Governance: Civil Service & Politician Interface By B K Chaturvedi

     " It has to be emphasized that the onus is on civil servants to strengthen public administration and good governance. However, while working as part of policy making or field responsibilities, it may be useful to understand the nature of the relationship between the political executive and the civil service. It is also necessary to appreciate the enormous inconvenience and widespread corruption faced by the people while availing public service"

Two important issues facing the nation today are how the economic growth can be accelerated and how benefits of growth and development can flow to the citizens in an efficient manner. Issues of governance have increasingly come to centre stage while working out strategies for the above. There is a strong view that corruption in civil service is endemic and funds provided by government leak very badly. I recall a recent discussion during a book launch when it was argued that from the famous fifteen paisa reaching the poor man, the amount is now reduced to five paisa. There are large technological changes taking place in our society. The aspirations and expectations of citizens from the government system are of delivery of service of the highest order of excellence.

The independence of civil service in giving advice in policy-making and in performing field responsibilities is an important issue which has affected the functioning of the civil service in recent years. In the Constituent Assembly of India, on 10th October, 1949, Sardar Vallabh Bai Patel said:“If you want an efficient all-India service, I advise you to allow the service to open their mouth freely. If you are a Premier, it would be your duty to allow your Secretary, or Chief Secretary, or other services working under you, to express their opinion without fear or favour. But I see a tendency today that in several provinces, the services are set upon and told, “No, you, are servicemen, you must carry out our orders.” The Union will go, you will not have a united India, if you do not have a good all-India service which has the independence to speak out its mind, which has a sense of security that you will stand by your word and that after all, there is the Parliament, of which we can be proud, where their rights and privileges are secure. If you do not adopt this course, then do not follow the present Constitution.”

And further: “Today my Secretary can write a note opposed to my views. I have given that freedom to all my Secretaries. I have told them, “If you do not give your honest opinion for fear that it will displease your Minister, please then you had better go. I will bring another Secretary,” I will never be displeased over a frank expression of opinion."  the 1950s1 and even the early 1960s, the relationship between political executive and civil service was of trust and non-partisan functioning of the civil service. This trust has gradually given way to segmentation of civil servants and their politicisation in many cases. Two different types of relationships have emerged. First covers those, who try to maintain a degree of integrity and upright behaviour. Second covers those senior civil servants, who cosy up to the political executive and go along with them, irrespective of the civil service norms, good conduct or ethical behaviour. Often, the second category is bifurcated when the political power is transferred from one political party to the other. Invariably, one group of the committed faction of civil service starts its innings in close proximity with the political executive and the other committed class is put in the dog house. Of the first category, the number is gradually dwindling. There is increasingly a feeling that civil servants who fall in this category may not be treated fairly by the political class in respect of their assignments, transfers or their other service matters.

An important point, which is often overlooked in the above context, is the requirement of citizens for good governance. This is invariably a casualty when the political executive and the civil service cosy up to each other forgetting the norms for good administration. The Civil Service provides an exciting opportunity full of challenges. There are very few services which provide such a vast range of challenges, a mix of field and policy making opportunity and opportunity to act as a key player in the national growth process. One has to be proud of one’s work and dedication to get full satisfaction from these challenges. These, however, require qualities which one has to develop.

Senior civil servants belonging to All India Services (AIS) have a special responsibility, in case they are to live up to the commitment with which they have entered the service. Business as usual cannot deliver results. The civil service has to live up to certain norms of behaviour which, in the long run will bring them success, but may be painful in the short run. At times, acting in accordance with laws and rules or pointing out their implications may be termed as risk-aversing behaviour. One may be assigned inconsequential jobs. There can be others who may try to get short-run advantages by using their closeness to political masters. In the long-run, however, persons who have acted in accordance with norms and delivered results are generally able to come up and be recognized. Such civil servants are well-respected by peer groups, subordinates, the people and even the political parties across the spectrum.

Civil Service has to follow norms of professional conduct. These will not only bring good governance agenda on centre stage, but also once again enhance the reputation of the All India Service as that of a steel frame which serves the country for growth and prosperity. It will also help in development of confidence of people in the civil services and earn them new respect.2 Let me highlight some norms for civil servants:
First, maintain high personal integrity. The strength of civil service is people’s faith in their absolute incorruptibility and honesty. This is specially so in top civil servants who should be absolutely beyond reproach. This gives you strength to get your way with the political executive who respect such officers. Even in corrupt regimes, such officers are respected.

Second, be fair in administering law, policies and administrative decisions. The biggest strength of civil servants is people’s faith in their impartial and fair actions and transparent functioning. Do make positive efforts to ensure that your decisions appear fair and transparent in people’s eyes as well. It is worth several battalions of paramilitary forces.

Third, people respect you for your knowledge and skills. Acquire thorough knowledge and develop an analytical ability to fully assess and understand issues which need to be addressed with adequate attention to details. Decisions arrived at, after full understanding of issues, are likely to be implementable and deliver expected results.

Fourth, field jobs, on which civil service often has to spend time, provide an opportunity for change in the system. Your motto should be to deliver results and work as an effective field officer. This may require taking tough and unpopular decisions. It often requires “out of the box” thinking and taking action against the corrupt. Don’t hesitate while taking the right action. But be fair and just in your decisions. You may have to face difficult times in some cases.

Fifth, Good Governance is a Fundamental Right of the citizen. Identify gaps in public service delivery and implementation of schemes. Identify rules and regulations which are hampering progress and suggest changes to Government. Use innovation and adoption of best practices in implementation and encourage its development in your team. Be openminded and mentally receptive to new ideas. Delivery of public services, if done efficiently, leads to consumer satisfaction, optimum use of financial resources, economic betterment and lower corruption.

Sixth, the biggest disservice to the governance structure is to hesitate in taking decisions or deliberately avoiding it. Do not hesitate to take decisions. If you have reservations on your ability or are worried about being responsible for its consequence, don’t join the civil service. The entire career in civil service is about taking decisions and making clear policy recommendations for decision taking. Acts of omission often may go unnoticed or not punished. These are, however, extremely harmful for good governance.

Seventh, in civil service you may invariably be the leader of the pack. Assume full responsibility for achieving the targets and key performance parameters of the organization which you are heading. Learn to delegate authority but ensure effective leadership. This can come if you are perceived by your organization as not prone to blaming subordinates for shortcomings in any targets. This will earn respect from subordinates, colleagues and even seniors. It is an excellent remedy for success of leadership.

Eighth, be sensitive to the needs of poor, especially marginalised groups, women, SC/ST and minorities. These are the groups which need your support the most. By effective implementation of programmes for them and your empathy for their welfare, you can help build an egalitarian society. Affirmative actions in their favour build confidence in civil service.

Ninth, the political executive makes policies in consultation with civil servants for attaining certain objectives for the welfare of people. While advising Ministers and working as senior civil servants, analyse all the reasonable policy options which can be considered on the issue under examination. Examine also whether a policy, that the government is wanting to implement, is under any political compulsion and has short-term benefits only and not in the long-term national interest. If so, put forth your views clearly and logically. Suggest quite clearly, with reasons, why you consider any policy option as the most appropriate and meeting the policy objectives.

While giving advice, do not anticipate what the Minister may like to hear. State what you consider the most appropriate course of action. You will be respected in the long run by peers, as well as the political executive.

Tenth, do not criticise Government policies in public discussions. As a civil servant, the responsibility on you is to provide support to the government to enable it to defend the policies. By criticising it, you are undermining government, as well as yourself. If the issue is really serious and you do not think that you can live with such government policies, you should consider quitting the job and undertake other assignments.

Eleventh, develop inter-personal skills. In the modern world with wide range of organisations, private sector expansion and technological explosion, it is important that you have good relations with persons from different sectors to enable you to access them when needed. It increases your effectiveness while handling difficult issues in the field.

Twelfth, adapt to IT use, new technologies and their use to ensure good governance. Information technology can help reduce delays, ensure efficient delivery of public services and cut down corruption. You must be, therefore, fully cognisant of its use and potential. Simplifying administrative procedures promotes good governance.

Thirteenth, prepare well in advance to ensure effective articulation of the view point of your Ministry. Put forward your point of view concisely and in a focused manner. It is important that you absorb fully the issues at hand and are clear in your mind about the approach which you wish to take in any inter-ministerial forum.

Fourteenth, develop the ability to listen to visitors and different points of view carefully and patiently. An enormous amount of feedback about problems in the field and different approaches can be had in this manner. This is the best learning method.

Fifteenth, develop the ability to integrate and form a consensus view point consistent with the policy objective planned. While doing so, you should be able to evaluate and assess the technical, social and political dimensions of the problem. This is extremely critical at senior policy-making levels where different approaches and points of view have to be put together. You should not be shy of taking tough decisions in the interest of effective policy implementation.

Sixteenth, make a well-informed judgement of ground realities and policies which will work. Have a feedback on the proposed policies from those working in different geographical area where the proposed policies or plans are supposed to be implemented. Ensure enough flexibility with ground realities in your plans.

Seventeenth, accept challenging assignments. Do not try to wriggle out of it. Often, these assignments involve tough decision taking and have risk of failure. Success can be assured if you have accepted the challenging job and are working diligently with all stakeholders as a team. This will give you visibility and test your ability to handle tough assignments.

Eighteenth, in face of grave provocation, stand by your principles and convictions. Do not lose your cool. The administrative challenges are varied and involve wide varieties of people and organisations with vested interests. You can handle them only if you are considering all questions coolly and objectively.

Nineteenth, civil servants are accountable to Government. There is, however, public accountability also. Identify key target areas which you must achieve during your work based on Government policy and programmes. Identify people’s felt needs and enmesh them in your programme too.

An interesting aspect, in the above context, is the relative responsibility of political executive and the civil service in improving the governance system. It has to be emphasized that onus is on civil servants to strengthen public administration and good governance. However, while working as part of policy making or field responsibilities, it may be useful to understand the nature of relationship between the political executive and the civil service. It is also necessary to appreciate the enormous inconvenience and widespread corruption faced by the people while availing public service. Following points, therefore, need special focus:

First, the corruption in governance system and delivery of public services is quite widespread. It has to be tackled initially by preventing possibility of corruption. For this, it is necessary to make public service delivery procedures simple, use of Information Technology and bringing in transparency in decision taking. Next, those guilty of corruption have to be identified and punished quickly. Second, it is useful to recall that the All India Services are creatures of the constitution (Article 312).

While the services have to follow the policies laid down by the Government headed by the political executive, they also have legal obligations under certain statutes, whenever they exercise those powers. Such exercise of power has to be done with an independent application of mind. Third, it is important that Civil Servants clearly bring out their views in writing while doing an analysis of the issues concerned when engaged in the task of policy making. If certain government policy is not in public interest and may lead to harmful results, this has to be clearly brought out in your notes and analysis. Once, however, you have clearly mentioned your view and a considered decision has been taken, it has to be implemented with full vigour.

Thus, while the civil servant is free to express his views freely, one cannot keep opposing a decision taken by the government unless there are serious intellectual differences. In such cases, one should consider quitting the job and undertake new assignments. Fourth, there may be complex situations in which Ministers and some civil servants try to push illegal orders on subordinates. This could be because of ulterior monetary interest or corruption. There could be Mafia. In all this foggy and unclear vision, the civil servants have to be clear on their course of action for handling these situations. The approach should be quite clear to

 them while handling these situations. First, orders which are illegal or against any statutes or interfere with your exercise of authority vested in you under a law, have to be ignored. Second, administrative orders, if you find unfair or unjust, must be protested against with reasons. If reiterated, these have to be implemented. It may in some cases, cause damage to one’s career. In the long-run, however, peers and colleagues respect you for it. In many cases, colleagues and seniors come forward to undo the damage to your career caused by your not implementing unfair or unjust orders. Success has its price. It cannot be built on falsehoods, inequity and illegality.

The political executive which is responsible to the legislature has to also reconsider how the governance can be strengthened. The norms of conduct mentioned above will need a strong political consensus. They may need to discuss it across the country and their readiness to act on it as Sardar Patel had advised more than six decades back.

Author: B.K. Chaturvedi
Article Courtesy: http://yojana.gov.in/2014/eng/Yojana%20March%202014.pdf

The perennial generalist vs specialist debate - TSR Subramanian

Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged. The room for abuse is enormous

The specialist vs. generalist debate in India’s civil services resurfaces periodically. One has seen a chief of the electricity board, an excellent engineer who managed his power plants and transmission systems extremely well, totally clueless in matters relating to power policy. One has also seen a first-rate irrigation chief engineer taking over as secretary of the irrigation department and floundering from day one on administrative issues. On the other hand, there have been many scientists, long abdicating their scientific work, turn into fine administrators and policymakers. It is not uncommon to find IAS secretaries, with excellent reputation, often unable to find their feet in ‘alien’ departments. There is no hard and fast rule in such matters; the suitability and background of each officer for a post is more relevant than his label.

Having said that, it has often been found suboptimal to have a specialist to head a department – say the ministry of energy or ministry of power. By definition, all specialists focus on their own specific fields, and each technical field has a hundred branches. An expert on electrical transmission may not have better advisory capability in the field of solar or hydrogen energy than a non-engineer with an open mind; in most fields rapid development has taken place in the past decades – our expert has learnt his specialty years back, and may be out of date even in his own specialisation. The generalist is not afraid of asking questions, consults many experts before a position is taken – more often than not the specialist tends to take the view that he knows all in his field, and often shuns other opinion.

The author of this piece had occasion recently to prepare a study for the government on two separate fields – environment, and post office reforms. In the area broadly referred to as ‘environment and climate change’, it was an eye-opener to find at least a hundred separate fields of specialisation; often experts and agencies working in one may not be aware even of the existence of many others. Thus, forestry itself has any number of branches – if you add technical, commercial and social forestry issues, the fields of specialisation get multiplied. The arena of pollution – air and water – itself accommodates hundreds of expert fields. The committee that did the study would not have really been able to take a holistic view by talking just to one expert, however renowned – they met over a hundred, to get the picture. Likewise, the issue of postal reform covered a variety of fields – telecom spectrum, optical fibre connectivity, Unique Identity issues, insurance for life / accident / crops, logistics for e-commerce, to mention a few; doubtless, each of these would open up into many more specialised fields of expertise. Thus only an officer with intimate knowledge of the system, with decades of background and experience (needless to say with some imagination, insight and innovation), could bring together different experts to tackle each element of a new strategy. These illustrate the fallacy of repeatedly referring to need to replace ‘generalists’ with ‘specialists’.

The management of public affairs, as practised in India, is a highly specialised field; practitioners have to learn this profession, by working in the field – the university or training institutions will not prepare a person to deal with politicians, crooks, public grievances, riots, floods, policy-making in hundred fields, dealing with the police and the judiciary – none of these is taught in engineering schools or in MBA courses. Robust commonsense, coupled with a sense of dedication, pride, professionalism, and experience from years of working as a field officer and in the secretariat are the key requirements to make an administrator.

Another metaphor may be drawn to make comparison – should a senior citizen, with many ailments not unusual for his age, have only one ‘expert’ doctor as his consultant, or should he rely on a ‘generalist’ doctor? This is not a hypothetical question. A person with high BP and diabetes (standard for most Indians), a weak spine (not unusual for government servants, particularly for those who have one), and poor lung capacity (normal for Delhi citizens, indeed of any city in India) – should he take advice directly from six different experts, without the assistance of a generalist all-round doctor, to interpret, moderate and balance the frequently conflicting ‘expert advice’? This is the role that the professional generalist, with two to three decades of experience is able to play in the system.

The question then may be asked that when the minister himself is a generalist, why one needs a secretary who is also a generalist. The minister is an expert in politics, manoeuvring public opinion, making wild promises, generally shrewd but weak in comprehension of complex issues; without being overly uncharitable, his main management task is to ensure that the ruling party’s political image remains intact; that in most cases, the special interest groups (aka ‘mafias’) that he is beholden to is benefitted; and that everything he does will ensure a good chance of his re-election. Do not be fooled by appellations – our ministers, especially in the states, do not have the same IQ or probity or experience quotient displayed by their counterparts in developed countries; the minister is just not cut out to be an administrator.

The UPSC is a key institution, one of the few which has maintained pristine standards; none has seriously questioned its process of selecting the best candidates for the civil services. The IAS is selected through a competitive examination – not on pass or fail basis; the system is designed to test overall comprehension, analytical ability, and optimal approach to situations, rather than specialisation; it would not make a difference whether a ‘generalist’ or a ‘professional’ is inducted into the service.

The second administrative reforms commission had recommended ‘lateral’ recruitment at the additional secretary and secretary levels. Many, at first sight, may see this as logical. The fact is that even now, at the government of India level, the secretary-level posts are evenly divided among all-India service officers, and experts in their own fields – most of them spending their career in government, rising to the top. Having worked in the system at the secretariat, the ‘expert’ may not have field experience (so essential to any policymaker or administrator whose recommendations / decisions would have impact on the citizen); however, he has understood the governmental system, which itself is highly specialised. Thus an Abdul Kalam or a Kasturirangan, who contributed during their time to governance, were both products of the system; the likes of Montek Singh Ahluwalia also were experts in their own field, but they thrived within the environment of the governmental milieu. It is a moot question whether an outside expert brought in, so to speak cold-turkey, to a line-department like telecom or agriculture or commerce would be able to hit the deck running – he would take at least a couple of years to understand the way decisions are examined and taken within the system, the operation of various institutional factors such as party politics, the judicial system, the  parliament, the CAG and other statutory and constitutional agencies, not to speak of the impact of media or the NGOs or the social media on decision making. This is not to belittle or downplay the role of experts – they are of vital importance to provide high quality technical inputs, and raise the quality of approach to complex issues. Do not downgrade them by asking them to be ‘pen-pushing’ babus.

Do not demean our talented experts to waste their time dealing with inconsequential parliamentary questions. Equally, do not demean the senior professional civil servant, chosen from among the best talent available in India, with two-or-three-decades of relevant experience – he is generally irreplaceable.

One other significant point needs to be highlighted. India has borrowed its administrative structure from Whitehall – not from the US, where each minister is allowed to choose his own senior advisers, who leave their private jobs as experts to join the minister’s team for a five-year stint; in the US they are team members, and identify their personal interests solely with that of the minister. In India such a concept will have disastrous impact – will make a corrupt system infinitely worse, in most situations. In India the governance pattern is ‘adversarial’ – the secretary’s role is to render dispassionate non-partisan advice; he is also responsible, as a career functionary, for the propriety of the advice he tenders. Besides, Indian administration does not have the checks and balances that US has, where most proposals are looked at through committees at different levels. Only a person who does not understand the basics, as well as the complex nature of Indian administrative practice, would trust short-term advisers at the highest levels, who will exercise authority without responsibility. Lateral entry will spell disaster, particularly in states where methods will be found to induct persons with limited expertise but dubious integrity, to loot the system. Again, before lateral entry is considered, there needs to be a clear understanding of what the current gaps are, and how – if at all – lateral entry will fill them.

The present system of postings and transfers is frequently irrational, especially in the states. However, it needs to be ensured that at the additional secretary/ secretary level it will be unwise and counterproductive to post a career civil servant, who does not have previous experience in that broad field. At the level of secretary, there is no time to learn the broad milieu and general features of that particular field, indeed its ‘lingo’; there is no place for people with no previous exposure. Career planning for the services should ensure that the officer posted at the secretary level should have done at least one assignment at deputy secretary / director / joint secretary levels, to give him a sense of familiarity, as also to ensure that he is fully effective from day one.

No one questions the need for reform of the civil service, which ought to be a continuous process, as in every other sphere. Politicisation of the civil services has taken roots. The level of corruption in many civil services has reached worrisome, if not alarming, levels – though miniscule compared to the political arena. The morale of the civil servants themselves is low, particularly in the states. Some, who have little understanding of Indian governance, have even asked whether the time has come to abolish the all-India services.

Don’t throw the baby with the bath water. What is needed is reform, not scrapping the system. Civil servants should be enabled to perform with freedom, efficacy and accountability. For this, one should reach out to tackle the core problems, not just tinker with peripheral issues. The necessary political will has to be summoned, if such a thing were possible, to tone up and cleanse the civil services.

The core problems afflicting the civil services stem from larger political causes, relating to unstable state governments, rampant corruption in the states and operation of mafias, and an insecure political executive exploiting the public servant for narrow personal ends. Politics having become the most lucrative business in the country, with few checks and controls, there is compulsion for the minister or political leader to tempt or coerce civil servants to collude with him for mutual benefit. Frequent transfers, ministers hand-picking the officials to work with them and sidelining of efficient but honest officers are common now, especially in the states.  An array of weapons is used: arbitrary transfers, control over the annual character roll entry, and unleashing of departmental inquiries to keep civil servants off balance and submissive, prodding them to collusion. These are the key issues which need to be addressed, for a meaningful reform.

The main weaknesses in our governance structure do not emanate from the civil services. Currently, the real problems lie elsewhere. The political scene is unprincipled, unscrupulous, and untrammelled – there is no effective check against excesses and delinquency of the political executive. Political reforms should be highest on the agenda. This is possible only if there is significant election reform. Judicial reform, about which much is not yet talked about, also ranks in the forefront. One should avoid the temptation to look for ‘easy’ solutions, barking up the wrong tree – since the civil servant is the easiest target to hit. Half-baked impractical ideas such as lateral entry should not be encouraged – the room for abuse is enormous.

Subramanian is a former cabinet secretary.

(The article appears in the June 16-30, 2015 issue)

Courtesy: http://www.governancenow.com/views/columns/the-perennial-generalist-vs-specialist-debate