R Ravimohan: Digital intermediation

The idea of selecting public administrators on TV channels is worth a try

The rash of programmes on various television channels to find the child genius, the best singer, the best actor, or other talent is a forerunner of many good things to come, if pursued well.

To begin with, it augurs well for the entertainment industry, as it offers a wide choice of talent to use in its business. But there are many other disciplines of life that can benefit a great deal if the media used this format creatively.

For instance, what if TV channels started programmes to find the best teachers in India, best social workers, best administrators, best political leaders, and perhaps, at some distant future, the best leaders for the people of India? Let me explain.

The power of the television medium is that it can potentially disintermediate between the providers and the "expectors" of service.

The horror stories one hears about aspirants' trauma, including fleecing, casting couches, and other sundry practices in getting recognised for their talent abound.

However, the open format shows that the TV channels have introduced equal access to all aspirants to a selection platform. As long as that open access is maintained, nothing comes between sheer talent and its aficionados. The sheer pull of public preference will get the right talent firmly established in the market place.

Society also gets a chance to enjoy best of the available talent in the country. The beauty of this scheme is all this gets done, without the "blessings" of industry leaders who today "control" access to the national platform.

There has been a certain amount of criticism about the selection process, some fair, and some bitching. It really does not matter much as to who the final winner in a particular contest is.

That is because these formats throw up a fair selection of aspirants and gives the market many options to choose from. Having a winner in each contest generates interest amongst viewers and therefore ensures the programme's popularity.

That is the key to the whole scheme. The popularity of the show engenders its financial viability, its sustainability, and indeed its credibility.

No television channel will undertake a project of this nature for charity or social purpose. They would only engage in commercially viable projects.

Social benefits, if any, are mere by-products. This is how it should anyway be. The greater the popularity of these shows, the more can the financial viability be. Greater credibility is key to attracting larger audiences.

Credibility can be built by having good selection processes, being fair and honest and designing the right, effective and efficient format of the programmes.

Beyond its entertainment value, these shows carry a great opportunity to make societal changes of immense magnitude.

By extending this contest to wider fields, while retaining the mass appeal, it is possible for these programmes to shape public values and garner public opinion.

For instance, there is this ugly controversy over the control over cricket players in India and nobody understands what is happening with the BCCI and why. Cricket is a matter of national interest in India.

Can a show be organised by the television channels to select good players, good sponsors, and good cricket administrators?

On a more serious note, would it be possible to bring selections of persons in public positions under this format? Public administration and public service officials who have to be accessed by the citizenry need to be administratively competent and be service-minded.

These officials could include administrative officials, law and order officials, health officials, education officials, and so on.

If the public that would be serviced were involved in the selection of such officials, then perhaps the accountability that is evidently missing now can be instituted. Internal departmental selection processes could generate a shortlist of potential candidates.

A TV show can be designed to showcase their ability and concern for public service. The design of the show can be creative and entertaining. That, along with the self-interest of finding a good representative to look after them, will garner good public support.

The public vote after these contests can then be taken into account by the selection panel in choosing the right candidate. The fact that public votes count for any major appointment will make the officials really care about their constituency throughout their career.

Their accountability and responsibility to the public will therefore increase. The public's involvement in public affairs also will increase as a result of their increasing role and familiarity with various officials and processes.

Good officials also will benefit from the public endorsement of their contributions. Such recognition might lessen their fear of oppression by the system and enable them to be more independent and objective in their decision making and actions.

This would encourage more officials to strive for this honour. Hopefully, this could lead to reforms of the administrative system with the benign impact on its efficiency, corruption, and delivery processes.

It sounds infeasible and fantastic that something of this nature can ever become a reality. First, there will be objection from vested interests and indeed even from the right-thinking people in the system.

Vested interests will not like their powers to be diluted. Right-thinking people might say that this is unnecessary intrusion into the working of public administration.

There might also be several legislative and administrative hurdles needed to be overcome before such a notion can ever be put into practice. However, the benefits of the scheme certainly make this a worthy cause to be incorporated into any scheme of administrative reforms that the governments undertake across the nation.

If this scheme catches the fancy of the right-thinking officials, they might themselves support its implementation. Indeed it is quite impossible to think of a neat, clean, and efficient administration without the involvement of the public.

Television is a great medium bridging the vast population and the administrators. It allows the right interactivity, the mass, low-cost reach, and, more than everything else, makes the process extremely attractive for TV channels as a business.

Imagine the ability to earn money and public goodwill at the same time. The involvement of the whole society and the drama of selecting persons to high posts of relevance to one's constituency are bound to generate tremendous viewer interest.

Converting all of that into advertisement rupees will make most television channels forget competing for cricket matches! Indeed they would singly be able to clean our societies that will vest them with a lot more clout and ability to influence the public mind.

On the balance, even though it appears to be very daunting, the idea nevertheless is alluring and noteworthy, and definitely worth pursuing.