| The second tier of the governments ministerial structure is being used less as a tool of governance and more as an ornamental designation for politicians seeking fringe benefits. |
| How effective can a minister of state be in the Union government? And how important is a minister of state in the government's decision-making process? These questions have become relevant once again in the wake of the ministerial reshuffle that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh effected recently. In brief, the reshuffle has meant the induction of seven new ministers of state, removal of half-a-dozen ministers of state and redistribution of portfolios of a few cabinet ministers. |
| Note that the cabinet ministers were by and large kept out of the purview of the reshuffle. Only a few cabinet ministers found their portfolios streamlined. Ministers of state, perceived to be ineffective or non-performing, got dropped. But the same yardstick was not used for cabinet ministers, many of whom distinguished themselves with non-performance and yet managed to stay on in the government. |
| Clearly, it is easier for prime ministers to target ministers of state when the need arises for improving the ministry's efficiency and performance. Most ministers of state are politicians without much seniority. So, they can be shuffled around without causing any political turmoil. |
| Yet, ministers of state should play an important role in a three-tier ministerial structure. For instance, a minister of state is often given independent charge of a ministry, which has no cabinet minister. And when a cabinet minister is on leave or deputed to a more important assignment, the minister of state fills the void. |
| In reality, however, ministers of state in most governments have been treated shabbily. Ministers of state with independent charge, of course, are an exception. They function almost like cabinet ministers and enjoy similar clout and freedom. The problem is with ministers of state, most of whom complain that they are in a ministry mainly because they represent a certain section within the party or of an alliance partner. So, they meet a political requirement, but nothing much is done to ensure that they are used as an effective tool of governance. |
| Most cabinet ministers allocate for themselves the most important departments within the ministry. Even when the minister of state gets an important division under his charge, the cabinet minister allocates the work schedule in such a way that all important decisions taken in those departments can be taken only after his approval or concurrence. |
| It is a pity that the political system has accepted the manner in which ministers of state have been marginalised. No prime minister in recent years has questioned a cabinet minister on why ministers of state under his ministry have not been given adequate responsibilities. Ministers of state have consequently accepted their fate as ordained by the cabinet ministers and have focused on other issues like securing for themselves a better-furnished office or assignments that can earn them fringe benefits including foreign travel. |
| A few other ministers of state, with greater understanding of the system, manage to get less glamorous assignments, which the cabinet minister is not keen on overseeing. Once they get the assignments, they work hard on them to make themselves more relevant and important for the ministry. But such cases are very infrequent. There are also cases where a minister of state becomes active only when there are indications that the cabinet minister may soon be discharged of a portfolio. |
| The point is the second tier of the government's ministerial structure is being used less as a tool of governance and more as an ornamental designation for politicians seeking fringe benefits arising out of a ministerial portfolio. If prime ministers cannot force the cabinet ministers to use their ministers of state as an integral part of administration and governance, then it is time to take a fresh look at the desirability of a three-tier ministerial structure. |
| There is one option available to the government even before such a review takes place. Ministers of state should be made accountable to both the cabinet minister and the prime minister. Such concurrent accountability will ensure that ministers of state are given adequate responsibility by their cabinet ministers and, more importantly, their performance comes under closer scrutiny. That way governance may get a shot in the arm. |
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
