Crisis of Accountability

The Statesman

Core Theme and Context

The article diagnoses a deepening crisis of accountability in Indian governance, using a series of recent tragedies—bridge collapses, fires, floods, stampedes, and infrastructure failures—as entry points. It argues that these are not isolated accidents but symptoms of a systemic governance failure marked by diffused responsibility, institutional inertia, and a culture of impunity.

The piece situates accountability as the missing connective tissue between democracy, administration, and public trust, warning that its erosion threatens both state legitimacy and citizen safety.

Key Arguments Presented

1. Disasters as Governance Failures, Not Natural Accidents

The article’s foundational argument is that repeated public tragedies are routinely mislabelled as “accidents” or “acts of nature,” when in fact they are the result of:

• Poor planning
• Negligent maintenance
• Regulatory failure
• Absence of enforceable responsibility

This framing shifts the discourse from misfortune to culpability.

2. Diffusion of Responsibility Enables Impunity

A central concern is the absence of clear ownership of failure within India’s bureaucratic and political systems. When disasters occur:

• Committees are formed
• Reports are delayed
• Responsibility is dispersed across departments

The result is that no individual or institution is meaningfully held accountable.

3. Institutional Weakness Over Individual Error

The article stresses that accountability failures are not merely personal but institutional. Weak enforcement mechanisms, compromised regulators, and political interference undermine deterrence, allowing negligence to recur without consequence.

This creates a governance ecosystem where errors are absorbed but never corrected.

4. Normalisation of Negligence

Repeated failures have led to a dangerous societal acceptance of dysfunction. Citizens increasingly expect poor outcomes, while officials anticipate limited repercussions. This normalisation erodes:

• Democratic vigilance
• Ethical standards in public service
• Public confidence in institutions

5. Accountability as the Core of Democratic Governance

The article frames accountability not as an administrative tool but as a democratic principle. Without it, elections alone cannot ensure responsive governance. Democracy risks degenerating into procedural form without substantive responsibility.

Author’s Stance

The author adopts a strongly normative, reformist stance:

• Clearly critical of bureaucratic opacity and political evasiveness
• Emphatically pro-accountability and rule-of-law
• Skeptical of cosmetic reforms and post-disaster symbolism

The tone is urgent, morally charged, and corrective rather than technocratic.

Implicit Biases and Editorial Leanings

1. Structural Pessimism

The article emphasises systemic decay, offering limited acknowledgement of:

• Incremental governance improvements
• Variations across states and sectors

This risks painting governance failure as uniformly entrenched.

2. Limited Political Economy Analysis

While condemning impunity, the article does not deeply explore:

• Incentive structures within bureaucracy
• Electoral pressures that encourage short-termism
• Capacity constraints at local levels

3. Accountability Over Capacity

The emphasis is on responsibility and punishment, with relatively less attention to:

• Training
• Institutional capacity-building
• Resource adequacy

Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

• Powerfully reframes disasters as governance failures
• Reinforces accountability as a democratic necessity
• Connects administrative negligence to loss of public trust
• Ethically compelling and socially relevant

Cons

• Offers limited operational solutions
• Risks moral absolutism in complex governance contexts
• Underplays capacity and federal constraints
• Less engagement with preventive governance mechanisms

Policy Implications

1. Institutionalising Accountability

The article implies the need for:

• Clear chains of command
• Time-bound inquiries
• Public disclosure of responsibility
• Legal consequences for negligence

2. Strengthening Regulatory Independence

Regulators must be insulated from political and commercial pressure to ensure safety norms are enforced consistently.

3. From Post-Facto Blame to Preventive Governance

Accountability systems must shift from reactive punishment to:

• Regular audits
• Risk assessments
• Early-warning mechanisms

Real-World Impact

• Continued accountability deficits will lead to repeat tragedies
• Public cynicism and disengagement may deepen
• Governance credibility will erode further
• Conversely, visible accountability could restore trust and deterrence

For citizens, the issue directly concerns life, safety, and dignity, not abstract governance ideals.

UPSC GS Paper Alignment

GS Paper II – Governance

• Accountability and transparency
• Administrative ethics
• Role of institutions

GS Paper IV – Ethics in Public Administration

• Responsibility of public servants
• Moral hazard and impunity
• Ethical governance

GS Paper I – Society

• Trust in institutions
• State–citizen relationship

Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The article makes a compelling case that India’s governance crisis is not one of intent or resources, but of accountability. When failures do not carry consequences, systems stagnate and citizens pay the price.

However, restoring accountability requires more than moral exhortation. It demands:

• Clear institutional design
• Political will to accept responsibility
• Administrative capacity to prevent failure
• A cultural shift from blame-avoidance to responsibility

Ultimately, accountability is not about punishment alone—it is about learning, correction, and respect for citizens’ lives. Without it, democracy risks becoming resilient in form but hollow in substance.