governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Toilets’

CM Kejriwal’s plunging popularity

Kejriwal plunge

(photo credit: fundamental.bogs.com)

How justified is Mr. Kejriwal, the Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi in assuring auto rickshaw (tuk tuks) owners and drivers -his niche supporters numbering around 100,000 – annual rate revisions in tandem with rising costs, when he denies a similarly supportive regulatory regime to the three private companies which supply power to consumers in Delhi?

As a Dilli-walla, who has not had to use an inverter during the last five years because electricity is available on tap- a saving of Rs. 5000 per year- it seems obvious to me that privatizing electricity supply has been the biggest boon for citizens.

But to sustain supply at a reliability level of 99.5%, the DISCOMS have to buy sufficient power to meet peak load and maintain the wires, related transmission and distribution equipment and meters sufficiently well, to avoid breakdowns and to meter consumption accurately. Privatisation has given Delhi what only Bombay (also privately supplied) used to have a two decades ago – reliable electric supply.

Build institutions, don’t undermine existing ones

The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) consistently fair, participative and effective decision making has supported this achievement. Not surprisingly, a recent independent survey, done by the premier Jaipur based, consumer advocacy institute- CUTS, which reviewed institutional arrangements and consumer perception, assessed the DERC as the state electricity regulator most responsive to citizen grievances.

It is consequently, decidedly odd, that the Mr. Kejriwal should try and undermine the institutional credibility of the electricity regulator by insinuating that the private DISCOMS are being favoured by the DERC tariff determination process at the cost of consumers.

Most recently Mr. Kejriwal has alleged that the newly appointed in-charge Chief Secretary (who apparently was not his choice) is also in cahoots with the two Reliance power DISCOMS.

Mr. Kejriwal has erred in mixing up the issue of whether or not the CM should choose the Chief Secretary with the unrelated issue of whether, or not, the person appointed to that position, by the Lt. Governor, has the right credentials to occupy that post.

On the first issue, good governance norms would dictate that, at the very least, the CM should be consulted and preferably should concur in the appointment of the Chief Secretary (CS). After all, unless the CM and the CS trust each other, government will become dysfunctional. The worst thing for a government is to admit publicly that it is out of control. This holds irrespective of the legal position that the Lt. Governor is not bound to seek the CMs advice on the issue since Delhi is only a “make believe” State Government with limited functions.

Populism is not sustainable

The Kejriwal government is coming across as populist, anti-reform and anti-organised private sector. Add to this the constraint that being recent rulers, with no administrative experience, it appears ham-handed at doing what it wants. The result is that even good intentions get warped by inept execution.

Why Messers Kejriwal and Sisodia seem bent upon wasting time and political capital on burnishing their populist image, even though there are still more than four long years to go before elections, is puzzling.

That Mr. Kejriwal looks to the common man for his support is welcome. After all more than 40% of Delhi residents live either in slums or in slum-like colonies. But more than “freebies”- like cheap power and free water- what each of these “slum dwellers” want is a better life for their children and a job.

Generating new jobs

Generating 1 million “good” jobs in Delhi over the next four years is a colossal task and the CM would do well to focus his energies on this task. He will need the active collaboration of the private sector to achieve this goal. The continued availability of reasonably priced, good quality electricity will be crucial so tinkering with what is working well (privatized electricity utilities) is dangerous and irresponsible.

It is all very well to grandstand by dis-allowing the entry of multi-brand retail in Delhi. In any case, these space-intensive, “deep pocket” entities which seek to provide a “complete shopping experience”, would rather locate in adjoing NOIDA or Gurgaon, where commercial space is cheaper. But what does the government plan to do to “clean up” the existing local market places and make small shopkeepers more competitive?

Why not create new jobs by servicing public spaces better with private security; better maintenance; toilets; take-a-break-spots; green spaces and parking facilities to enhance the shopping experience.  The popular Dilli Haat (market) started two decades ago is one such example.

Make the rich pay for using public road space

Delhi has around 2 million cars. Most of them are parked overnight on the streets and adjoining side-walks. Why not charge car owners for this privilege, especially at a progressive rate? Rate progression would mean that for every incremental car per household, the rate increases. Even a flat charge per car of Rs 500 per month would yield an additional revenue of Rs 1000 crore per year (rule-of-thumb basis) equal to 3% of the 2015-16 Budget estimate of Rs 35,000 crores.

The incremental proceeds could be used, in the colony where it is collected, to provide and maintain colony roads; drains; sewage systems; street lights and water supply systems. More importantly, the fee will provide a disincentive to own multiple cars; encourage owners to dump old, unused cars and free up public parking, cycling and walking space.

Public transport

The CM should also note that whilst today electricity in Delhi is of the same quality as in Mumbai, the same cannot be said of the public buses. Ensuring a 24X7 public transport system, which is secure and accessible within a maximum ten minute walk from any urban mohallah (community), is an enormous challenge which goes beyond just buying more buses. Meeting this public transport infrastructure gap will hurt he CMs support group the most – the 100,000 auto rickshaws who provide an inefficient, insecure and costly substitute for public buses. But it can garner the CM the support of 60% of the 25 million Dilli-wallas who can only afford to travel by bus.

There are still more than four years to go for the Delhi elections and it is sad to see the Kejriwal government not using this time to deliver substantial gains to Delhi citizens. Grandstanding by “taking on” the Government of India via the Lt. Governor is unlikely to get it votes. Delhi is not a city which tolerates “whiners”.

BJP ruled municipalities provide no “benchmark” competition

The only silver lining for Mr. Kejriwal is that the three Municipal Corporations, all controlled by the BJP, are even worse. It is shocking that the Modi “magic” has not brushed-off on its local worthies and the municipalities remain mired in inefficiency and corruption.

Far from setting governance standards which would force Mr. Kejriwal to up his game and perform better, the Delhi municipalities are making it absurdly easy for Mr. Kejriwal to “shine” by comparison. This is shortsighted of the BJP and bad for Delhi citizens.

End game

Mr. Kejriwal has already lost the support of the middle class. Sadly he is in danger of losing the poor also, unless he takes service delivery beyond the level of rhetoric. He knew the limited character of the Delhi government before he contested. If he now feels constrained for power he has to wait till 2017 when he will get a chance of consolidating his power base in the three municipalities. Alternatively, he has to wait till 2019 in the hope of getting a congenial partner at the national level, who will cede fuller powers to Delhi State.

Either way he has a clear three years in which he can focus on improving what lies squarely within his ambit today- electricity supply, roads, public lighting, water, drains, sewage collection and treatment and social services. Even this seems a handful given the shallow bench strength of the AAP.

The third public toilet

Image

Public toilets are an emotive subject. The Gates Foundation has developed one which incinerates the waste using solar power; expectedly an innovative and green solution from the Big B of Silicon Valley. The Japanese have for long unleashed their geekiness on customizing digitally operated toilets to become so threatening that just trying to use one becomes daunting for the technologically challenged. But the king of public toilets, in India, remains Bindeshwari Pathak whose brain child “Sulabh” has, since 1970, provided public toilet comfort to travelers, itinerants, slum dwellers and the homeless; an astounding 15 million every day and growing.   

Expectedly, therefore, whilst striking a blow for equity and protection of minority rights, the Supreme Court directed the government that Transgender (TG) be recognized as a third gender and provided with separate public toilets. A laudable objective in a country, where even the existing two genders and the “specially enabled” often “feel” the absence of a public toilet.

Public toilets are certainly the way to go. Private toilets are awfully costly and wasteful. They generally occupy at least 10% of the carpet area of your house. This is valuable space grossly underused in nuclear families. At current realty rates, private toilets need to rank as a luxury on par with air conditioning. If you can’t afford air conditioning you probably should not be investing in a private toilet.

But much depends on the availability and quality of public options. Many public services do not have toilets segregated by gender; think airplanes or railway carriages or even small restaurants. It was only in 1739 that gender based toilet segregation became available in French restaurants.   

The notion of separate public toilets for men and women is related to three cultural traits which vary across the world. First is the “prudish” trait which requires that physical contact between men and women be minimized, just as volatile chemicals are stored separately in laboratories, to avoid mishaps and misadventures from their inadvertent mixing. So separate queues for women in banks, separate buses, separate rail compartments, separate taxis and separate toilets.

Second, is the need for comfort and absence from sexual stress that flows from being with the same gender. After all one is at ones most vulnerable in the toilet and the successful completion of the task at hand requires one to be at ease and relaxed. So there is validity in the assumption that separate toilets for men and women are both more efficient and effective.

Third, is the need for assuring physical safety, especially of women.  A public toilet, by its very character, is shielded from public gaze. In addition, if it is unlit or located in isolated areas, as they often are, they become fertile ground for sexual assault and intimidation. Hence the need for separate toilets.

It is probably in this context that the SC directed a third public toilet for the third gender. The issue that arises is should toilets be segregated by gender (a physical attribute) or sexuality (a mental attribute).

Gay or Lesbian persons would probably choose to use the toilet of their sexuality rather than that of their gender on the grounds of prudishness, lack of sexual stress and safety. Unexceptional, straight people of either gender would probably agree with them on their choice. They probably feel the sexual tension if they are to share a toilet with a gay/lesbian person who only has a common gender with them but a different sexuality.

The key problem with using sexuality to determine which of the three public toilets to access, is that it is not discernible at “face value”. Gender being a physical characteristic is easier to spot but still needs physical examination. Also there is the issue of Bisexual persons who probably deserve a special toilet of their own.

The way to solve the gender/sexuality based toilet access conundrum is to use a proxy. This should be the way you are dressed. Irrespective of gender or sexuality if you dress as a woman, you should have access to the women’s toilet and vice versa for men. Transgenders could also be conveniently accommodated using this metric.

Of course this still does not solve the problem of the closet gay/lesbian persons who hide their sexual orientation by dessing according to their gender, because the law in India criminalises their sexual practices and social norms still discriminate against them. But that is changing. The Supreme Court is considering a curative petition which will likely overturn its recent regressive decision which passed the baton to Parliament to decriminalize “sex against the order of nature”.

Once this happens, the problem of the third public toilet shall have been solved. Everyone shall have access to the public toilet one dressed for, exactly as it is for entry into exclusive clubs and bars. You are only allowed in if you have dressed appropriately.

It is in the government’s interest also to fast forward legislation on decriminalizing gay/lesbian sexual practices and recognizing same sex marriages. Otherwise it faces the uphill challenge of adding a third public toilet to the non-existent two.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: