Kafka's other nightmare

It is not that we don't have good civil servants — there is just too much of doom and despondency for them to work

Amarjeet Sinha Delhi

Debates and democracy always go together. The failure of India's successful political democracy to promote a faster pace of pro-poor participatory growth has raised many fingers at India's "steel-frame". The civil services have been castigated for being low on pro-poor commitment, weak on development delivery, and high on personal aggrandisement, corruption and misuse of power. The people, the real reason for the existence of the bureaucracy, seem to be losing hope in the instrumentality of the state as agents of social justice and human well-being. The civil service is being blamed for every ill that afflicts India today. Surely it is a time for serious introspection.

What has gone wrong? Why is the perception about the bureaucracy so low? The paradox about India is that aspirations for joining the civil service continue to be high and reasonably bright men and women join the civil services. Salary structures have improved and compare well with many other developing countries. An adverse work environment, constant political bickering, hasty transfers, inability to meet basic needs like children's education or a home of one's own, all lead to the death of idealism among many civil servants, within a few years of government service. It is also true that the power and pelf of the civil services makes many pursue life styles well — beyond their pay packets, leading inevitably to corruption and misuse of authority. Greed, and not need, is often the driving force for graft.

The civil service still rises to the occasion in times of need — elections, natural calamities, maintenance of public order during riots, etc. While there is a case of weeding out, through exemplary action those who have brought a bad name to the bureaucracy and have lost the confidence of those whom they serve, there is a stronger case to restore the integrity, efficiency and impartiality of the civil service by affirmative action. It is time to recognise those who serve with dignity and high integrity and make them the leaders of change and not the marginalised civil servants of doom and despair! Let the best have the opportunity to work with conviction.    

One also has to remember that the states have their own civil and technical services that are part of the larger civil service. Issues of professionalism, transparent cadre management and promotion policy, motivation, human resource and development issues, accountability framework, outcome orientation, are all equally relevant for them. The de-motivation of the state services is the biggest challenge for civil service reform as no amount of cosmetic changes in the higher civil service will result in improved pro-poor effective service delivery. It is important to restore the autonomy of the state services through intensive screening processes and effective leadership. Fast track streams may also help in having young and motivated persons at key decision-making levels.

One must look at what is expected of the civil service in times of reform. Clearly, leadership to economic reforms for improved infrastructure and growth comes from the civil service. Equally importantly, leadership for pro-poor human development, essential for sustainable growth, also comes from the civil service. Post-1991 reforms and liberalisation has rightly made a case for much less government in sectors the private sector is willing to step in without jeopardising the quest for equity or nationally-led growth. The role of the government, however, will remain instrumental in changing the lives of the poor, and in facilitating economic growth and development through a pro-active state.