One month is too short a period to assess the performance of a State Government elected to office for five years. However, there are always early signals that could indicate the direction of the things to follow. The Pinarayi Vijayan government has demonstrated their intentions in a low-key but fairly effective manner. The most appropriate action of the Pinarayi government has been avoiding immediate impulsive actions and announcements. There is a practice of a 100-day action plan – the probable intent is to show that it is an action-oriented sarkar.
Mr Pinarayi Vijayan must have felt that his intent and style are too well-known that there is no need for a demonstrative action by launching an ill-designed short-term action plan. Ministers have not made many controversial statements, and after the Muhammed Ali fiasco, they have generally been more circumspect (one exception being the Health Minister’s statements at the yoga day function). The approach seems to be to perform with balance and not with noise. This is a marked departure from the style of the previous government. Responsible persons were making irresponsible statements and giving assurances that they had no intention of fulfilling.
There was no financial prudence in spite of having a former Finance Minister as the Chief Minister and a veteran as the Finance Minister. The public debt of the State doubled during the five year period from 2011 to 2016. One month is too brief to evaluate achievements and failures. Perhaps the Kerala Police provided a proud moment for those in power by nabbing the suspect in the Jisha murder case. Protests against the arrest of two Dalit women on criminal charges did not gain credibility. The reduction of ostentatious security for the Ministers attracts considerable goodwill from the public. The reshuffle of administrative and police officials looked rational.
The resignation of Anju Bobby George from the Sports Council also has not created any adverse public opinion as it was clear that she did not have the time to spare (for president’s job) . Some discussion was generated on Mullaperiyar and one expects more evidence-based deliberations rather than emotional outbursts as in the past. The abolition of a totally unnecessary Recruitment Board for Devaswoms is also a welcome proposal. There are indications about the adoption of a pragmatic, public-interest-centred approach instead of a fundamentalist approach to environment.
Initial impressions about the State Government’s interface with the Central Government are extremely encouraging. Mutual understanding between heads of the governments and the exclusion of political rivalry from development agenda are inevitable. Modi charisma plus Pinarayi commitment can help the State achieve several long-felt aspirations. The decision to start work on the National Highways when 60 percent of the land is acquired (as against the norm of 80 p c) is a positive sign. And if the Finance Minister’s declared support for the GST Bill translates into the CPM’s support, it would be valuable for the Centre.
Governments have a practice of offering jobs in public service to persons affected by adverse circumstances. However, this has been stretched beyond acceptable limits in several cases by successive governments. Such induction is at the cost of employment on merit to a deserving candidate who would have been waiting for years, taking one recruitment test after another. The former Chief Minister was liberal in offering employment, but did not care to keep up many of the commitments.
The present government has decided to implement the decision of the previous government to appoint Jisha’s sister in government service. The government and society must provide financial help to those in distress, but appointments in government service must be based on definite norms. There is one area of concern among various pronouncements made in the last one month - the takeover of uneconomic aided schools. It is a populist measure which would have the support of all political parties.
We need schools for providing primary education, but retention of uneconomic schools, or the costly acquisition of land in which schools are located, would certainly not be in public interest if there are adequate educational facilities in the locality. Agriculture is another sector where populism would demand public expenditure on unremunerative activities. The Finance Minister’s concerns about the state of the State’s finances have to be appreciated by all wings of the administration and there should be prudence and discipline in spending public funds.
(Author is a former civil servant and Coordinator of the online group www.goodgovernancegroup.in)
