There is a crisis in the country at all levels. Most institutions, elite or otherwise seem to be becoming more centralised, impervious to the feedback from below, lacking horizontal and vertical accountability and are also getting alienated from common interest.

Why is such a spectacle being enacted? On one hand we see widespread upsurge of democratic aspirations all around the world, and on the other, we see such centralisation tendencies. Is it because leadership which is insecure, lacks larger social approval, and may have come up through means not always most honourable becomes arrogant and thus indifferent to participative culture. But that is also not true. Many of the popularly elected leaders can have highly centralised way of decision making though they may still get wider social approval through a charisma and connect with popular mood. We should not forget that Hitler was elected democratically and then became so arrogant and indifferent to larger common good that history will never forget it. If a mediocre leader becomes autocratic, it is understandable but why do bright and capable leaders become so indifferent to participative processes?

Where is the hope? It is very reassuring that the need for open and horizontal systems, is being articulated.

It is worthwhile to recall that even large corporations are realising that to get new ideas, they have to open the boundaries of the organization and listen to strangers whose ideas may be very valuable for their growth. In the last ten years, far more cooperate organizations have become open at least internationally if not nationally. Open innovation models are increasingly becoming popular. If companies like GE, DSM and P and G have recognised the limitation of the introvert approach of learning, then various public and private institutions cannot remain impervious to the feedback and feed forward from common people. Even a magazine like Forbes had two years ago used Honey Bee model and asked its readers to design the content for the new year issue (2011).

The openness of culture is imperative and if for no other reason, then just to access creative and innovative ideas, various leaders have to start listening to the voices of the strangers. Even academic institutions have suffered whenever their managers chose to be indifferent to the ideas of various stakeholders including students, faculty, alumni and other users of their facilities. How do we make our institutions more accountable and open and can new technologies and institutional arrangements make a difference? One of the ways in which societal aspiration for greater transparency and accountability can be met is by sharing more information voluntarily with people. One should take a self critical outlook and admit openly those areas in which performance has not been up to the mark. If we criticise ourselves before others do, we will remain a few steps ahead in social reckoning. It does not reduce our self respect or sense of being there. The famous article Jawarharlal Nehru had written in a journal criticising his authoritarian tendencies using pseudonym was very telling in nature. After several decades, it was discovered he had written that article himself.

While there are different ways in which feedback can be sought, but the truth is that it is the lack of basic authenticity which is at the core of crisis of credibility. One cannot be authentic without aligning the inner and the outer of our being. There is no easy way to infuse authenticity in various institutions except that we pursue catharsis more and more. We need to invent institutions of catharsis at various levels so that culture of self criticism takes roots. Hopefully then governance will improve and ownership of ideas and institutions will become more distributed and participative. Indian institutions have to reinvent themselves for rising social aspirations. Current economic conditions will soon pass, and the rising India will need resilient and rejuvenated institutions, and democratic and meritocratic leaders.