The escalation of the Power Center that is the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)
In recent years, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has evolved towards a more centralized role, becoming the primary decision-making body in the Indian government. This shift, however, has raised concerns about its impact on democratic accountability and parliamentary oversight.
Key policy decisions, such as demonetization, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) implementation, and the COVID-19 lockdown, have often bypassed the cabinet and state governments. This practice concentrates decision-making power in a small, often informal group around the Prime Minister, limiting the role of collective cabinet responsibility and marginalizing the involvement of elected representatives at both the central and state levels.
The erosion of collective cabinet responsibility is a significant concern. In parliamentary democracies, the cabinet system is designed to ensure that key decisions are discussed and agreed upon by elected ministers collectively, promoting transparency and shared accountability. When the PMO bypasses this, many ministers may be excluded from decision-making forums, weakening the cabinet’s role.
Reduced parliamentary scrutiny is another issue. Parliament relies on cabinet ministers to explain and justify policy decisions. If decisions are made unilaterally by the PMO or a "kitchen cabinet" (an informal inner circle), it hinders robust parliamentary debate and questioning, as there is no collective ministerial accountability.
Marginalization of state governments is also a concern, particularly in federal systems like India. Coordination with state governments is essential for policies with significant local impacts, such as GST and COVID-19 lockdowns. When states are bypassed, it can strain center-state relations, reduce trust, and impair effective policy implementation at the grassroots level.
Lack of transparency and dilution of democratic legitimacy are further concerns. Top-down decision-making without wider consultation decreases transparency. As such critical decisions affect millions, bypassing formal procedures may lead to public perceptions of autocracy rather than democratic governance.
While some argue that bypassing the cabinet can lead to efficiency and confidentiality, the absence of wider deliberation risks oversight gaps, poor policy design, and weak checks on executive power. Historical examples, such as demonetization and the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, have shown these tendencies, where decisions appear to emerge from the PMO or a close group rather than through collective cabinet or parliamentary consensus.
To maintain robust democratic governance and institutional integrity, it is crucial to balance power. Strengthening parliamentary committees can help ensure that decisions are scrutinized and debated thoroughly. Increasing transparency and accountability through parliamentary questions, media scrutiny, and public engagement can also help mitigate concerns about democratic legitimacy.
Balancing the need for swift decision-making in crises with the need for democratic accountability is a challenge. Ensuring ministers have more autonomy in decision-making can help provide diverse policy input, reducing the risk of executive overreach and abuse of power. Policy coherence and reduction of bureaucratic inefficiencies are advantages of a strong executive, but these must be weighed against the risks to democratic accountability and institutional integrity.
In conclusion, centralizing power in the PMO can undermine democratic accountability and parliamentary oversight, strain federal relations, and reduce transparency and democratic legitimacy. To maintain robust democratic governance, it is essential to strike a balance between the need for swift decision-making and the need for democratic accountability.
Policy-and-legislation decisions, such as the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the COVID-19 lockdown, have raised concerns about democratic accountability due to their bypassing of the cabinet and state governments,emicinating the role of collective cabinet responsibility and parliamentary oversight.
The absence of transparency and dilution of democratic legitimacy, often found in top-down decision-making processes, can hinder robust parliamentary debate and questioning, weaken the cabinet’s role, and lead to public perceptions of autocracy rather than democratic governance, thus impacting general-news coverage and political discussions.
){kind=link}