Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, is the real executive authority in India. The size of the cabinet, as envisioned by the Constitution, is not explicitly defined, leaving it to the Prime Minister’s discretion. However, Article 88(1) deals with the collective responsibility of the ministers to the Lok Sabha. The statement that the efficacy of a government is inversely related to the size of the cabinet suggests that a larger cabinet may lead to inefficiency due to coordination challenges and diluted responsibility, while a smaller cabinet might be more agile but lack adequate representation. This answer will explore this relationship, considering both sides of the argument.
Arguments for a Smaller Cabinet
A smaller cabinet offers several advantages. Firstly, it fosters better coordination and cohesion. With fewer members, decision-making becomes faster and more streamlined, reducing the potential for conflicting viewpoints and delays. Secondly, it promotes greater individual responsibility. Each minister is assigned a larger portfolio, encouraging them to be more deeply involved and accountable for their actions. Thirdly, it reduces administrative costs. A smaller cabinet translates to fewer ministerial perks and expenses.
- Example: The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government (1998-2004) initially had a relatively small cabinet, which was credited with swift decision-making in areas like economic reforms and the Pokhran-II nuclear tests.
Arguments for a Larger Cabinet
Conversely, a larger cabinet can also be beneficial. It allows for wider representation of different regions, castes, and ideologies, promoting inclusivity and political stability. This is particularly important in a diverse country like India. A larger cabinet can also distribute the workload more effectively, preventing any single minister from being overburdened. Furthermore, it can accommodate experienced politicians and provide them with opportunities to contribute to governance.
- Example: The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) governments (2004-2014) under Manmohan Singh often had large cabinets, reflecting the coalition nature of the government and the need to accommodate various allies.
The Inverse Relationship: A Critical Assessment
The claim of an inverse relationship between cabinet size and efficacy is not always straightforward. While a very large cabinet can indeed suffer from ‘paralysis by analysis’ and a diffusion of responsibility, a cabinet that is too small may lack the necessary expertise and representational breadth. The key lies in the Prime Minister’s ability to manage the cabinet as a team. A strong Prime Minister can effectively coordinate a larger cabinet, ensuring that it functions efficiently. Conversely, a weak Prime Minister may struggle to control even a small cabinet.
The efficacy also depends on the quality of ministers, the clarity of policy goals, and the efficiency of the bureaucratic machinery. A well-defined agenda and a competent bureaucracy can mitigate the challenges posed by a larger cabinet. Moreover, the use of sub-committees and group of ministers (GoMs) can help streamline decision-making in complex areas.
Historical Trends and Recent Developments
Historically, Indian cabinets have fluctuated in size depending on the political context. Coalition governments tend to have larger cabinets than single-party governments. In recent years, there has been a trend towards smaller, more focused cabinets, reflecting a desire for greater efficiency and accountability. The current government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has generally maintained a relatively lean cabinet, prioritizing efficiency and direct control.
| Government | Approximate Cabinet Size | Political Context |
|---|---|---|
| Indira Gandhi (1966-1977) | 15-20 | Dominant Party System |
| Rajiv Gandhi (1984-1989) | 20-25 | Dominant Party System |
| V.P. Singh (1989-1990) | 40+ | Coalition Government |
| Manmohan Singh (2004-2014) | 60+ | Coalition Government |
| Narendra Modi (2014-Present) | 25-30 | Single Party Majority |
Conclusion
In conclusion, the efficacy of a government is not simply inversely related to the size of the cabinet. While a larger cabinet can lead to coordination challenges and diluted responsibility, it can also promote inclusivity and distribute the workload. The key determinant of efficacy is the Prime Minister’s leadership, the quality of ministers, and the efficiency of the administrative apparatus. A pragmatic approach involves striking a balance between representation, efficiency, and accountability, tailoring the cabinet size to the specific political and administrative needs of the time.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.