 |
|
| Kathmandu Monday April 08, 2002 Chaitra 26, 2058. |
|
On bureaucracy and bureaucrats
By BIMAL WAGLE
Bureaucracy by definition is an institution
governed by certain rules and regulations; and through the acceptance of given rules and
regulations by bureaucrats and political leaders, bureaucracy acquires its permanent
entity. That’s why political leaders who form the government may come and go, but the
bureaucracy remains as an institution. Bureaucrats and political leaders in the government
are particularly responsible for maintaining the decorum of bureaucracy. Basically, it is
the strength of technocratic knowledge and skill that determines the extent of influence
bureaucrats and political leader in the government can exert on the functioning of the
government. This is why it is normally said that if ministers are not efficient enough as
compared to bureaucrats policy decisions will be influenced by bureaucrats in substantial
extent and vice versa.
Above all, whether or not bureaucracy exists
in its true sense can be found out on the basis of adherence to given rules and
regulations by both bureaucrats and political leaders. No doubt bureaucrats are
subordinate to the political boss in terms of their status in the overall executive
organization. Both political bosses and bureaucrats should abide equally by the given
rules and regulations. So both parties should warn each other if any of them tries to
exceed the given rules and regulation. Actually this also indicates how far they are
committed to the cause of public interest.
Since the last few years it has been observed
that the Nepalese bureaucracy is getting weaker compared to what it was before. And the
reasons behind such weakness, apart from others, is the absence of courage on the part of
high level bureaucrats to react when ministers go on violating established norms, rules
and regulations. As a matter of fact, the overall impression is that high level
bureaucrats instead of warning and reacting to the breach of established norms, rules and
regulations, are accustomed to conniving, extending co-operation and perpetuating the
violation of norms, rules and regulations.
It may be because some high-level bureaucrats
lack the strength of character to resist the violations. Undoubtedly, this spoils the
whole bureaucratic culture. So high level bureaucrats must be bold enough to bring even
their political boss within the ambit of rules and regulations. But, how to go about this?
An individual secretary, the highest ranking
bureaucrat in a ministry, seems always on the grip of the political boss- usually the
minister. The degree of authority a secretary can exercise basically depends on the mercy
of the minister. If the secretary does not follow what the minister wants, he can
immediately be transferred to the reserve pool, a place without any functions. This is
what experience has shown. A secretary so transferred will normally be painted with
political colour and in some extreme cases he becomes an untouchable among his colleagues.
This is all but natural, particularly in bureaucracy where the respect lies not in the
credibility, integrity, honesty and capability but in one’s access to the ruling
party government. So in such a bureaucracy, a civil servant eclipsed at one moment becomes
a full moon when there is change in the ruling party. This situation is absolutely
detrimental to both politicians and the bureaucrats; and to the continuity of bureaucracy
as a system.
At this juncture high level bureaucrats can
do something to alleviate such ailing factors prevailing in the bureaucracy. For this let
there be a solidarity among the secretaries who claim themselves to be honest, capable and
committed to the cause of duty. If anything goes against the rules and regulations in any
ministry or executive department and this is beyond the control of an individual secretary
to present this issue at the secretaries’s meeting, which takes place regularly under
the chairmanship of the chief secretary. Let that meeting make a resolution on principle
in relation to that issue and propose the resolution to the cabinet through chief
secretary. Since the chief secretary is secretary to the cabinet, this is the right way to
proceed. If high level bureaucrats are ready enough to go along with this strategy, there
is no doubt such anomalies can be controlled. Each cabinet minister clearly understands
that the image of the cabinet is a function of the behavior of individual ministers. All
cabinet ministers, normally, do not want to be defamed by dint of the misconduct of an
individual minister. Similarly on the other hand the political boss should always be ready
to locate and warn the secretary if anything goes against the established norms, rules and
regulations. This also helps to activate a system of checks and balances in the process of
governance.
The kind of belief people expect in a multiparty democratic
system is that the political life of politicians exists in society and no political boss
wants anybody to go against the verdict of the people to whom ultimate answerability
rests. In order to realise this belief both the political bosses and high level
bureaucrats should co-operate with each other in warding off anomalies.
Other Stories
|
