One small step for government, one giant leap for governance?
This question came into my mind this week when I read about the interesting decision of the Delhi government cabinet to fine officials a maximum of Rs 5,000 if they are delayed in serving citizens without a valid reason. If approved as expected, the Delhi (Citizen’s Right to Time Limitation and Ease of Service) Bill will replace/update a similar 2011 law. As the name suggests, it is responsible to the citizens by proposing a fine of Rs 250 per day with a maximum of Rs 5,000.
This is a great idea in principle and also reflects the growing democratization of governance, with elected leaders putting pressure on the bureaucracy to do what is expected of them. But there is a very long way to go, because in India, Economist The magazine, once described as the “natural habitat of a clerk,” has much to do to dismantle the procedural bureaucratization that the very country of the magazine’s birth has left an imperial imprint on its colony.
Advertising. Scroll to continue.
The same magazine recently published a clear editorial entitled “Why can’t the Indian government create a decent website?” and complained about a clunky online experience amid “the failures of ‘Indian bureaucracy’.” Any casual observer of the old BBC comedy series Yes, Minister could rest assured that “Britain” is not so great at politically controlling bureaucrats. The culture is like that.
It gets more complicated. How do you hold bureaucrats and lower-level government officials accountable in a system in which incentives and disincentives must be balanced with costs, processes, and public accountability to legislators and agencies such as the Comptroller and Auditor General? A rules-based system cannot easily function like an incentive-based culture or a rigid hiring and firing mechanism.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is officially aware of the problem of bureaucracy, but the solution requires a bottom-up cultural overhaul.
The ongoing controversy over the alphabet pattern of state government exams, NEET, CUET and CBSE school exams, suggests that ministers and bureaucrats must be sensitive to the growing mass of informed citizens demanding accountability and efficient service. Again, the shifting of responsibility involving politicians and so-called autonomous bodies such as the National Testing Agency shows that you cannot have autonomy without accountability, and you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by pointing to structural autonomy designed to reduce bureaucratization.
Like the trade-off between inflation and interest rates in macroeconomics, this requires a trade-off between empowerment, which increases efficiency, and transparency, which ensures that power is not abused.
The outsourcing of cases to private agencies, often fraught with the risk of hidden corruption as well as “L1 syndrome” in which the lowest bidder in a contract is not necessarily the best service provider, represents a compromise between low-cost transparency and the public’s desire for better services.
In this context, any attempt to repeal the Right to Information (RTI) Act or its procedures must necessarily be seen as regressive. A culture of transparency must be instilled in the bureaucracy to avoid the cloak of official secrecy covering up government confusion.
But as anyone who has stood in long queues at railway stations or electricity offices in India will attest, a low-level government employee facing the public must endure stress similar to that of a suffering citizen in line. New technologies can only help as much as Economist the magazine’s editorial commentary confirms this.
India’s civil servants receive formal training in dealing with citizens, with an emphasis on ethics and empathy. The National Training Policy, formulated in 2012, will help with this. There are special education facilities, behavioral training programs and digital complaint mechanisms. But I couldn’t help but laugh when I came across a bureaucratic online file on this very case, whose language, structure and communication style were a throwback to the old “babudum”. It contained long, jargon-filled paragraphs about proceedings that would have gone over the heads of even the media, let alone ordinary citizens.
What we may need is to recruit people based on personality traits who exhibit higher EQ (emotional quotient). In casual conversations in India, some workers are often described as having a “good character” or a “helpful attitude”—and this often has less to do with training and more to do with human character. Focusing on EQ rather than IQ (intelligence quotient) in hiring, training and deployment can go a long way in creating services that are attractive to the public. We need smart but sensitive public servants, including civil servants who deal directly with disadvantaged citizens. This requires the courage to recognize that “soft” human qualities are as important, if not more, than high scores on state exams.
Union Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan recently sent a note to all secretaries (top bureaucrats) in various departments asking them to take care of the little things and avoid bureaucratic repetition of processes. Such moral nudging is desirable, but its benefits are limited. Recognition of different species, not just posts about plums, should be coupled with disincentives like those proposed by the Delhi government.
As is often said in management classes, leadership comes by example. There cannot be authoritarian ministers lording over empathetic bureaucrats, or authoritarian bureaucrats lording over empathetic clerks at railway counters! You need tough authority, but one that is consciously aware of where and how it should be used.
The Modi government uses a corporate assessment system with scorecards for ministries submitted by the cabinet secretary. This is a long-awaited start. Cultural transformation requires a different DNA. Neither a purely corporate style, nor a monarchical-authoritarian structure, nor even an outdated colonial bureaucratic process serves this purpose. The Holy Grail lies between efficiency and empathy.
(Madhavan Narayanan is a senior editor, writer and columnist with over 30 years of experience, after working at the Times of India Group, he has worked at Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard and Hindustan Times)
Disclaimer: This is the personal opinion of the author.