In the initial years of the present Central government’s tenure, there used to be a slogan: ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’. However, governance today is as maximum or minimum as it always was. And the government has undoubtedly become maximum, contrary to the slogan. Implementation of programmes, schemes and projects has remained more or less unchanged in its essential approach and style. There are, of course, far superior models of responsive and speedy administration in many countries. Many such initiatives could be customised for Indian conditions—with the political will to overhaul the pace and quality of administration. This is not to deny that e-governance initiatives have made a remarkable difference, particularly in income tax, railways and many such public utilities. But such facilitation in a few areas is not the outcome of any continuous and drastic administrative reform in the government.
Confronted with the procedural labyrinth in which several initiatives get trapped, the government reacted in an evasive and self-deceptive style. Instead of bringing about radical changes to revamp the present administrative culture, the government chose to appoint individuals from the private sector at the joint secretary level. In one stroke, it alienated the bureaucracy by proclaiming the government’s lack of trust in the premier civil services, and devaluing their experience and skills in managing the affairs of the government. The inducted personnel, too, were at a disadvantage as they found themselves on an alien planet of precedents, procedures, political sensitivity and vague outcomes. Another response that reinforced the government’s lack of faith in the bureaucracy and its practices is the increasing dependence on consultants.
Today, the role of consultants in the Central government has acquired unprecedented critical value. The value gained by consultants in a ministry is equivalent to the value lost by the permanent bureaucracy. Although consultants will be able to accomplish their (limited) tasks, this may not improve the system in the long run.
Permanent bureaucracy has, by definition, greater accountability than fly-by-night consultants, who do not have any long-term stake in the department. Engaging consultants per se is not a bad idea, provided there are conscious mechanisms in place for empowering the permanent bureaucracy. No such compulsion seems to have bothered those who are eager only to hire consultants.
With the present government’s impatience to monetise public assets and privatise crucial and often profit-making public sector units, the role of the bureaucracy has become more risky and difficult. Civil servants by nature are overly cautious, more so when dealing with the private sector. Protecting the government’s interests always remains the topmost priority in their minds while finalising the complex modalities of privatisation. But when the government’s priority is to welcome the private sector with as many incentives as possible, the bureaucrat, who weighs the long-term loss to the government, will be looked at as a nuisance and an obstacle, out of sync with modern times. That makes consultants inevitable, as they sing the tune the government wants to hear. But unlike a consultant, a civil servant is always aware of the risk of a future enquiry, when the blame would squarely be laid on the officers who signed rather than those who forced them to sign.
In such crucial areas, the government ought to have drastically changed the rules and protected the honest officers from the scope of future enquiries. Even as the government fast-forwards asset monetisation and privatisation, the rules that were framed for an earlier era when the government had monopoly over several sectors—can prove to be hazardous. No administrative reforms have been put in place equipping the bureaucracy with the required freedom, skills and immunity. The administrative efficiency of a government can be tested by the quality and speed of decision-making. This could be gauged on four parameters: delegation, accountability, empowerment and clarity. It is a matter of concern that vis-à-vis these four key aspects, no tangible initiative has been taken. In spite of the technological revolution sweeping through the globe and our lives, the Government of India’s speed of decision-making and style of communication with citizens still remain as high-handed, unpredictable and slow. (And the language of official communications has become even more terse and intimidating.)
The ‘inclusiveness’ that is often preached hardly finds a place in the government’s decision-making process, which has become more and more exclusionist, rigorous and skewed. As long as there is a disconnect between the good-to-hear proclamations by top leaders and their actions towards actually keeping up to those promises, bureaucratic decision-making will remain mechanical and cautious. When uncertain and confused, the bureaucracy plays safe. This is more evident in decisions related to programmes having a citizen interface.
Instead of delegating powers and enforcing greater accountability, it is the centralisation of powers and expectation of compliance that define today’s administrative culture. Where empowerment and clarity of bureaucracy should have been aimed at, training remains routine, and the definitions of roles and outcomes continue to be vague. When there is a baffling contradiction between intent and action, clarity becomes a dangerous virtue. Earlier, the bureaucracy had constitutional values to navigate troubled waters, but those coordinates, too, seem to have lost their certainty and utility.
With the realisation of an unmistakable mismatch between true intent and rhetoric, the bureaucracy cannot be expected to operate at its peak capacity. Civil servants perform best when there is reassurance, clarity and conviction. Along with this, the bureaucracy has also been receiving the message of being perceived as an ‘unproductive liability’ that is not capable of addressing new tasks. This invariably creates a chasm between the political executive and the bureaucracy. The fact that the government has been rather sluggish in addressing serious administrative reforms shows this ‘lack of faith’. That message is corrosive to a bureaucracy that should ideally be groomed and empowered as the engine of service delivery and development.
K Jayakumar
Former Kerala Chief Secretary and ex-VC, Thunchath Ezhuthachan Malayalam University
(k.jayakumar123@gmail.com)