Al Ngullie
Interference in the functioning of civil servants by politically motivated interests, individuals and otherwise, has of late developed into a colossal stumbling block towards realizing an efficient, dedicated and unbiased bureaucracy in the country. It has led to exploitation of the system by power-hungry politicians, calculatedly ‘oblivious’ to the values of the constitution to preserve public recruitment agencies as unbiased welfare-State entities responsible to the democratic aspirations of the citizens.
Keeping in mind this obstacle – retentive of interference from political lobbyists, parties and quasi-governmental agencies till now– the Union government has woken up to the issue of politicians donning the prerogative of arbitration pertaining to matters of recruitment, posting and performance of Civil servants. The Cabinet has begun taking steps by devising an authoritative mechanism to act as a bulwark against ‘external persuasion’.
The steps are that, existing service rules governing Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officers are slated to be amended to ensure a transparent and unhindered bureaucratic set-up thereby limit unwarranted arbitration from Politicians. One of the rules to be revised seeks to adopt zero-tolerance policy against political interference in matters pertaining to posting of IAS officers, simultaneous with a clause for initiating stringent action against corrupt bureaucrats without having to elicit approval from State governments responsible for a particular cadre within its jurisdiction.
Favoritism in cadre-selections (which often reeks of opportunistic political hands), appointments as well as in the posting of civil servants, has persistently characterized the Indian bureaucratic system thanks to election-expediency-friendly politicians conveniently complemented by hapless State ‘vanguard’ agencies stripped of any teeth to curb the menace. The Union government’s decision to amend the existing service rules of Civil servants would mean a greater extent of accountability, transparency and perhaps a considerable level of honesty from civil servants in their responsibilities.
If initial pronouncements by lawmakers and overriding officials are anything to go by, the proposed amendment would accommodate certain control-mechanisms to directly initiate action against corrupt officials found guilty of exploiting the recruiting/posting process in any way. It is implicit of tying up meddling politicians’ hands by tying the hands of the civil servants themselves – politicians, by controlling public administrators, exercise control over public administration.
Another plus point in the Union government’s move to cleanse the system is the possible inclusion of a clause to deter appointment of corrupt civil functionaries to top posts, thereby giving a chance for the right people to man the helm of civil administration.
Furthermore, a proposal to review the necessary criteria involved to qualify officers to certain postings, is also understood to be taking shape. This would encompass taking into account the concerned officer’s credentials of specialization, expertise and so on. For instance, on account of the officer’s specialization in a particular sector he would be given preference over other civil servants to occupy that particular specialized post. It is a fact that IAS officers are often forced into sections of administration they have little or no specialization in. This precedent is a by-product of the British Raj which initiated incoherent administrative arrangements to suit the whims and fancies of the British Empire without accounting for the concerned civil servant’s area of professional-specialty.
If the proposal, to curb the needless intrusion by vested political interests into the domain of public administration materializes, the possible impact would herald a new, practically definitive dimension to the subject of public accountability. In the first place, elected political representatives would have to traverse the PMO’s office to clear an appointment, in case an attempt is made, that is. Relatively, an impartial and transparent assessment for IAS posting would be in effect, courtesy the Central Ministry of Personnel, directly under directives from the Union Government to discourage ‘external’ factors from deciding which officer should be posted where and when. Secondly, the Ministry of Personnel would be directly responsible only to the Union should any discrepancy results – thereby under no obligation to answer to vested political interests or be pressurized to concede to the demands of politicians. It would mean nepotism and favoritism gets the fire bath. Thirdly, non-deserving officers won’t be promoted to or appointed to top posts under political pressure. On the by, corrupt officials too would come under direct scrutiny and conveniently punitive action be taken against them. Finally, administrative mechanisms would come under greater public scrutiny.
India, still learning to keep pace its pseudo-advanced agricultural legacy with the practically definitive and competitive aspects of globalization, has yet to reinvent its legal obligations to pave way for welfare-conscious citizens to believe in the system again. What is imperative at the moment is not restructuring welfare institutions but a complete transformation, or for want of a better word, reinvention, of public institutions from within. Restructuring, by itself implies a new arrangement but with the same components used in propping up the original structure. This means only the peripheral ‘form’ is altered and not the fundamental nature of the structure itself. So in the final analysis, the so-called Transformed institution remains the same as the untransformed institution since it is still made up of the same components of build. Conversely, Transformation is about redefining the basic components from within; replacing the components with new ones and reinventing the framework itself. Ultimately, the effect is not only an altered form but a totally new objective, in itself.
Likewise, unless an earnest effort, validated by legal means, is initiated to transform and purge the inherent discrepancies impacted from political exigencies in the entire system, the common man stands justified in his opinion that the entire system is still corrupt. After all, corruption has never been exclusive to street criminals only. Or a regressed system.
The proposed measures by the Union government are indicative of pro-people activism quite uncharacteristic of power-holders who devise policies in accordance with political expediencies .These political expediencies decide what policy a government should follow. The bold move to amend the existing service rules of administrators, although long overdue, will definitely hearten the people and to a great extent keep wanton political hands out of the soup. And perhaps, usher in a new form of ‘democratic bureaucracy,’ sensitive to the ever-vital issues of governmental accountability and peoples’ welfare. And that’s democracy in its highest form embodiment.
