Reforming Governance: The Struggle for Efficiency in U.S. and India

• Voters in both nations desire transparency, efficiency, and real impact; however, existing systems complicate reform efforts.
• In the U.S., even conceptual ideas like DOGE resonate with voters disillusioned by inefficiency, pushing them toward candidates advocating streamlined governance.
• The U.S. must reconcile federal oversight with decentralisation, while India must revive its reformist zeal to overcome bureaucratic inertia.

As the U.S. concludes its recent election, the results reveal a stark reality: political campaigns are filled with promises of change, yet achieving genuine governance reform remains challenging. This year’s election highlighted a significant ideological divide between the US-right and left, each claiming to represent the people but through vastly different visions. 

The US-right advocates for reduced government oversight and deregulation to empower individual and corporate innovation, while the left emphasises inclusivity and expanded government programs to support diverse communities. Both sides, however, confront the same entrenched challenge: America’s sprawling bureaucracy resists swift or meaningful change.

Leaders like Elon Musk embody a desire for “less government, more efficiency,” challenging what he perceives as the stagnation of “Big Government.” Musk’s influence reflects a broader yearning for decentralised governance and efficiency, aligning with concepts like DOGE—Department Of Governance Efficiency. While DOGE remains largely conceptual, its core message resonates: bypassing excessive bureaucracy in favour of a streamlined, tech-driven system. Musk and other tech leaders advocate for reducing red tape to enable innovation. However, Washington’s reality is different; federal agencies maintain significant oversight, making sweeping changes nearly impossible.

Parallels Between India and US

When Narendra Modi first assumed office, his slogan “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance” resonated with a populace weary of red tape. Like Musk’s vision, Modi aimed to streamline Indian bureaucracy and enhance governance effectiveness. Early successes included the digitalization of public services and increased efficiency in finance through initiatives like the Unified Payments Interface (UPI). Yet, despite these early wins, India’s reforms have encountered similar barriers. The weight of “babudom” and entrenched institutionalism has slowed progress, leaving Modi’s administration facing a growing complexity in bureaucracy as he navigates his third term.

Both nations grapple with a paradox: nationalist forces in the U.S. and India call for “less government” but often centralise power in ways that contradict this aim. For instance, while American conservatives push for deregulation, they also emphasise strong federal responses to immigration and national security. Similarly, Modi promotes decentralisation while consolidating power at the central level to drive national programs. Meanwhile, the left in both countries advocates for more inclusivity but often hesitates to streamline institutions due to fears of undermining essential services.

Voters in both nations desire transparency, efficiency, and real impact; however, existing systems complicate reform efforts. Ideological divides have deepened governance into a battleground for competing ideologies rather than fostering bipartisan policy progress. The ideal of “less government, more governance” remains appealing but often dissipates when confronted with bureaucratic bottlenecks.

Governance Reforms: Navigating Bureaucratic Resistance in Two Democracies

Both the United States and India share a common struggle: despite promises of governance reform, entrenched bureaucratic systems often resist swift or meaningful change. For example, efforts to modernise immigration processes in the U.S. have frequently been delayed by federal agencies’ adherence to established protocols. Similarly, in India, the implementation of policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) faced hurdles due to inter-departmental coordination challenges, highlighting the systemic resistance to change.

Reforms aimed at reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies, such as the conceptual Department of Governance Efficiency (DOGE) in the U.S. or India’s Digital India initiative, have a tangible impact on voter trust. In the U.S., even conceptual ideas like DOGE resonate with voters disillusioned by inefficiency, pushing them toward candidates advocating streamlined governance. Meanwhile, India’s success with initiatives like UPI has underscored the potential of digital reforms, earning the Modi government significant voter goodwill.

In India, the political narrative of governance reform demands a nuanced understanding. For instance:

• In India, decentralisation efforts like Panchayati Raj coexist with a strong central push for nationwide reforms, such as Swachh Bharat and Ayushman Bharat, showcasing an attempt to balance these priorities rather than centralise unilaterally.
• Contrastingly, left-wing ideologies often emphasise institutionally driven inclusivity. In India, however, the inclusivity narrative frequently lacks traction due to ideological fragmentation and challenges in addressing ground realities comprehensively.

Can Governments Embrace Real Reform?

Modi’s motto “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance” has been central to his governance since his first term. His initial vision aimed to streamline bureaucracy and enhance transparency. However, reality often diverges from this ideal; in India, red tape continues to hinder reform efforts as Modi’s initial zeal faces bureaucratic resistance.

As Modi steers the government in his third term, it remains uncertain whether he can revive early reformist energy or remain ensnared in bureaucratic complexity. In the U.S., similar challenges arise as established structures resist rapid change despite calls for streamlined governance.

With new governments established in both countries, crucial choices about decentralisation and governance reform loom large. Modi’s third term is anticipated with hope yet scepticism; failure to address bureaucratic inefficiencies may signal a departure from his original promise of “Maximum Governance.” Recent elections in the U.S. have reinforced divisions over centralization versus deregulation.

Imperative for Simplified Governance

Streamlining governance is no longer a domestic priority alone; it is a global necessity for nations aspiring to lead in an increasingly digital world. For India, addressing bureaucratic resistance is critical to ensuring that initiatives like Gati Shakti deliver on their promises. The U.S. faces a similar challenge with balancing state and federal dynamics to drive innovation.

For global power dynamics, simplifying governance models will be essential for leveraging technological advancements and maintaining leadership in an increasingly digital landscape. Both India and the U.S., however, risk losing out on potential benefits if they remain bound by outdated bureaucratic frameworks.

The US elections have raised lingering questions about governance reform in both nations. Ideological divides complicate substantive reform efforts as institutional inertia blocks innovation pathways like DOGE-like concepts of decentralised governance. To remain competitive globally, India and the U.S. require more than incremental reforms; they need fundamental shifts in their approaches to governance.

As both nations stand at critical junctures, their ability to navigate governance challenges will define their global standing. The U.S. must reconcile federal oversight with decentralisation, while India must revive its reformist zeal to overcome bureaucratic inertia. The aspiration for governance reform remains strong, but delivering tangible results will require sustained political will and adaptive strategies.

Sahana A