Along Longkumer
Consulting Editor
All of us are aware that in the area of governance the executive is largely responsible to see to it that it functions accordingly i.e. to get the job done. The legislature and the judiciary is there to put a check on any abuse of power that may take place and all three are the organs of the government. The executive consists of the permanent officials under whom the large scale administrative task is assigned. Then we have the political executives who are the de-facto power. They are the ones who run the affairs of the government assisted by the permanent executive or the bureaucracy. The kind of relationship between the two set of executive is vital because both are essential and one cannot do without the other. The permanent executive is the one who is professionally appointed based on a merit system and he or she is a career civil servant whose job is permanently secured. On the other hand the political executive (Minister) is elected and enjoys the mandate of the people and therefore that person is empowered to take decisions based on his wisdom and discretion. But unlike the bureaucrat, the politician can be voted out of power and replaced. So some would argue that the politician is at least accountable to the people (during elections) but the bureaucrat is not accountable to anyone and enjoys job security. However not all bureaucrats may agree with this and some may question instead as to why politicians are not being held accountable? This was precisely the resentment brought out by the top bureaucrats in Andhra Pradesh who were complaining against the manner in which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had arrested IAS officers and questioned many of them in connection with a slew of corruption scams.
In an interesting development in Nagaland, a ‘breach of privilege motion’ was moved against a Secretary (bureaucrat) by the Opposition Congress party during one of the Budget Session of the Assembly in the last term of the NPF led DAN government. The fault of the Secretary was that certain information was withheld related to an un-starred question asked by one of the Opposition MLA. Now the question is where does the buck stop: at the desk of a Minister or that of the bureaucrat who signs the files? In the case of the breach of privilege it is quite obvious that the Secretary was merely obeying what his political master was directing him to do. Even if the government servant signs on a file or order, it is the political executive who makes the decision. So there is every possibility that if a major scam is unearthed it is not the politician who will be held accountable but rather the bureaucrats will be hounded. And hasn’t this happened in Nagaland also? And so it is also a good time for the civil servants to reflect on their code of conduct and whether they should be merely following orders and making compromise with the political executive. The bureaucrats in Nagaland should become more conscious of their due assigned role and duty. We need officers who are independent, fearless and having a mind of their own. Otherwise people should not be blamed if they equate bureaucrats with the corrupt political class. In the end, the kind of relationship between the politician and the civil servant is therefore very crucial in determining the outcome of day to day government and its functioning. The relationship must be one of honesty, transparency and equals and not one of secrecy, corrupt mindset and servitude.
(Feedback can be send to consultingeditormex@gmail.com)
