[ Badak Yomgam ]
The conceptualisation of development within the administrative framework of a state often suffers from a significant misrepresentation of the relationship between the government and the governed. In the political culture of many regions, including Arunachal Pradesh, there is a persistent tendency for public officials to frame the execution of their official duties as personal contributions or acts of benevolence. This narrative is not merely a fancy way of speaking; it is a fundamental distortion of the democratic mandate that undermines the very nature of public accountability.
To understand the reality of governance, one must strip away the layers of political marketing and recognise that development is not a voluntary gift bestowed upon the populace by a minister. Instead, it is an immutable responsibility, a legal and moral obligation that stems from the mandate of office and the utilisation of public funds.
When a minister assumes office in a parliamentary democracy, they do so under the authority of the constitution and the collective will of the electorate. This transition of power establishes a fiduciary relationship in which the government acts as an agent and the citizens act as the principal. The primary objective of this agency is to manage the resources of the state for the benefit of the public.
Consequently, every project, whether it involves the construction of road networks, the establishment of health facilities, or the digitalisation of administrative services, is a requirement of the state’s functional existence. When an official claims credit for these actions as if they were personal favours, they essentially invert the power structure of the democracy. The funds allocated for development are derived from the taxpayer, representing the collective wealth of the society. Therefore, the government is simply the steward of these funds, tasked with the conversion of capital into infrastructure and public services as a core expectation of their employment.
The confusion between duty and contribution is often exacerbated by a lack of institutional transparency. In a system where administrative processes are opaque, the individual minister becomes the face of every government action. This personification of governance allows for the cultivation of a personality cult where the success of a policy is attributed to the leader’s personal vision rather than the strength of the bureaucratic system.
A truly functional government is one that operates through standardised, predictable, and transparent processes that do not rely on the whims or the generosity of an individual. In an ideal state, the delivery of public goods should be so consistent and procedural that the specific identity of the official overseeing the department becomes secondary to the efficiency of the mechanism itself. When the process is visible and accountable, the narrative of individual contribution inevitably withers, revealing the cold reality that the work performed is merely the fulfillment of a job description.
Also, the expectation of gratitude from the public for the provision of basic necessities is a remnant of old-fashioned, authoritarian administrative models. In a modern democracy, the relationship between the state and the individual is contractual. The citizen provides legitimacy through the electoral process and funds the state through taxation, and in return, the state is obligated to provide security, infrastructure, and services. When this contract is fulfilled, it is not an occasion for the state to seek public adulation. It is a baseline standard of performance.
By framing development as a contribution, politicians inadvertently lower the bar for governance. If the public accepts the narrative that development is a favour, they also implicitly accept that it can be withheld or granted at the discretion of the minister, thereby relinquishing their right to demand such services as a matter of course. This creates a cycle of dependency where the citizen is treated as a beneficiary of charity rather than an employer who has contracted a service provider to deliver specific outcomes.
The impact of this distorted narrative is particularly acute in geographically challenging regions where infrastructure development is both expensive and essential for the survival of the community. In Arunachal Pradesh, the complexity of the Himalayan terrain often makes development initiatives feel monumental. The people of the state, who have historically navigated isolation and rugged landscapes with immense resilience, deserve infrastructure that is built as a fundamental right, not as an occasional favour. When ministers focus on branding bridge construction or mountain road connectivity as personal achievements, they divert attention from the critical need for long-term sustainability and the rigorous auditing of mountain-specific engineering standards. True development in the context of Arunachal is measured by the longevity and utility of the infrastructure in the face of unstable weather, not by the frequency with which a leader is seen at a ceremonial ribbon-cutting.
A systematic approach to governance would involve setting clear, measurable targets for every department and publishing the progress of these targets in a manner accessible to every citizen. By moving towards such a system, the government can shift the focus from the personality of the minister to the actual outputs of the administration.
Reframing this relationship requires a shift in the mindset of both the governing and the governed. It necessitates an informed citizenry that views its participation in the democratic process as an act of oversight. Citizens must demand that their representatives account for efficient utilisation of funds, rather than simply celebrating the completion of projects. The goal is to move beyond the superficial level of political optics and towardsa deeper understanding of constitutional duties. If the people consistently assert that development is their right and the government’s responsibility, the political discourse will naturally move towardsissues of quality, sustainability, and equity. This change would ultimately professionalise the role of the minister, transforming them from a helper figure into a dedicated public servant whose success is defined by how well they manage the collective resources of the state.
Ultimately, the goal of a robust democracy is to render the individual minister replaceable by the system they govern. A government that works as it should is a silent, efficient engine of progress that does not demand recognition for doing what it was established to do. When the narrative shifts from the praise of individuals to the evaluation of institutional performance, the society moves closer to the ideal of a mature democracy. In this model, development is recognised for what it is: the product of collective labour and public resources, administered by a state that is duty-bound to ensure the welfare of its people.
By rejecting the narrative of contribution in favour of the reality of responsibility, the public takes a critical step towards ensuring that their government remains accountable, efficient, and firmly grounded in the principles of democratic service.(The writer is a research scholar)