But what if the degree of mutual distrust, as has been in the case of India and Pakistan, is still so high, that it does not provide an environment for creation of such institutions? Compounding the problem is also the fact that there are, as someone pointed out recently, there are many Pakistans and it is difficult to gauge who actually you are engaging, putting into question, the sustainability of any such engagement.
The alternative, for the moment at least, is an unified prevention, protection, response and recovery system. Some of the key elements of this system would be an ubiquitous intelligence web, fully integrated with the executive, law enforcement, investigative elements, response units, civil defence and presumably, the criminal justice system, fire and ambulance services, hospitals, private sector representatives and citizen councils among others - essentially, all stakeholders in the response network. The role of private security organizations would need to be reviewed as these provide for custom security requirements of the private sector over and above that given by the federal and state systems. Information is key. Integrated collection and processing web upstream connects seamlessly to a downstream distribution web through the collation and analysis nodes with each stage of the interchange having its in-built governance mechanisms.
The good news is that all the elements needed for such an institution exist today. What is missing is only the integrated institutional framework.
To integrate the existing elements into a unified framework, some understanding of institutionalization is necessary. Institutionalization can be measured along three dimensions: commonality, specificity and differentiation. Commonality refers to the degree to which expectations about appropriate behaviour are shared by stakeholders. Specificity refers to the degree to which specific and enduring rules exist, governing the practices of officials, the obligation of related organizations and legitimate procedures for changing collective policy. Functional differentiation refers to the extent to which the institution assigns different roles to different members. In the absence of visionary and strong leadership, this exercise would, yet again, deteriorate into another bureaucracy within a bureaucracy.
The national strategy for this initiative could be defined as a national effort to (a) prevent terrorist attacks within India (b) reduce India's vulnerability to terrorism (c) minimize the damage and (d) recover from attacks that do occur. This definition should help the government more effectively administer, fund and coordinate activities both inside and outside the proposed new structure and ensure all parties are focused on the same goals and objectives. The initial challenges of the leadership role would entail (a) establishing a leadership structure for national security (b) defining the roles of different levels of government (c) developing performance goals and measures and (d) deploying appropriate tools to best acheive and sustain national goals. The structure would integrate existing organizations, many of which are already entrenched within a ministry or the cabinet secretariat, from a federal level down to the jurisdiction of well over 10,000 police stations across the country. Acheiving national preparedness and response goals hinges on the central government's ability to form effective partnerships with state and local entities. Decision makers will have to balance the national interest of preventiona nd preparedness with the unique needs and interests of local communities. A 'one-size-fits-all' approach will not serve to leverage the assets and capabilities that reside within state and local governments and the private sector. By working collectively with the state and local governments, the central government gains the resources and expertise of the people closest to the challenge. This is not entirely without risk. The state and local governments may not share the same priorities for use of federal funds. This divergence of priorities can result in state and local governments simply replacing their own previous levels of committment in these areas with the new federal resources. From the state and local perspective, engagement with central programs opens them up to potential central preemption and mandates. From the public perspective, partnerships if not clearly defined, risk blurring responsibility for the outcome of public programs.
Initiatives at all levels would also need accountability metrics in terms of a baseline set of goals and measures upon which to assess and improve many of its initiatives to prevent attacks, reduce the nation's vulnerability to attacks, or minimize the damage and recovering from attacks that do occur. Performance measures will need to be used to evaluate effectiveness of programs, alowing agencies to measure their progress make resource allocation decisions, and adjust priorities. As national strategy and related implementation plans evolve, clearer performance expectations will emerge. Given the need for a highly integrated approach to the security challenge, national performance goals and measures may best be developed in a collaborative way involving all levels of government and the private sector.
Assessing the capability of state and local governments to respond to catastrophic terror strikes is an important feature of the national strategy and the responsibilities of the new framework. The national strategy should recognize the importance of standards and performance measures in areas such as training, equipment and communications. For example, the national strategy may propose the establishment of national standards for emergency response training and preparedness. These standards would require certan coursework for individuals to receive and maintain certification as first responders and for state and local governments to receive central grants. The national strategy could establish simulation programs or exercises to educate and evaluate civilian response personnel at all levels of government. It would require individuals and government bodies to complete successfully at least one exercise every year. The new framework could use these exercises to measure performance and allocate future resources.
Communication and communication interoperability would be a key requirement across all levels where standards, protocols and processes would need to be developed. It would also require setting national standards for technology acquisition. Central grants can be tied with state and local government procurement of terrorism-related communication equipment to this communication plan.
The choice and design of policy tools to engage and involve all levels of government and the private sector will have important consequences for performance and accountability. Governments have a variety of policy tools including grants, regulations, tax incentives, and information sharing mechanisms to motivate or mandate other levels of government or the private sector to address security concerns. The choice of policy tools will affect sustainability fo efforts, accountability and flexibility, and targeting of resources. The design of central policy will play a vital role in determining success and ensuring that scarce funds are used to acheive critical national goals.
Bottomline, the focus would be on strategy, structure, culture, process and systems - the five elements of performance and organizational effectiveness.
