social Fabric: The Impact of Social Media on Public Discourse

Another sobering reminder of how our social fabric has deteriorated is the latest outbreak of violence in Manipur. Many of us can relate to the Finance Minister’s recent lamentation at the lack of respect for individuals among politicians, despite ideological differences. We remember a period when genuine dialogue and divergent viewpoints could coexist without hostility. Today’s environment, however, causes us to drift apart from individuals we disagree with and develop a strong dislike for them.

The polarisation phenomena

Polarisation is the term used to describe the widening ideological gaps in societies. It is characterised by an expanding division of society into distinctly ideological factions, frequently with strong opinions and a lack of interest in conversing with those who hold different viewpoints.

Us vs. Them Mentality: Polarization fosters an us vs. them mentality, where individuals identify strongly with their own group and view those outside their group as adversaries. This mentality fuels hostility, animosity, and a deep sense of distrust towards those who hold different beliefs or opinions.

Echo Chambers: Polarization is exacerbated by the prevalence of echo chambers, which are created by social media and other platforms. Echo chambers are virtual spaces where like-minded individuals reinforce each other’s beliefs and shield themselves from differing viewpoints. This reinforces preexisting biases and prevents exposure to alternative perspectives.

Confirmation Bias: Polarization is fueled by confirmation bias, whereby individuals seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs and dismiss or ignore contradictory evidence. This selective exposure to information further entrenches people in their ideological positions and prevents the formation of nuanced opinions.

Emotionalization of Issues: Polarization often leads to the emotionalization of issues, where discussions become heated and personal. Emotions such as anger, fear, and resentment drive the discourse, making it difficult to engage in rational and constructive conversations.

Loss of Civil Discourse: Polarization erodes civil discourse and respectful disagreement. Rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue, individuals tend to resort to personal attacks, demonization, and dehumanization of those with differing views. This breakdown of civility undermines the foundations of a healthy democratic society.

Political Gridlock: Polarization can result in political gridlock, where the inability to find common ground hinders policy-making and governance. As political parties become more polarized, finding compromises and reaching consensus becomes increasingly challenging, leading to a stalemate in decision-making processes.

Social Fragmentation: Polarization contributes to social fragmentation, dividing communities and societies along ideological lines. It undermines social cohesion, trust, and cooperation, making it harder to address common challenges and work towards collective goals.

Threat to Democracy: Polarization poses a significant threat to democratic processes. It undermines the principles of compromise, inclusivity, and consensus-building that are essential for a functioning democracy. When polarization intensifies, it can lead to social unrest, political instability, and a breakdown of democratic institutions.

Implications for Social Well-being: Polarization has negative consequences for societal well-being. It can contribute to heightened levels of stress, anxiety, and social isolation. It impedes constructive problem-solving, stifles innovation, and hampers social progress.

Impact of Social Media

Positive Impact:

Connectivity and Communication: Social media platforms have revolutionized communication, allowing individuals to connect and stay in touch with friends, family, and communities across geographical boundaries.

Information Sharing: Social media provides a platform for the rapid dissemination of information, enabling users to access news, updates, and educational content from various sources.

Amplification of Voices: Social media empowers marginalized individuals and communities by providing them with a platform to share their stories, experiences, and perspectives, thereby amplifying their voices and fostering inclusivity.

Business and Entrepreneurship Opportunities: Social media platforms offer businesses and entrepreneurs the ability to reach a global audience, market their products or services, and build brand awareness at a relatively low cost.

Awareness and Activism: Social media plays a crucial role in raising awareness about social and environmental issues, mobilizing communities, and facilitating social and political activism.

Negative Impact:

Spread of Misinformation: Social media platforms are susceptible to the rapid spread of misinformation, fake news, and rumors, which can lead to confusion, polarization, and manipulation of public opinion.

Cyberbullying and Online Harassment: Social media platforms have provided a platform for cyberbullying, hate speech, and online harassment, causing emotional distress and harm to individuals, especially young people.

Privacy and Data Security Concerns: Social media platforms collect and store vast amounts of user data, raising concerns about privacy breaches, data misuse, and unauthorized access to personal information.

Impact on Mental Health: Excessive use of social media has been linked to increased feelings of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem, as individuals compare themselves to others and seek validation through online interactions

How Social media amplifies narcissistic tendencies?

Social media has the potential to amplify narcissistic tendencies and prioritize personal opinions over the feelings of others in several ways:

Self-Centric Nature: Social media platforms often encourage users to present curated versions of their lives, focusing on self-presentation and self-promotion. This self-centric nature can fuel narcissistic tendencies, as individuals seek validation, attention, and admiration from their online peers.

Selective Self-Presentation: Social media allows individuals to carefully select and highlight aspects of their lives that project a positive image. This selective self-presentation can contribute to a self-centered mindset, where individuals prioritize their own opinions and perspectives without fully considering or empathizing with the feelings and experiences of others.

Validation through Likes and Followers: Social media platforms often employ metrics such as likes, followers, and shares as measures of popularity and social validation. This can incentivize users to prioritize personal opinions and content that garners attention and positive feedback, further reinforcing self-centered behavior and disregarding the impact on others.

Echo Chambers and Confirmation Bias: Social media algorithms create echo chambers, where individuals are exposed to content that aligns with their existing beliefs and perspectives. This reinforces confirmation bias, leading users to seek out and engage with content that supports their own opinions.

Disinhibition and Online Anonymity: Social media platforms often provide a sense of anonymity and detachment from real-life consequences. This can lead to disinhibition, where individuals feel freer to express their opinions without the social norms and inhibitions present in face-to-face interactions.

Limited Non-Verbal Cues: Social media communication lacks non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions and tone of voice, which are crucial for understanding others’ emotions and maintaining empathy. The absence of these cues can make it easier for individuals to prioritize their own opinions without fully recognizing or acknowledging the impact their words may have on others.

Highlights of the proposed Digital India Act, 2023

The Digital India Bill, a comprehensive overhaul of Internet laws, will be unveiled in June 2023. This bill represents a significant update since the Information Technology Act of 2000.

What is the Digital India Bill?

DIA will consist of 4 parts:

Digital Personal Data Protection Bill,

DIA rules,

National Data Governance Policy, and

Indian Penal Code amendments

Need for such legislation

India has 850 million internet users, making it the world’s largest “digitally connected democracy.”

The IT Act, created for the pre-digital era, lacks provisions for user rights, trust, safety, and modern cyber threats.

Growing cyber crimes, disinformation, and privacy concerns necessitate an updated legislation.

Goals of the Digital India Bill

Evolvable digital law: Flexible rules adaptable to changing technological trends.

Adjudicatory mechanism: Accessible mechanism for resolving online civil and criminal offenses.

Principles and rules-based approach: A legislative framework based on overarching governing principles.

Key components of the DIA

Open Internet: Promotes choice, competition, diversity, fair market access, and ease of doing business, preventing the concentration of power.

Online Safety and Trust: Safeguards users against cyber threats, revenge porn, defamation, cyberbullying, and moderates fake news. Advocates for digital rights and protects minors.

KYC Requirements: Mandates Know Your Customer (KYC) for privacy-invading devices like spy camera glasses.

Monetization Rules: Overhauls rules for platform and user-generated content to align with the DIA.

Key feature: Reconsideration of Safe Harbour

The government is reconsidering a key aspect of cyberspace — ‘safe harbour’.

Safe harbour is the principle that so-called ‘intermediaries’ on the internet are not responsible for what third parties post on their website.

This is the principle that allows social media platforms to avoid liability for posts made by users.

Safe harbour has been reined in in recent years by regulations like the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which require platforms to take down posts when ordered to do so by the government, or when required by law.