Q.22 The size of the cabinet should be as big as governmental work justifies and as big as the Prime Minister can manage as a team. How far the efficacy of a government then is inversely related to the size of the cabinet? Discuss.GS-II: POLITY (UPSC CSE 2014)

Answer:

INTRODUCTION:

Theoretically, a bigger cabinet would mean a range of representation and a deeper pool of expertise. Historically, India has seen variations in cabinet sizes. After independence, the first Council of Ministers had only 15 members. In 1999, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s cabinet had 74 ministers.

The 91st Amendment Act of 2003 states that the total number of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers should not surpass 15% of the Lok Sabha members.

BODY:

The relationship between the Cabinet’s size and the government’s efficacy may not be inversely proportional. Paul H. Appleby, in his reports on Indian administration (1953, 1956), emphasized the need for a lean administrative structure for efficiency. Scholars believe that there’s a trade-off between representativeness and efficiency in cabinet formation. Larger cabinets may be more representative but potentially less efficient.

Effectiveness and Speed of Decision-Making:

• • A compact cabinet can speed decision-making since fewer individuals participate in discussions and deliberations. This could enhance the efficiency of actions. Nonetheless, a small cabinet may lack the range of viewpoints and expertise necessary for sound decision-making.
  • In Singapore, the smaller size of the cabinet can facilitate decision-making. This is partly attributed to the number of discussion participants, which results in deliberations and faster consensus building. However, with a few individuals involved, there is a risk of groupthink, where a lack of opinions may lead to decisions that comprehensively overlook potential consequences.
  • Germany’s cabinet size varies but tends to be moderate, balancing representation and efficiency. The coalition nature of German politics often necessitates a careful balance to ensure all coalition partners are adequately represented.

Coordination and Communication:

• • A smaller cabinet may not adequately represent a country’s diverse interests and regions, potentially leading to feelings of marginalization among certain groups. This can be particularly problematic in countries with significant regional or ethnic diversity, such as India.
  • Larger cabinets can lead to overlapping responsibilities and conflicts between ministries, complicating coordination and slowing decision-making processes.
  • Maintaining clear and consistent communication becomes more complex with more members. The increased number of voices can lead to confusion and delays in decision- making. In the United Kingdom, larger cabinets have sometimes struggled with maintaining cohesive communication, leading to inefficiencies.
  • Smaller cabinets facilitate more agile and responsive governance. For instance, during Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister of the UK, a smaller cabinet was often seen as more efficient in making swift decisions.

Quality of Expertise:

• • A larger cabinet may allow for a greater depth of expertise and specialization, which could improve the quality of government decisions and actions. However, it could also lead to excessive compartmentalization and a lack of holistic, cross-sectoral approaches.
  • The balance between specialization and generalization shapes this relationship, the ability to attract and retain talent, and the efficiency of decision-making processes.
  • For instance, in Canada, the cabinet includes ministers for diverse portfolios such as Indigenous Services, Environment and Climate Change, and Women and Gender This specialization allows ministers to concentrate on their areas of expertise, leading to more nuanced and effective policies.
  • As the number of ministers increases, individual accountability may decrease. This can lead to ministers being less motivated to develop deep expertise in their portfolios, knowing that responsibility is diffused among many colleagues. In New Zealand, smaller cabinet committees have effectively maintained secrecy and prevented market speculation before major announcements, allowing ministers to focus on their specialized areas without distraction.

Management capacity of the Prime Minister:

• • Effective management can influence the balance between a streamlined, efficient cabinet and a larger, more representative one. Article 75(1) of the Constitution of India states that “The President shall appoint the Prime Minister, and the President shall appoint the other Ministers on the advice of the Prime Minister.”
  • With more ministers, portfolios can be more narrowly defined, allowing each minister to focus on specific areas and develop deep expertise. This specialization can lead to more informed and effective policymaking.
  • During the Brexit negotiations under Theresa May’s government in the UK, disagreements within her large cabinet caused significant tensions. They led to multiple resignations, indicating the difficulty of managing a large, divided cabinet. These disagreements resulted in policy inconsistencies and hindered the government’s ability to negotiate effectively with the EU.

Political Considerations:

• • India’s diverse society necessitates a cabinet that reflects various social, regional, and political groups. This inclusivity is essential for maintaining political stability and ensuring that different communities feel represented in the government.
  • Cabinet positions are often distributed among coalition partners to maintain unity and support. This was evident during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the present National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments, where cabinet size increased to accommodate coalition partners.
  • The distribution of cabinet positions within a single party can be a tool for managing internal factions and rewarding loyalists. The prime Minister can seek to balance different interests within the party by increasing cabinet size.
  • Political considerations such as coalition dynamics and intra-party politics in the UK influence cabinet size. During the coalition government of 2010-2015, Prime Minister David Cameron had to allocate cabinet positions to the Liberal Democrats to maintain coalition support, leading to a larger cabinet than usual.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

• • United Kingdom: The UK typically maintains a relatively small cabinet of around 20-23 members. This compact size is believed to promote efficient decision-making and clear lines of accountability.
  • United States: While not a parliamentary system, the US Cabinet typically consists of 15 department heads plus additional Cabinet-rank officials.
  • Germany: The German Federal Cabinet usually comprises 14-16 ministers. This moderate size is designed to balance representation of key policy areas with operational efficiency.
  • Canada: Canada typically maintains a cabinet of 30-35 members. This size is seen as balancing regional representation (important in a federal system) with operational efficiency.
  • Japan: Japan’s cabinet is typically composed of 17-20 This relatively small size is believed to facilitate quick decision-making and clear accountability.
  • Brazil: Brazil has historically had large cabinets, often exceeding 30 members.
  • South Africa: South Africa has struggled with oversized cabinets, sometimes exceeding 35 members.

Many countries, particularly in the Western world and Global North, tend to favour smaller cabinets (15-25 members) for improved efficiency and accountability. Larger, more diverse countries (like India, Brazil, and South Africa) often struggle to balance regional representation with cabinet efficiency.

CONCLUSION:

Ultimately, achieving optimal governance requires striking a delicate balance between the size of the cabinet and the imperatives of effective leadership and representation. The principle of “minimum government, maximum governance” encapsulates this balance, advocating for a cabinet size justified by governmental work and manageable by the Prime Minister.