A large number of states will face elections in 2008. Knowing politicians, it is unlikely that electoral battles will be fought over development and reforms. But if such a battle were indeed fought, the debate will be about what one means by reforms and role of the government in ensuring development. Contrary to what simple assertions suggest, reforms aren’t about polar opposites of state versus market. Instead, the debate is about what the state should do, beyond regulating the market. Governments evolved, and individuals willingly submitted themselves to public norms, because of the need for security and safety. That is, core function of any government has to be preservation of law and order and resolving disputes, not producing cement, cycles and condoms. One can add to that financing, if not provisioning, of some physical (roads, electricity, drinking and irrigation water) and social (primary health centres, rural schools) infrastructure. This is the ‘bipasa’ (bijli, pani, sadak) agenda and, regardless of what specific political parties profess, it is the aam aadmi agenda. If rule of law is a key governance function, why isn’t it on any politician’s reform agenda? Let’s be more specific. Access to justice occurs in reform agendas.

Take the Bible of UPA policy, the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP). “The UPA government will take the leadership role to drastically cut delays in high courts and lower levels of the judiciary. Legal aid services will be expanded. Judicial reforms will be given a fresh momentum.” NCMP, and World Bank reports, do flag access to justice, interpreted as courts and within that, civil cases. However, two-thirds of judicial backlog are criminal cases and these involve not just courts, but the police too.

... contd.