/By The New Indian Express 10 Apr 2009 03:13:00 AM IST/ http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=What+does+the+public+know?&artid=W2h5tdv4|u0=&SectionID=RRQemgLywPI=&MainSectionID=RRQemgLywPI=&SectionName=XQcp6iFoWTvPHj2dDBzTNA==
What does the public know? The recent report from our Bangalore office on the way scores of full-grown trees were chopped for a road-widening proposal is noteworthy. Not for the act itself, an all too familiar one, but for the attitude of the Tree Officer, the authority supposed to examine the ecological and public interest angle in such proposals. The high court had actually directed that any chopping be preceded by a public notification, with a month's notice to invite public reactions for scrutiny. The TO told this newspaper he saw no point in such procedures, adding, "Why should we wait for the public to file objections?" It is an attitude which runs right through officialdom's understanding of green cover and the rules to keep the environmental aspect in mind in public works projects. The public and its ideas on priorities in these matters are considered an irritating nuisance; something emanating from those who have no idea of what is in their own long-term interest. The idea that there can or should be limits to road widening or that there is something worthwhile to be gained by having greenery be as important as a thoroughfare and not just confined to parks are considered impractical day dreaming. But, the deeper problem, as revealed by the TO's candidness, is the attitude to public choice. And this, too, is endemic in the way our system is structured. The idea that a project should take final shape only after a sincere attempt to elicit and examine public reaction and to survey alternative suggestions is again considered airy-fairy nonsense, which has little to do with the imperatives of governance. This is also the reason why so little seems to change with voting out incumbent administrations or having a new set of people take over. Or, for that matter, appealing to courts, as in the present case. Our structures are not built on the involvement of ordinary citizens in day-to-day governance; and this is not only a huge flaw, but also a basic weakness in our version of democracy. The one big dent in recent years made in this edifice has been the national Right to Information Act, even if it is much weaker than it could be. Expectedly, it is also repeatedly sought to be amended or ignored by those in authority. We need to take its logic onward, to compel procedures to be transparent at all stages in taking a decision, to enable informed intervention by us outsiders, the citizenry. © Copyright 2008 ExpressBuzz [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
