Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 2 March 2018
Delhi Governance ‘War’
TIME TO INFUSE ETHICS
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
The ongoing ‘war’ between AAP ministers and
government employees has put a big question mark on the inter-relationship
between different authorities engaged in governance. Not only the Chief
Minister or the Lt Governor, but the Union Home Ministry too needs to take
stock, as at the end of the day it is governance which becomes a victim. More
importantly, Delhi should not set a destructive precedence.
Whether it is official-nonofficial conflict
in local bodies in village panchayats and panchayat samitis, or revenue and
development functional rivalries in district collectorates, or
politician-bureaucrat or minister-administration struggle in State and Central
secretariats, the issue is the relative roles and responsibilities of the two
sides and their limits.
Recall last week, the Chief Secretary being
assaulted by two MLAs in a midnight meeting in the presence of the Chief
Minister hit headlines. Worse, the Delhi police, under the Home Ministry swung
into action and searched the CM’s residence without intimation to seize CCTV
footage of the alleged attack. This marks the lowest level in the
politicians-bureaucrats relationship in the country which is going through
various experiences.
It is near total breakdown of working
relationship between the Ministry and civil servants in Delhi government -- a
situation that demands swift action not only to patch up the present crack, but
to plug the holes in the system. Emphasising the need to “remove mistrust”
between government employees and the elected representatives, the Lt Governor
has now asked the Chief Minister to “reach out directly” to the officers, who
had decided to boycott meetings with political executives till the CM
apologised!
Indeed, the mistrust growing up ever since
AAP government came to power in Delhi burst out on the night of 19th February. It
is not secret that the relation between politicians and bureaucrats was not
cordial ever since AAP came to power in the union territory of Delhi. It is
part of the manifestation of AAP’s discontent with the Constitutional
arrangement governing administration of Delhi that has bestowed substantial
powers to L-G thereby lessening the stature of the Chief Minister compared to the
CMs of other States.
The CM had already revealed his expectation
from his officials in unmistakable terms. In his address to mark the
celebration of the Civil Services Day in 2016, he had said that the bureaucracy
would have to “follow AAP agenda,” and those who had a problem, could “get themselves
transferred, or resign”. The message is straight and simple and defined AAP’s
relationship with the permanent civil service.
The unmatched electoral victory of the AAP
that won 67 out of 70 seats deserves complements, but is no justification for
granting full Statehood for Delhi. Electoral performance does not and cannot decide
Constitutional arrangements. Nor does it permit assumption of powers that are
not granted by law and Constitution. The argument that people will decide
through the ballot box often offered by politicians and even political analysts
regarding the validity of any position is fallacious as votes cannot legalise
illegal actions or condone crimes.
To refresh our memory, the old ICS was
re-created as IAS after independence as an elitist administrative cadre to
function in the same way. The intention was that public service should remain
separate and distinct from the government apparatus and maintain similar
standards of efficiency.
The central feature of the ICS expected also
from the IAS at its creation was neutrality -- political by having no loyalty to
a particular party or groups and administrative by being rule-abiding and
impartial. Efforts to introduce political control over bureaucracy to ensure
loyal implementation of government policies were initially overruled by
protagonists of neutral and procedure-bound bureaucracy.
The tussle between upholders of committed
bureaucracy and neutral bureaucracy started long time back in the early days of
socialistic pattern of society, that is, in the regime of Jawaharlal Nehru.
The term “committed bureaucracy” has come in
common usage in the 1970s during Internal Emergency. The Personnel Department
was taken up by the Prime Minister. The Weberian model
of ideal bureaucracy began to struggle for survival against political need for committed
bureaucracy and administrative requirement for initiative, innovation, and
speed.
Any government wants loyal implementation of
its policies by officials, and some governments and ministers expect in
addition personal loyalty towards political masters. The Administrative Reforms
Commission (1966) recommended that the PM should take special interest in
arresting the growth of unhealthy personal affiliations with individual
ministers among civil servants.
The trend towards conversion of “public
servants” into “private servants” was noticed and condemned by the Supreme
Court in 2013. It recognised the problems faced by the bureaucrats and asked
the Centre to reform the bureaucracy. It recommended fixed tenure for
bureaucrats and recording of oral instructions of political bosses on files.
In actuality, officials because of their
expertise and knowledge, have become indispensable for policy-making and have
gradually crossed their traditional limits. Post of Special Advisors have been
created to enrich government machinery, a development criticised in the UK as
political appointees hoisted over civil service. Parliamentary Secretaries
appointed by AAP government faced similar criticism.
On the other hand, political competition
becoming more and more bitter, policy makers began to insist openly and
secretively on personal loyalty for their survival and success. The two
developments taking place simultaneously, clashes became inevitable.
Power of politicians over bureaucrats is
supreme through the power of posting and transfer which had grown as an
industry. The Civil Service Survey Report, 2010 noted that this power was a
means of coercion and harassment of honest officers. The power is extensively
used and results in wholesale change of Secretaries, higher-up officials of the
police, and heads of various boards whenever government changes. Indiscriminate
use of these powers as a punishment for neutral and inflexible bureaucrats
unable to appreciate and bow to the loyalty factor causes friction in governance.
In parliamentary democracies, tussle between
ministers and his department secretary is quite common. In the orthodox model
in Britain, the Minister is viewed as the overlord of his department and his
civil servants as officials to carry out his orders “faithfully, ungrudgingly,
and unhesitatingly”. This doctrine has changed after 1954. The strict division
of responsibility between Ministers and civil servants weakened. Civil servants legally act on behalf of
Ministers, but have no legal responsibility in their own right.
There are instances of Secretaries losing
their posts for failure to implement policy decisions in UK. Political loyalty
also offers remunerative and lucrative openings besides direct benefits to
bureaucrats. The politics of patronage has entrenched itself in politician-bureaucrat
relationship.
The midnight Drama enacted in Delhi is a wake-up
call for reform of our system and to insulate public administration from
political pressures. The question before us is to infuse ethics in governance.
Who will respond better--politicians or bureaucrats? A million dollar question!---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|