How process science and technology can help achieve the objective of minimum government, maximum governance
Category Archives: New Governance
The Realities of Twitter Democracy!
In September 2011, as the then editor of Dataquest, I wrote an editorial, The Opportunities and Threats of Facebook Democracy. While Dataquest was one of the first publications to do a cover story on how social media was effectively used in the fight against corruption earlier that year (in April), and had celebrated the new power that social media had given to the common people, in this editorial, I had warned against attaching too much importance to the voice emanating from social media by the leaders and policy makers. My reason, of course, was the low penetration of social media. In a large diverse democracy, jumping into conclusion based on what a small section of people belonging to a particular socio-economic section say, was a potentially dangerous and suicidal thing to do, I argued.
The reason I called it Facebook Democracy was that a lot of the campaign by India Against Corruption was actually carried out on Facebook. It was the main mobilization platform.
Since then, Twitter has been used by politicians very effectively to drive their messages. Many politicians and political parties have taken professional help for that purpose. All of us know the power of #pappu and #feku campaigns. While penetration of Twitter is still miniscule compared to the size of Indian electorate, some politicians have managed to have a very large fan following, going up to more than a million. And there are at least ten Indian politicians on Twitter who have more than a lakh followers. Considering that not more than 100 million Indians are online, those numbers are not unimpressive.
Unimpressive they may not be. But as it turns out, most of these followers are fake.
Social media management platform maker, Status People, actually provides a way to check your (and others’) fake followers. I actually checked out the the fake followers of the top ten Indian politicians on Twitter by number of followers and checked how many fake followers they have.
And can you imagine what the average looks like?
It is 59%.
That is, as much as 59% of the followers of these politicians on Twitter are fake. And typically, the bigger the number of followers, the bigger is the percentage of fake followers, though there are small exceptions.
Here is the table.
| Politician | Twitter Handle | Total Followers | Fake Followers (%) |
| Shashi Tharoor | @shashitharoor | 1756468 | 62 |
| Narendtra Modi | @narendramodi | 1560092 | 65 |
| Dr Manmohan Singh | @pmoindia | 538323 | 55 |
| Sushma Swaraj | @sushmaswarajbjp | 447766 | 52 |
| Arvind Kejriwal | @arvindkejriwal | 314614 | 54 |
| Omar Abdullah | @abdullah_omar | 274937 | 54 |
| Subramanian Swamy | @swamy39 | 165408 | 42 |
| Ajay Maken | @ajaymaken | 151118 | 55 |
| Derek O Brien | @quizderek | 149448 | 38 |
| Varun Gandhi | @varungandhi80 | 118728 | 52 |
The numbers are as on 1st May 2013
And here are some realities.
- Narendra Modi, the potential PM candidate of BJP, heads the list in terms of percentage fake followers, with 65% of his followers being fake.
- As many as 8 of the 10 in this list have more fake followers than they have genuine followers. Derek O’ Brien and Subramanian Swamy have the lowest percentage of fake followers in this list.
What Does This Mean?
This, of course, does not suggest that politicians are doing something deliberate to create fake profiles/followers. And since there is not much to choose between different parties, it is not a political statement that one is making. In fact, many politicians themselves will be shocked to know this.
For that matter, there is not too much of a difference between politicians and other celebrities when it comes to the percentage of fake followers. I did check that for a couple of them. In case of Amitabh Bachchan, 73% Twitter followers are fake. For Shah Rukh Khan, that number is 70%. But in case of celebrities, it is a reaching out to the fans, so it does not matter how many fans follow them.
For politicians too, it is a great platform to get their message across, engage with media and at least a certain section of people, who are using this medium. The problem begins, when, their PR managers try to make us believe that they are great leaders because of the large fan following. That is when we get it completely wrong.
In fact, fake followers is just one part. The above platform, Status People, also measures how many of the followers are inactive. For each Twitter profile, it divides the followers into three parts: fake, inactive and good. When you take just those followers that it terms are good (who are real and active), the total followers number drops drastically. Here is the above list of politicians with their “good” followers.
| Politician | Twitter Handle | Good % | Good Followers |
| Shashi Tharoor | @shashitharoor | 10 | 175647 |
| Narendtra Modi | @narendramodi | 10 | 156009 |
| Dr Manmohan Singh | @pmoindia | 16 | 86132 |
| Sushma Swaraj | @sushmaswarajbjp | 16 | 71643 |
| Arvind Kejriwal | @arvindkejriwal | 14 | 44046 |
| Omar Abdullah | @abdullah_omar | 13 | 35742 |
| Subramanian Swamy | @swamy39 | 21 | 34736 |
| Ajay Maken | @ajaymaken | 12 | 18134 |
| Derek O Brein | @quizderek | 22 | 32879 |
| Varun Gandhi | @varungandhi80 | 13 | 15435 |
The numbers are as on 1st May 2013
So, in effect, Shashi Tharoor’s active are just 1.75 lakh Twitter users, not 1.75 million. The prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has just 1.5 lakh followers, not 1.5 million. Varun Gandhi just has 15,000-odd active followers.
In short, these numbers denote their actual sphere of influence. Except for Tharoor and Modi, these numbers are in thousands; in a country of a billion. And when you combine this to the fact that Twitter reaches only a certain class of people, it follows quite logically that extrapolating the influence/opinion of Twitter to the real world is not a great idea. Not yet.
Why A Hasty Approach May Derail the Direct Cash Transfer Scheme Completely
The UPA government has announced the Direct Cash Transfer (DCT) scheme, with an eye on the elections. As expected, the opposition has cried foul, terming it “bribe” to the voters.
That is politics. And not really the topic of discussion here. In fact, this piece is not even about the economics of it. Economists agree that it is more efficient to pass on the benefits to the deserving directly through cash transfer than indirectly through subsidies. In any case, the government has been talking about it for quite some time. The Budget Speech in the last two years have referred to it explicitly. Many studies internationally have shown that they have, by and large, had a positive effect.
The points that I raise here are not about the politics or economics of DCT but the implementation hurdles that remain. Because even with this limited rollout, it could be the world’s biggest such project. Rushing in to implement may create problems that could shake off people’s confidence on the scheme. This could lead the opponents to project it as a faulty idea per se.
So, here are some of the issues.
1. What about those without the bank accounts? India has less than 25% of people in rural areas, who have access to bank accounts. How will they get the benefit? Does it mean that some of them—those who have bank accounts—will get it and others will not get it? That will be as anarchical as it could be. And the backlash could be severe.
2. How will subsidies and DCT co-exist, even if for a limited period? The government says that the scheme will be fiscal-neutral as it will replace subsidies. Practically, how will that happen, especially in fuel (kerosene), food, and fertilizers? Till all the people are in a position to get the benefit of DCT (today, those who do not have Aadhaar or bank account will not be able to get it), the government cannot touch the public distribution system. Which means it cannot effectively cut subsidies. So, the mechanism has to be in the point of contact (ration stores and the like) to ensure that some beneficiaries do not avail both the benefits, which is next to impossible, as of now. So, the government will continue to run both for the foreseeable future. And surely, it will not be fiscal neutral.
3. What are the alternate channels of supplies? While it is good to say, on paper, that by getting the money directly, the beneficiaries, can opt to buy the products from anywhere, no one is clear what is that anywhere. In many areas, no alternative supply and distribution channel exists. So, how will cash help them?
4. How do you ensure that the money is spent on those products and services for which is intended? How does the government ensure that the money is spent on the products and services that intends to subsidize? In some countries, these subsidies are conditional and are given to women. There is no such plan in India. So, in many families, where men spend a lot of earnings on alcohol and such things, more cash means more money to get drunk. The possibility is very real in India.
The issues raised here are not meant to argue against the implementation of DCT.
But the fact remains that changing the entire subsidy regime requires a lot of thought and preparation. The government started on the right note by appointing a task force to suggest the ways and means of implementing this.
The task force, headed by Nandan Nilekani, Chairman, UIDAI, submitted a detailed report, recommending creation of what it called a Core Subsidy Management System (CSMS) to implement the new subsidy regime. The task force foresaw the gap that exists in the payment system reach and recommended this
Since it may take a while for the payment systems in the country to gear up for direct transfer of subsidies, an intermediate step may be considered where the subsidy difference is transferred to wholesalers/retailers in the first phase, and only later on to customers.
But the government has disregarded it and has announced DCT right away. Also, there is no news on where the rollout of CSMS has reached.
With all its good intentions, the government will have only itself to blame, if the whole idea backfires.
Officially Open: India Launches Open Data Beta Site
India has finally launched the beta version of its open data site, data.gov.in. The site is part of the country’s plan to provide open and transparent access to data collected by various government departments and agencies, as outlined in the recently formulated National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy – 2012 (NDSAP-12).
The stated advantages, as envisioned by the policy, include maximization of use of data, avoidance/minimization of duplication of efforts on collection, facilitating integration by leading to common standards, providing ownership information, faster and better decision making, and of course, equitable access to information by all citizens.
Ever since the then Federal CIO of the United States started in May 2009, many counties have launched similar sites. India is the latest country to join the bandwagon.
The data.gov.in site has debuted with 13 raw datasets provided by seven departments and four apps provided by four departments. As part of the plan, data management offices are being created in each of the departments to be headed by a senior official called data controllers. Five ministries/departments have already identified their data controllers, whose names are available in the site. These are Department of Public Enterprises under the Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Disinvestment under Ministry of Finance, Department of Fertilizers under Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Ministry of Food Processing Industries, and Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises. The departments will be responsible for uploading the datasets directly, for which NIC is helping them by providing training and technical help. It is conducting a workshop on 5th October focused on this.
India, however, is not a part of open government partnership, a consortium of more than 50 countries. The initiative was started by nine countries, including India, but India withdrew just before launch. India was reportedly “concerned about the Independent Review Mechanism” which opens participating countries for reviews by outsiders.
However, India has been supporting the open government community by helping create what is called an open government platform—an easy-to-use toolbox that allows smaller countries to go for similar portals without worrying about technical challenges. The platform was launched in last March.
The launch of data.gov.in marks a new chapter in governance. It is a pity that it has got almost no mention in the media, especially when corruption and the role of public institutions are being debated so intensely.
In the US, the opening up of government data to public has seen innovative applications being created by third party organizations using the data (maximizing use).
Many say a more laudable goal in India would be the avoidance of duplication of efforts and resources in collecting data. This, however, is a lofty expectation to have from a transparency initiative like this, because it is not lack of availability/knowledge but personal ego battles and/or lack of coordination between departments that are the reasons for this duplication of efforts and resources. A recent example is the tussle between Home Ministry and the UIDAI on collecting data for National Population Register and Aadhaar.
But the private sector, academics researchers, and NGOs/advocacies can surely benefit from getting easy and timely access to government collected data. With analytics and data vizulazation becoming the hottest areas in technology, an initiative like this could not have been more timely.
Filed under New Governance, Policy & Regulation
Do We Need a Wikipal?
Politically speaking, the decision by Anna Hazare to disband Team Anna and take up the fight through electoral politics is both good news and bad. Good because it upholds the supremacy of electoral democracy—which was being pooh poohed by the likes of Arvind Kejriwal just a few months back. But what I feel bad about—and I am not a supporter of M/s Bedi and Kejriwal—is that an experiment to take an alternate route has failed. Yes, despite the power of Facebook and Twitter to support it this time around, as many of us never forgot to add. But as I have pointed out many times, including in this blog (Digital divide is now political…), reach of social media—or for that matter Internet—is too limited to fight a successful battle against the government and the system.
So, do I mean to say that we have little hope—as long as we have a democracy and as long as we, as a people, are not completely honest, we will have to tolerate this large scale, systematized corruption?
Not necessarily. But if we have to really find a solution to the problem of corruption, it has to be taking a different approach that fundamentally changes certain key parameters, not taking the same path again and again.
The big proposed entity called Lokpal—that is thought to be the panacea for all ills by Anna and his supporters—is nothing but yet another costly addition to the already overburdened system. If the Legislature, Judiciary, the Executive and the Press could not do it, by what logic do we expect yet another new body with its base in Delhi to eradicate corruption? The demand has been for more power to it. There is no logic given by anyone how more power itself will translate into more effectiveness in checking corruption. After all, the members would be people from amongst us. Why should one believe that they would be more honest than you and me—and our politicians and bureaucrats?
The problem is we are seeking a solution in the old, centralized model with a set of people having absolute power over everyone. Just that instead of being called MPs or ministers or secretaries or editors, they would be called Lokpals.
What if we take a fundamentally new approach? Instead of trying to check corruption by instilling fear of punishment after the act of corruption is done, what if we can ensure that corruption is minimized by making it more difficult to do it, i.e instilling fear of getting caught while doing it. That should be done by bringing in transparency.
Such transparency is possible only when there is easier access to information by a wider section, ideally members of the general public.
Two fundamental principles are cornerstones of this approach: one, instead of centralized systems, we go for decentralization; and two, instead of giving real power to people, we give it to a computer system.
Decentralization does not necessarily mean chaos. Wikipedia—despite whatever limitations it may have—has shown us how the collective power of people can be credible and dynamic at the same time. But to ensure that we prevent mobocracy and chaos, there has to be defined rules and processes (as in Wikipedia) and massive information infrastructure to store, forward, and process information. That requires a powerful (ideally distributed) computer system.
As everything becomes available to a wide set of people, the system will ensure that few dare to indulge in violating the rules. A person may not fear another person; but everyone fears the public.
We have seen that happening in cricket. The third umpire—though there is a person whose name is associated with it—is actually a computer. The replay is on a huge screen for the world to see. And technology ensures that there is no intended wrong decision. The same principle will work here.
In a technology-enabled system, the information itself will have the power to make everyone exercise restraint. A huge computing plaform—lets say a supercomputer—can, on a continuous basis, monitor for exceptions. There can also be ways and means to lodge anonymous complaints by the whistle blowers. Initially, people may misuse it to trouble opponents, but soon, the system will take care of itself. If the processes and technology are good, a false complaint will result in calling out the bluff. By moving from an investigation mode to a prevention mode, the system itself will become more “less corrupt”. There will be experts, advisors, information analysts—from any walk of life. But the power will not lie with them; it will lie with the computer in particular and the whole system in general. The system would be fault tolerant and designed to learn from experience.
Of course, any such system can be effective only when there is a lot of information generated electronically. That means a lot of government processes need to be automated. Thankfully, that is increasingly happening. That will supplement the reactive mechanism of the Wiki model by a proactive check on processes and exceptions. In such a scenario, RTI would be seamless and would be like a Google search.
Instead of instilling fear of punishment after the corrupt act is done, it would instill fear of exposure while doing corruption. So, not only would one get caught but would get caught before he/she gets any benefit out of that.
Such a system will ensure the following
- Any exception is caught and reported, almost in real time
- All information is stored in multiple locations so if something that cannot be brought to public notice in real time because of sensitiveness of the issue, they can be exposed in future by the system. Remember WikiLeaks?
- Ensure speed and efficiency in addition to transparency
By making all the citizens participate, we would give collective responsibility to everyone while rigorous processes with technology underneath ensuring that there is no chaos because of that. This will still not be able to eliminate corruption but will make it far more difficult to do corruption, thereby significantly reducing it.
What do we call such a system? Did you say Wikipal?
Open Government Platform: Beginning of A Great Journey
In the next few hours, the Union Minister for Communications & IT, Kapil Sibal, is expected to announce the launch of open government platform, in the presence of some representatives from the US government. This will be the first major announcement after the cabinet approved the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) 2012 last month.
The idea of open governance, spearheaded by the US, under then then Federal CIO Vivek Kundra, has been gaining popularity the world over. The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral initiative that aims to “secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”
The Open Government Partnership as a global partnership is not too old and started just about six months back. Formally launched on 20 September 2011, with an initial declarationby eight countries—Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States—the partnership now has 53 member countries, including the original eight.
With its time-honored policy of under-commitment, India is yet to formally join the partnership but is working with the US government to work on open access to data. To become a member of OGP, participating countries must embrace a high-level Open Government Declaration; deliver a country action plan “developed with public consultation”; and commit to independent reporting on their progress going forward.
It may be noted here that publishing data collected by government is just one—though, at present, arguably the most important—aspect of the move towards this openness.
The Platform
While the actual beginning of the move towards open government began with President Obama signing the Memorandum of Transparency and Open Government on Day One of assuming office, it was with the appointment of Vivek Kundra as the Federal CIO that the real momentum started. Barely two months after his appointment in March 2009, Kundra launched Data.g0v platform (in May), for providing public access to raw datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government in order to enable public participation and private sector innovation. It drew from the DC Data Catalog launched by Kundra when he was CTO of Washington, D.C., where he published vast amounts of datasets for public use.
Though open government is a broader objective and is not just about releasing raw government data, this was nevertheless considered a major step, as the public availability of these datasets would not only help in transparency and openness, it also would allow anyone who wishes to do so—companies, individuals, NGOs—to create innovative applications using these data. And it actually did.
But when Kundra announced his resignation in June last year, there was a lot of apprehension whether the open government movement will lose its momentum. Many believed Kundra’s resignation was because of a drastic cut in funding for the e-government initiatives that he had undertaken. In a column titled, The Death of Open Government, in Washington Post, renowned technologist, academician and commentator was drastic in his observation.
But, with Kundra gone, I am not optimistic about the program. Whenever a program loses its key evangelist, it normally dies. The Open Government Initiative is likely to suffer a slow, inevitable death.
But nevertheless the progress continued.
And when there is something around IT, can India be kept out of it? When the US government started to look at open sourcing the data.gov platform, India—the land of techies—was of course, the first stop. And this began around August, even before the Open Government Partnership was announced. India was not to be a member of that; it still isn’t. But when it comes to tech work, the world’s most business savvy nation, surely knew where to turn to.
In December, it was publicly announced that India and US were working together to create a platform, called data.gov- in-a-box, an open source platform that would help governments globally to produce their own version of data.gov. This is what the data.gov site said at that time.
Among the actions in the U.S. National Action Plan announced by President Obama is an effort under the U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue to produce “Data.gov-in-a-Box,” an open source version of the United States’ Data.gov data portal and India’s India.gov.in document portal. The U.S. and India are working together to produce an open source version available for implementation by countries globally, encouraging governments around the world to stand up open data sites that promote transparency, improve citizen engagement, and engage application developers in continuously improving these efforts. Technical teams from the governments of the U.S. and India have been working together since August of this year, with a planned launch of a complete open source product (which is now called the Open Government Platform (OGPL) to reflect its broad scope) in early 2012.
Today is that day, when that formal announcement about that platform is likely to happen by the Indian IT minister.
All the best for the journey together of two great nations, which are not just the most influential democracies in the world but are also the most competent when it comes to IT. And nothing marries democracy and technology like this initiative does. It takes the tool to be transparent on a platter to the governments around the world.
Additional Note: This should also convince critics of outsourcing to India (many within the Obama administration itself) that companies that seek Indian help in IT do not do that just because it is low cost.
ShyamanujaOne 