Too many voices, too little governance

 Ministers must govern, not grab headlines

............

* BVSee

A government is judged not merely by what it does, but also by what it says—and who says it. By that yardstick, the Karnataka government appears to be suffering from a serious communication disorder. Every other day, one minister or another makes a statement on issues that have little or nothing to do with his official responsibilities. The result is confusion, contradiction and a growing perception that the government speaks in many voices, but with no single authority.

A Cabinet is not a debating society. Nor is every minister a government spokesperson. Parliamentary democracy functions on the principle of collective responsibility, which also demands communication discipline. Ministers are expected to speak authoritatively on matters concerning their own portfolios. Policy decisions affecting the government as a whole are ordinarily articulated by the Chief Minister or by ministers specifically authorised to do so. That distinction appears to have been forgotten in Karnataka.

Ministers such as Satish Jarkiholi have repeatedly commented on issues extending far beyond their departmental responsibilities. In recent months, Yathindra Siddaramaiah,  a minister, but an influential political figure, and senior minister Ramalinga Reddy have also made public remarks on a variety of sensitive political matters. Whether their observations are well-intentioned or otherwise is beside the point. The larger question is whether every leader should be free to speak on behalf of the government whenever the mood strikes.

The impression one gets is that some leaders are eager to remain in the headlines by commenting on every issue under the sun. Governance, however, is not sustained by media visibility but by administrative performance. Public office demands restraint as much as activism. Loose remarks often generate avoidable controversies, compel damage control and divert attention from governance.

The consequence is that citizens are left wondering which statement truly reflects the government's position. One minister says one thing; another promptly offers a different interpretation. Opposition parties seize upon these contradictions, while bureaucrats are left uncertain about the government's actual policy. Such communication chaos weakens the credibility of the administration.

Ironically, Karnataka offers a striking contrast with the functioning of the Union government. Ministers in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Cabinet generally maintain communication discipline, rarely commenting outside their assigned responsibilities. Whether one agrees with the government's policies or not, the message is consistent because ministers understand that collective responsibility also means collective restraint. Public messaging is coordinated, and unauthorised freelancing is uncommon.

Chief Minister shivakumar must recognise that silence, when appropriate, is also an instrument of governance. A government cannot project seriousness if every minister functions as an independent commentator. The Chief Minister must draw clear communication boundaries and insist that ministers focus on delivering results rather than daily headlines.

The message should be simple and unequivocal: work more, speak less, and never speak for the government without authority. Karnataka needs ministers who govern, not commentators who compete for television sound bites. A disciplined Cabinet inspires confidence; an undisciplined one invites ridicule. At present, Karnataka's government risks becoming known more for its noise than for its governance.