Public Service

The term public service carries different meanings. The first meaning of ‘public service’ is in the sense of a public utility, i.e., it refers to the kind of services governments commonly provide- electricity, healthcare, maintenance of law and order, urban and rural infrastructure, etc.- where the prime criteria of success are availability, affordability and accessibility of services. In this connection, the delivery of public service means the goods and services offered by government institutions to the public, and it includes the interface between the citizen and the administration.

A public service is a service which is provided by government to people. Services are provided or supported by a government or its agencies. Public service is done to help people rather than to make a profit.       

A public service may sometimes have the characteristics of a public good (being non-rivalries and non-excludable i.e. individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others), but most cases public services are services.    Second meaning of public service refers to all the public functionaries including all those working in the army as well as the judiciary and the executive.  

Probity

Probity is the evidence of ethical behaviour in a particular process. The term probity means integrity, uprightness and honesty. For Government employees and agencies, maintaining probity involves more than simply avoiding corrupt or dishonest conduct. It involves applying public sector values such as impartiality, accountability and transparency.

Probity is also regarded as being incorruptible. However, probity goes further than the avoidance of being dishonest because it is determined by intangibles like personal and societal values. It is also regarded as strict adherence to a code of ethics based on undeviating honesty, especially in commercial (monetary) matters and beyond legal requirements.

Ensuring probity in public services is part of every public official’s duty to adopt processes, practices and behavior that enhance and promote public service values.

Probity in Governance

Apart from the traditional civil service values of efficiency, integrity, accountability and patriotism, it is necessary for civil servants to inculcate and adopt ethical and moral values including probity in public life, respect for human rights and compassion for the downtrodden and commitment to their welfare.

Probity in governance is an essential and vital requirement for an efficient and effective system of governance and for socio-economic development. An important requisite for ensuring probity in governance is absence of corruption. The other requirements are effective laws, rules and regulations governing every aspect of public life and, more important, an effective and fair implementation of those laws, etc. 

Probity Principles

There are several generally accepted probity principles that serve to maintain the integrity of a process. These are:

Accountability: is the obligation to be able to explain or account for the way duties have been performed. Government should have appropriate mechanisms in place to show that they are accountable for their practices and decisions.

Transparency: It is important that the process is transparent to the maximum extent possible so that all stakeholders can have confidence in the outcomes. Transparent, open processes also minimize the opportunity for, and the risk of, fraud and corruption. Confidentiality: As a condition of employment, all public servants are under a general obligation of confidentiality to their employer. Accordingly, it is not necessary for members of the Government Project Team who are public servants to execute a confidentiality undertaking in relation to the project. All Government advisors, members and any other third party that is privy to commercially sensitive information must provide a formal undertaking to Government that they will keep this information confidential.

Management of Conflicts of Interest: Proponents have an expectation that Government representatives will perform their duties in a fair and unbiased manner and that decisions they make will not be affected by self-interest or personal gain. A conflict of interest arises where an individual associated with the process is, through their particular associations or circumstances, influenced, or perceived to be influenced, to obtain an unfair advantage for him or herself or another party. Conflicts of interest are often unavoidable. However, provided they are identified early and dealt with effectively, they need not prejudice the process. It is important to ensure that individuals associated with the process are aware of how a conflict of interest arises and their responsibilities to report conflicts, ensure conflicts are adequately addressed, and ensure the manner in which they have been addressed is adequately documented. Policies to deal with potential conflicts of interest should be established at the outset, rather than attempting to manage such issues on an ad-hoc basis as they arise.

Philosophical Basis of Governance and Probity

Morality and government are vital element for healthy nation. The relationships between the people who establish a nation rest on a moral basis. This foundation is a crucial part of their association and its substance determines the character of the nation and of the government under which the people choose to live. Like our inherent and inalienable rights, true morality derives from the nature of man and his life on this planet. It is not possible to consider a political philosophy intelligently and adequately without also considering its moral implications. The ethical concerns of governance have been emphasized broadly in Indian scriptures and other treatises such as Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagvad Gita, Buddha Charita, Arthashastra, Panchatantra, Manusmriti, Kural, Shukra Niti, Kadambari, Raja Tarangani, and Hitopadesh. Chinese philosophers such as Lao Tse, Confucius and Mencius also contributed the theoretical dogmas on ethical governance.

In the Western philosophy, there are three well-known schools of ethics. Aristotle holds that virtues (such as justice, charity and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit the possessor of these virtues and the society of which he is a part. Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field dissimilar from the theoretical sciences. Its approach must match its subject matter good action and must respect the fact that in this field many generalizations hold only for the most part. Aristotle was supporter of theoretical framework of Socrates and Plato in taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Like Plato, he respects the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance) as complex rational, emotional and social skills. But he rebuffed Plato's idea that a training in the sciences and metaphysics is a necessary prerequisite for a full understanding of our good. Plato upholds a virtue-based eudemonistic conception of ethics. It can be said that human well-being (eudaimonia) is the highest aim of moral thought and conduct, and the virtues (arete: 'excellence') are the requisite skills and dispositions needed to attain it.

Plato's fundamental assertion, in the Republic, is that justice is so great a good that anyone who completely embraces it is thereby better off, even in the face of the distress and pain of severe misfortune. The basic moral equation, clearly declared by Plato, seeks to establish that: 'Justice discounted by pain and dishonour is more advantageous than injustice supplemented by the rewards of justice'. However, Plato failed, throughout the discussion, to clearly validate this unusual and complex formula. But he evidently believed that people do act against their own immediate interests for the sake of justice, and for the sake of the good of the civic community as a whole. He did not think that the only motive for acting justly is to increase one's own happiness. Plato distinguishes that a tension between duty and self-interest is certainly conceivable; that duty and self-interest are two independent concepts neither of which can be reduced to the other. To resolve this tension we must know what is best, without qualifications The Theory of the Forms occupies a crucial and central place in the justification of what may seem to be an extraordinary claim (Annas, 1981). The Forms are those eternal, changeless, imperceptible and bodiless objects of the understanding, which are central to the education of the philosopher of the Republic, and which engender in him a passionate reverence for such abstract ideas as Beauty, Goodness, Justice, Wisdom. If Plato's idea of happiness is elusive and his support for a morality of happiness seems somewhat subdued, there are several reasons. First, his conception of happiness differs in significant ways from ordinary views. In his early works his approach is largely negative: Socratic questioning seems designed to undermine the traditional values rather than to develop a positive account of his own. Second, the positive accounts contained in his later works, especially that of the Republic, treat happiness as a state of perfection that is hard to comprehend because it is based on metaphysical presuppositions that seem both hazy and out of the realm of ordinary understanding. In other discourses, he confines himself to intimations of different aspects of what is good in and for the soul, intimations that are hard to fit together in a coherent picture. Aristotle talked about happiness as a self-sufficient state of the active individual. Third, in crucial texts Plato's moral ideals appear both austere and self-abnegating: the soul is to remain aloof from the pleasures of the body; communal life demands the subordination of individual wishes and aims.

Secondly, Immanual Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: human beings are bound, from knowledge of their duty as rational beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings with whom they interact. Kant supposed that a rigorous application of the same methods of reasoning would yield an equal success in dealing with the problems of moral philosophy. Kant raised concerned about the fundamental source of morality. He stated that the source of morality is our ability to rationally make decisions and our possession of a "will". Kant believes that an act has no moral worth if it is not performed for the sake of morality alone. Basically, Immanuel Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the "Categorical Imperative". Immorality thus involves a violation of the Categorical Imperative and is thereby irrational. Other philosophers, such as Locke and Hobbes, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either desire-based instrumental principles of rationality or based on sui generis rational intuitions. Hobbes stated that in the state of nature rational fear drives individuals to work with one another. Locke elaborated in his philosophical dogmas that individuals in the state of nature are indifferent to one another (but decide that it would be easier on them to work together). For Hobbes civil society makes moral distinctions, whereas for Locke moral distinctions characterize social relations independent of civil relations: they are natural, God-given. Acting morally means acting in accord with nature, motivated by the threat of divine punishment/reward. According to Locke, all human beings deserve to be treated equally and can justly be bound by civil laws (or government) only if they consent to such obligations. Locke proposes that the mind puts ideas together in three different ways. The first is to combine simple ideas to form complex ones. The second is to bring two or more ideas together and form a view of them in relation to each other. The third is to generate general ideas by abstracting from specific examples. Thus people ignore the specific circumstances in which we gain a particular piece of knowledge, which would limit its applicability, and generalise so that we have some rule or idea that applies in circumstances beyond our direct experience.

Kant approved with many of his forerunners that an analysis of practical reason will reveal only the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. However he maintained that conformity to the Categorical Imperative and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking principle that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality, Categorical Imperative is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Human 'slave' to the passions. Furthermore, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.

The third is the utilitarian standpoint that proclaims that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness (or benefit) of the greatest number (Hobson, 2002). Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics maintained that the moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is defined in various ways, including as pleasure, economic well-being and the lack of suffering. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, which implies that the "end justifies the means". This opinion can be distinguished with seeing intentions, virtues or the compliance with rules as ethically important. Classical utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, stated that "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong. The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill is most broadly expressed in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its objective is to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This belief represents actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness. Mill focuses on consequences of actions and not on rights nor ethical sentiments. Mill described "utilitarianism" as the faith that considers a particular "theory of life" as the "foundation of morals" (CW 10, 210). His opinion of theory of life was monistic. There is one thing that is essentially desirable such as pleasure. In contrast to a form of hedonism that conceives pleasure as a homogeneous matter, Mill was convinced that some types of pleasure are more valuable than others in virtue of their intrinsic qualities. His position is called "qualitative hedonism". Many philosophers embrace that qualitative hedonism is no consistent position. Hedonism proclaims that pleasure is the only intrinsic value. Under this assumption, the critics debated, there can be no evaluative basis for the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

Earlier period of Utilitarianism, Mill hypothesized that moral judgments presume rules (CW 10, 206). In contrast to Kant who based his ethical theory on self-imposed rules, so-called maxims, Mill thought that morality builds on social rules. Mill spoke about "morally right" or "morally wrong". He maintains that we name a type of action morally wrong if we think that it should be sanctioned either through formal punishment, public disapproval (external sanctions) or through a bad conscience (internal sanctions). This is the critical difference between "morality and simple expediency" (CW 10, 246). Wrong or inexpedient actions are those that we cannot recommend to a person, like harming oneself. But in contrast to immoral actions, inexpedient actions are not worthy of being sanctioned. Moral rules are also critical for Mill because he takes human action in essence as to be guided by dispositions. A virtuous person has the disposition to follow moral rules. In Utilitarianism approach, Mill presented two different formulations of the utilitarian standard. The first points in an act utilitarian, the second in a rule utilitarian direction. Since act and rule utilitarianism are incompatible claims about what makes actions morally right, the formulations open up the fundamental question concerning what style of utilitarianism Mill wants to advocate and whether his moral theory forms a consistent whole.

The Western thought is associated with ethical guidelines to rulers, whether in a ruler or a democracy (Santosh Ajmera, 1986). These apprehensions are found in the theories of famous thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Penn, John Stuart Mill, Edmund Burke, and others. According to Alexander Hamilton, moral realism takes human nature as it is found in the accumulated experience of ages. It denies human and social perceptibility while acknowledging the reality of ethical conscience and will (Federici, 2012). It is represented in physophical studies that Moral traditionalism is a view regarding the moral justification of social rules in political communities. It holds, roughly, that traditions not reason, nor approved conventions legitimize these rules. Its main descriptive is Edmund Burke. Burke argued that that civil peace and freedom from arbitrary coercion are goods which can be preserved only if the social and legal norms inherited from former generations constrain the present generations' public choices. In his writings, Burke claims that the English Revolution of 1688 took place because people's normative expectations were rooted in traditions and that the destitution of the king was an act of enforcing the shared norms regarding the legitimate exercise of political power. Burke emphasized that the French political leaders' ethical and political rationalism must lead to incessant acts of arbitrary coercion and destroy civil peace, because freedom and civil peace cannot coexist with the neglect of tradition.

To Jefferson, there were not two moralities: one governing personal and the other governing national affairs. Personal morality has its counterpart in the national arena, and the principles that govern the former are just as applicable to the latter. According to him, "The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society, and the aggregate of the duties exist as did between the individuals composing them while in an unassociated state, their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."(Thomas Jefferson: Opinion, 1793). John Locke based his ethical theories upon belief in the natural goodness of humanity. The inevitable pursuit of happiness and pleasure, when conducted rationally, leads to cooperation, and in the long run private happiness and the general welfare coincide. Immediate pleasures must give way to a prudent regard for ultimate good, including reward in the afterlife. He argued for broad religious freedom in three separate essays on toleration but excepted atheism and Roman Catholicism, which he felt should be legislated against as inimical to religion and the state.

Other philosopher who developed ethical theory of governance was david hume. Hume upholds that moral distinctions are derived from feelings of pleasure and pain of a special sort, and not as held by many western philosophers since socrates from reason. Working from the empiricist principle that the mind is essentially passive, hume claims that reason by itself can never prevent or produce any action or affection. But since morals concerns actions and affections, it cannot be based on reason. Additionally, reason can influence our conduct in only two ways. First, reason can inform us of the existence of something which is the proper object of a passion, and thereby excite it. Second, reason can deliberate about means to an end that we already desire. Hume maintains for a distinction between facts and values. According to hume, one cannot infer conclusions about what ought or ought not to be the case based on premises of what is or is not to summarise, there are numerous philosophers that grounded their moral approaches. In western philosophical thoughts, utilitarian views are defined by many philosophers and postulated dominant theories of morality that signified good governance. Aristotle developed moral values based on social skills. Other eminent ethical philosophers who contributed in developing moral guidelines are thomas jefferson, alexander hamilton, thomas penn, john stuart mill, and edmund burke

Information sharing and transparency in government

Information is fundamental need of humans to perform various tasks. It has been found that the ability to seek, receive and circulate information is crucial to secure human rights. One way of looking at "Democratisation of Information" is the capability of every person to get the information they need to enhance their lives because it assist to make wise decisions in life. Another dimension to this is building an information-driven society which has access to all services and facilities with minimum bureaucratic and procedural formalities. Generally, information services are an important support for any democratic government. Citizens trust on information for making decisions which impact upon their social, political and economic lives. In this framework, there are many laws which oversee the right to access, and disseminate information locally and internationally (Hakielimu, LHRC, REPOA, 2005).

The plenty and availability of information means that the user needs skill to determine what it is that they want. The user of information has major role to play in effecting information sharing. The user must be able to use pertinent tools to explore and collect information and be able to determine the significance of accessed data to his/her operations. The ability to use such tools is accomplished through learning. Having the knowledge to use the tools for searching the information, the user must be aware of the problem that they need to solve.

Transparency in governance: Governance is the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country's affairs at all levels. The concept of Governance is broader than Government. The notion of Governance focuses on institutions and processes.

Good Governance has major features such as

• Rule of law
• Transparency and free flow of information
• Participation
• Equity and inclusiveness
• Effectiveness and efficiency
• Accountability
• Control of corruption
• Balances between growth and distribution
• Present and future resource use

An information-driven society leads to transparency and accountability. This provides drive to programmes aimed to enhance the processes and systems of public bodies thereby improving service delivery. Since transparency involves sharing of information -meaning most decisions of officials, and important rules and regulations are in the public domain- it thoroughly reduces chances of corruption, nepotism, favouritism. Lack of information about the functioning of government agencies can make it easy for corrupt officials to cover their tracks. On the other hand, when officials recognize that their decisions will be out in the open, then they will be less motivated to act randomly or with self-interest. It can be said that the least transparent Governments exist in the most corrupt countries. A number of international bodies with the responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights have recognised the fundamental nature of the Right to Information (RTI). While the flow of information has some understandable benefits like increased transparency, accountability, public participation and empowerment, it has some drawbacks too. If the information is used to make allegations to malign public servants or create disorder it can negatively impact the working of public bodies. Adequate checks and balances are needed in the systems to ensure that information is not misused by such elements. Transparency is widely recognized as core principle of good governance. Transparency means sharing information and acting in an open manner. Free access to information is a key element in promoting transparency. Information must be timely, relevant, accurate and complete for it to be used effectively. Transparency is also considered essential for controlling corruption in public life. Transparency and accountability in Government are mutually reinforcing.

Major Initiatives to Enhance Transparency in India

• Right to Information Act
• Public Services Bill
• Citizens Charters
• e-Governance
• e-Bhoomi
• e-Chaupal
• e-procurement

To maintain transparency, government need people who can seek information from required sources, collate it and make it understandable to the people who may be affected by such information. The news media is support of society which can effectively do this. Non-governmental organizations, especially those working in the field of RTI or people's empowerment can be another. 
To summarize, Information sharing and transparency are vital components for any government to enhance the living of society. Information is valuable for every citizen to participate in the life and governance of society. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater would be the responsiveness of government to community needs. Transparency is considered imperative to procure the support and participation of citizens in management of public services

Objective of Probity in Governance

• To ensure accountability in governance;
• To maintain integrity in public services;
• To ensure compliance with processes;
• To preserve public confidence in Government processes;
• To avoid the potential for misconduct, fraud and corruption.

Probity and Good Governance

A well-functioning civil service helps to foster good policy making, effective service delivery, accountability and responsibility in utilizing public resources which are the characteristics of good governance. “Good Governance” is being used as an all-inclusive framework not only for administrative and civil service reform, but as a link between Civil Service Reform and an all-embracing framework for making policy decisions effective within viable systems of accountability and citizen participation. Governance reform tends to refer to the improvement of legal and policy frameworks to create proper decision making environment; participatory systems for elements of civil society to become actively involved in policy and programme formulation and their implementation; and an effective and transparent system and process for control and accountability in government activities. It cannot be seen in isolation and it has to be undertaken along with administrative reforms for effective results.

Although comprehensive reform that involves governance, the civil service, and civil society is ideal, it requires sustained commitment from political and administrative leaders. It is also too complex to implement all at once. Few countries have undertaken comprehensive reforms and there are mixed results. The challenge lies in finding and linkages among the governance, civil service and civil society components, determining which require priority attention.

Right to Information

The right to information includes an access to the information which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to inspect the work, document, records, taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents/records and certified samples of the materials and obtaining information which is also stored in electronic form.

Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government information.

Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions.

RTI Act 2005 extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Objective of the Right to Information Act :

The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and make our democracy work for the people in real sense.

It goes without saying that an informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of governance and make the government more accountable to thegoverned. The Act is a big step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government.

Revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. So this Act harmonises these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.