Today there were two interesting bits of news that were reported from Kolkata and London which focused on negligence in the health and social services and corrective executive action. The first article was about a visit by the new Chief Minister of West Bengal, Ms. Mamata Banerjee to a hospital as an inspection tour and her confrontation with the hospital director who did not take kindly to the unannounced visit. Then the second article was about Ed Balls (the then Health Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in the UK) sacking the local head of Child Services publicly in 2008 over the death of a 17 month old boy. Subsequently, the court has agreed that the action was unlawful.
Although the Bengal story may not have ended, it seems to be on the same path as the British incident. The two stories converge in the fact that the top political executives view the bureaucrats as guilty parties straight away and by exorcising these personnel from the system, they hope to make things right. And in a naive sense, they do establish their authority and potency but fail to really create a tangible difference. In the British case, there is talk of suing for damages which will act as a deterrent to the government. But in Bengal, on the back of a game changing election, there is little to check the actions of the executive.
After the Left government was defeated in West Bengal, Ms. Banerjee has taken over the reigns and is learning the ropes of direct power. And she started out by doing what Mr. Chandrababu in Andhra Pradesh and Ms. Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu did when they were previously Chief Ministers. She is hitting on the obvious targets first by launching an inquisition against the people manning the system. That move, although popular, may not be the best advised route since both Babu and Jayalalitha lost in the subsequent elections from a government employee-led backlash. But more than just the political fallout of finding fault with the system, the chief executives have to realize the value in being correct in what they do, both popularly and legally or risk the non-cooperation of their subordinates who will throw the book at new initiatives.
Although the Bengal story may not have ended, it seems to be on the same path as the British incident. The two stories converge in the fact that the top political executives view the bureaucrats as guilty parties straight away and by exorcising these personnel from the system, they hope to make things right. And in a naive sense, they do establish their authority and potency but fail to really create a tangible difference. In the British case, there is talk of suing for damages which will act as a deterrent to the government. But in Bengal, on the back of a game changing election, there is little to check the actions of the executive.
After the Left government was defeated in West Bengal, Ms. Banerjee has taken over the reigns and is learning the ropes of direct power. And she started out by doing what Mr. Chandrababu in Andhra Pradesh and Ms. Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu did when they were previously Chief Ministers. She is hitting on the obvious targets first by launching an inquisition against the people manning the system. That move, although popular, may not be the best advised route since both Babu and Jayalalitha lost in the subsequent elections from a government employee-led backlash. But more than just the political fallout of finding fault with the system, the chief executives have to realize the value in being correct in what they do, both popularly and legally or risk the non-cooperation of their subordinates who will throw the book at new initiatives.
Links:
1. http://www.mumbaimirror.com/article/3/20110527201105270336326472fc7cba1/Didi%E2%80%99s-hospital-visit-sparks-%E2%80%98sick%E2%80%99-wordy-duel-with-boss.html
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/27/sharon-shoesmith-court-win-baby-p
