The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Making the bureaucracy accountable

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Making the bureaucracy accountable

V. Jayanth

Officials are chosen for sensitive positions on both political and efficiency considerations. But if they fail to deliver, the axe falls on them before long.

LAST WEEK, reports from two State capitals — Bangalore and Hyderabad — spoke of a certain dissatisfaction at the level of the top political leadership over the performance of the bureaucracy. In Karnataka, it was expressed in a clear warning from Chief Minister Dharam Singh and Deputy Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to district-level officials to deliver or "be at home." In Andhra Pradesh, there appears to be a thorough review — a SWOT analysis — of the performance of officials. The occasion for the evaluation and consequent "unhappiness" is the completion of the first year of the two Governments.

It may be the right time for the Chief Ministers to go in for a complete review of the performance, not only of officials, but also of Ministers. Professional-minded officials will only ask that such an assessment is entirely professional and objective, without any politicisation. If that is done, governance in States will be approaching the corporate culture of a continuing performance evaluation and consequential incentives for performers and disincentives for those who fail the test. The message from the top two leaders in Bangalore at a conference of Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police was blunt. The Chief Minister and his deputy noted that the performance of some of them was "far from satisfactory." Therefore, "you must change your mindset and work together to produce the desired results or else please be at home. The Government will make arrangements to deliver your salary packets at your doorsteps."

The district-level administration is at the cutting edge of the delivery of government services and programmes. However good the Government's policies and programmes may be, everything depends on delivery by officials at the district and grassroots levels. It is the responsibility of the State administration to monitor the performance of the entire bureaucracy as well as the local bodies administration and report to the Government. Ideally, this can be done once in three months, with an annual evaluation to complete the exercise.

Andhra Pradesh may be witnessing a more political assessment of the administration, with several officials and politicians reportedly unhappy with the functioning of the Chief Minister's Office (CMO). The problem with CMOs seems to be that they become too close to the centres of power and arrogate to themselves some of the powers of government. In the process, a CMO may become the most influential "power centre" in the administration, distancing senior officials heading key departments from the decision-making process. The problem is not unique to Andhra Pradesh. Consequently, not just senior bureaucrats but even ruling party functionaries and legislators may be gunning for key persons in the CMO who, they believe, stand between them and the Chief Minister.

Tamil Nadu, during the first three years of the present All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam administration of Jayalalithaa, witnessed some of the most frequent and major reshuffles of the administration at all levels. At one stage, the joke was that a majority of the ruling party legislators might be getting an opportunity to serve in the Cabinet, as more than 20 Ministers were axed during that period. But in the past 12 months, the changes have been few and far between.

Annual review

Senior bureaucrats agree that an annual evaluation of the performance of officials is good practice. It is customary for Chief Ministers and senior Ministers to address an annual conference of both Administrative and police officers from around the State. That provides an opportunity for the Government of the day to explain its policies and outline the priorities so that the entire administration understands the framework and works within that. If, even after such an enunciation, some officials fail to get the message and deliver on the ground, they have no right to be where they are. There are enough "punishment postings" to take care of them.

Seasoned officials caution against an "administrator-politician nexus," especially at the district level. If a District Collector or Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner knows how to keep the local Minister and ruling party functionaries "in good humour," he or she is likely to be protected to an extent. That assumes that the politicians are influential enough. But if the local official gets on the wrong side of the local politicians, there is bound to be a spate of complaints. In that case, unless the official enjoys the confidence of the Chief Minister, there is likely to be a problem.

Thoughtful officials suggest that the solution will be for the government to set up a high-power panel consisting of two senior Ministers and three top officials, with the Chief Secretary as its convenor, to monitor the performance of all officials in an objective and transparent manner. With such a professional assessment, it may be possible to rein in the over-zealous and also pull up the poor performers. Such an approach will ensure that politics does not get in the way of efficiency and officials do not get into the habit of massaging the ego of, or otherwise pleasing, politicians to get coveted posts. This will also obviate the need for wholesale transfer of officials with every change of Government. It is of course desirable for the Chief Minister to choose his or her close-knit team at the top level of administration. Only then will the administration become professional.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion