Politicized and demoralized, Nepal’s bureaucracy is passing through one of the most difficult phases of its history. With the restoration of multiparty democracy in 1990, the civil service, which embarked on the road to institutionalization in the 1950s, has often been derailed. Because of frequent political intervention, the institution is turning into a non-functioning and non-performing entity. As the Asian Development Bank implements a reform program, the bureaucracy has a new opportunity to establish its efficiency and competence.
By KESHAB POUDEL
In most government office buildings, the ground floor is allocated for the registration of documents, applications, proposals and letters. The rooms at the top floors contain senior officials who exercise final decision-making authority.
Employees return after a day’s work : Mission accomplished
Employees return after a day’s work : Mission accomplished
Once a proposal, application or document is registered, it travels through a maze of desks and piles before returning to the registration office for delivery to the concerned individual or institution. With growing literacy and awareness, Nepalis expect efficiency, effectiveness and transparency from the bureaucracy. What they confront instead is a lethargic apparatus that is out of step with the times.
There is also a short-cut to early results: contacting a senior bureaucrat or the minister. In the absence of set institutional practices, the same decision can take a day, a month, or a year, depending on your connections and resources.
Over the last five decades, Nepal has spent substantial resources and effort to improve the efficiency and quality of the work of civil servants. But the service Nepalis are getting shows few signs of that investment. Nepal has developed sturdy infrastructure and institutions over the last 50 years, but has not been able to produce a civil service capable of meeting its ever-growing challenges.
“We have built modern institutions and formulated rules and regulations to modernize the institutions of the civil service,” says Madhunidhi Tiwari, a former member of the Public Service Commission. “But what we still have not changed is our culture. No matter what reforms the government introduces, one cannot change the working culture overnight.”
Provided they get a good working environment, Nepalis are not incapable or inefficient. Nepalis working in international organizations and in such local private-sector undertakings as banks have proved their competence and efficiency. So what has gone wrong with the civil service and other government-affiliated organizations? Many blame the poor working environment and traditional outlook that holds sway. To be sure, the task of changing human culture and habits needs to follow an evolutionary course. And more so in a country like Nepal where the saying “Sarkari Kam, Kailejala Gham” (Government work, when will the sun set?) remains popular.
Nepal’s civil service, which has more than 90,000 employees, is still functioning under the traditional spirit represented by the adage. Responsibility to the people is inculcated as a virtue, but it is hardly seen as a living reality. Apart from two important tasks ó signing the register upon arrival at 9 AM and before departing at 5 PM, the job description is vague. Hence, it is subject to varying interpretations.
The state has taken several initiatives to make civil servants more transparent and accountable. In many instances, though, what was ineffective has become non-functional. While successive governments have been relatively swift in terms of intervention, they have lacked the cautious approach that is vital to ensuring purposeful change. From 1952 to 1992, five commissions were appointed to suggest ways of making the civil service more efficient. As part of the recommendations, the size of the bureaucracy has been slashed and an array of institutional reforms has been drawn up and implemented. But all this has yielded limited success.
According to an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report, Nepal’s civil service is estimated to have 105,000 approved posts, of which about 90,000 are currently occupied. Approximately 90 percent of the civil servants are in the non-gazetted (support staff) class. Of this group, almost 35 percent are cleaning staff and messengers. There are approximately 0.57 civil servants per 100 people, which is relatively small by developing-country standards, particularly considering that only 10 percent of the civil servants are at officer level. In fiscal year 2001, personnel expenditure comprised approximately 20 percent of the total government budget, which compares favorably with other developing countries (an average of 20-25 percent).
The government has made efforts to downsize the number of regular civil servants through institutional reforms, but it is also allowing back-door entry of other high paid staff like advisers and consultants.
Inefficient Practices
Because of inefficient institutional practices, many development programs were either withdrawn or suspended. Although poverty alleviation is one of the priority-based programs of Nepal, the civil service seems to ignore it. The process of finalizing development programs takes up to a year, taking a heavy toll on the patience of both donors and intended beneficiaries
A government office : Shabby facility
A government office : Shabby facility
A recent case illustrates the extent of the problem. A project file was registered at the concerned ministry for early approval, but it moved too slowly, stopping for the opinions of more than half a dozen senior officials. For nearly a year, it travelled through the tables of various officers. When the filed returned with the approval, the donors had already decided to pull out of the project.
This is not an isolated case. The proceedings and institutional mechanism involved are so lengthy and slow that almost every file has to pass through various stages of the decision-making process. Whether it is related to the issuing of license for an industry or allowing donors to start a new project, there is a mandatory process the file has to go through.
“We must reduce the process of seeking opinions, especially as the duties and responsibilities of civil servants have been clearly defined,” says Dr. Govinda Bhatta, a former government secretary. “In many cases, processing is delayed because of non-technical officers taking decisions on technical matters.”
Along with a strong institutional framework, effectiveness in the decision-making process depends on the efficiency and commitment of senior officials. In many offices, a secretary who often participates in the decision-making process delivers quick result. In other cases, senior officials maintain a domineering approach, which invariably raises endless roadblocks.
The decision-making process is always tedious and lengthy. After an application or proposal is registered, it is sent to the concerned officers in hierarchical order, finally reaching the secretary’s desk. If the secretary is efficient and capable, he will come up with an opinion and write it on the application.
The kind of opinion required depends on the nature of the application. If it is related to policy matters, the paper needs the views of more than half a dozen officials before a final decision can be taken.
In the absence of a clear delineation of responsibilities and no timeframe under which an official is expected to act, the file will stay at least a couple of weeks in one room before moving to the next.
Officials often seem oblivious to the fact that the scale of the country’s challenges demands a competent and efficient administrative system. In many cases, people feel officials are deliberately delaying action.
Almost every day, ministers and senior bureaucrats exhort officials to expedite work. There is no shortage of rules and regulations mandating prompt decisions. What is lacking is a sense of commitment on the part of those who are entrusted with implementing them.
Civil servants are not punished or rewarded based on their decisions. Efficient workers and laggards stand an equal chance of being promoted and enjoy the same facilities. As a result, nobody seems to be in a hurry to do today what can be done tomorrow or next week.
“As the civil service lacks meritocracy in terms of promotions and rewards, one cannot expect efficiency,” says Damodar Prasad Gautam, a former chief secretary. “You need to have a committed political leadership to push the civil service on the right track.”
Ironically, officials who want to be more efficient are often restrained because they feel they may be more vulnerable in the eyes of the Commission of Investigation of Abuse of Authority. The traditional notion that personal initiative is a disadvantage in a civil servant casts a long shadow on the administrative machinery.
As the firing process is very complicated, the civil service remains one of the most lucrative and secure jobs. Once a person enters the civil service, he or she does not have to worry about job appraisal or performance evaluation until the age of 58 years.
Official Business
A few hours in ministries, departments and district-level offices provide interesting insights into the operation of the government machinery. From the Singh Durbar secretariat to other government offices, most of the office chairs remain empty.
Offices open at 9 AM and close at 5 PM five days a week, with Saturday and Sunday as official holidays. The average working hour for a civil servant is about 40 hours a week. If a random sampling of the work pattern of government offices is any guide, civil servants spends less than one third of their working hours doing what they are supposed to do.
Many gazetted officers are busy working as consultants and in other position in non-governmental offices, arguing that they need the extra money to make ends meet. Non-gazetted officers and lower level staff emulate their superiors. Oftentimes, it looks like gazetted and non-gazetted employees are in a contest to leave the office the earliest.
“Nepal’s civil service, which was running very smoothly and efficiently during the Panchayat years, was destroyed by politicians following the restoration of democracy,” says a former secretary. “Ironically, the administrative machinery was more people-oriented under the partyless Panchayat days than it is under today’s open and liberal political system. During the Panchayat regime, civil servants at least had the protection of the palace. Today they have no one to turn too.”
History of Civil Service
The modernization of the civil service began five decades ago following the overthrow of the century-old autocratic Rana regime. Before that, the job of the civil service was just to collect government revenue and maintain law and order. The appointment of civil servants was based on nepotism and favoritism, rather than competence and qualifications.
Inside of an office : Empty
Inside of an office : Empty
With the establishment of democracy in 1951, the civil service moved into a phase of institutionalization. The Public Service Commission began the recruitment of bureaucrats through competitive examination. This paved the way for certain changes in the working pattern, but the past continued to haunt the system. During the Rana period, a civil servant had to be loyal to the prime minister and his lieutenants. Under the democratic system, the loyalty of the civil servant was expected to shift to the state.
As the state is an abstract entity, officials found no one to demonstrate their loyalty and commitment to. The Civil Service Act, which was supposed to have replaced the command of the Rana rulers, has not been effectively implemented. A culture of overlooking rules and procedures for expediency has thrived over the years.
Nepal’s civil service has faced similar problems under democratic and undemocratic systems. Inefficiency and lack of commitment to one’s role and duties have stood in the way of delivering results envisaged by government plans and policies.
“The bureaucracy lacks the commitment towards its job. You cannot change the entire system on the basis of one man’s honesty,” says an analyst who has closely studied major trends in Nepal’s civil service. “What is required is the transformation of the whole system. Employees spend time criticizing each other and the institution they serve, as if everyone around them are their enemies. There is no feeling of institutional loyalty. As for senior civil servants, once they retire, they become the most vociferous critics of the institutions they left.”
Conflict Among Civil Servants
A major weakness in the bureaucracy is division among officials. Nepal’s civil service is neck-deep in apathy and cynicism. Such an atmosphere hardly provides space for the growth of capable and efficient employees.
Custom Office : Efficiency required
Custom Office : Efficiency required
As the Civil Service Act and Regulations do not have strong provisions on punishing employee with bad character, there is disorder within the ranks. The impunity with which a handful of officials feel they can get away with misdeeds emboldens others to flout bureaucratic norms and values. When employees are fighting with each other to undercut their positions or just to prove a point, how can discipline be maintained within an institution?
“There are various classes of civil servants within the institution. If someone has political backing, he will not have to work hard,” says a senior officer working in a government ministry. “The first thing a fresh recruit learns to do is to look for political patrons.”
Every civil servant tends to take promotion as his or her fundamental rights. When there is such fierce rivalry in the promotion of secretaries, the intensity of the conflict at the lower levels can easily be imagined.
The controversy surrounding promotions is rooted in the lack of a clear standard transparency in the selection procedure. There is enough space for maneuvering in the promotion of special class, secretary-level and other positions.
When junior employees see their bosses engaged in crude maneuvering and unhealthy competition to get promoted, superiors naturally lose their moral ground to discipline subordinates. The erosion of discipline leads to a breakdown in the chain of command.
Errant employees cannot be disciplined through the legal course. “You cannot dismiss an employee even if he or she is involved in selling official secret, because civil servants are fully protected by the law,” says a lawyer.
The civil service should be allowed to run in accordance with the academic qualifications and competence of its workers and the framework of regulations. As long as there is conflict among civil servants, behavioral
and attitudinal changes become elusive. Setting objectives and motivating workers toward achieving them is the simplest philosophy of organizational development. Civil servants have many opportunities as soon as they joined the service. There is a clearly laid out ladder for promotion and professional development.
But the working environment is responsible for the stagnation. Although the services within the civil service are recruited under similar procedures, employees of parliamentary service and other technical groups feel they are discriminated against.
The need to encourage behavioral and cultural change in the bureaucracy is regularly emphasized. However, change can create greater anarchy in the system. Nepal’s experience has shown that the administration must be provided enough room to evolve into a mechanism responding to demands of the time. A new institutional set-up can be created, but creating capable manpower to run them is the greater challenge.
The Nepalese people replaced the partyless Panchayat system with multiparty democracy, but the new order has failed to produce better results. The same holds true of the civil service.
In every promotion, be it in non-gazetted or gazette posts, employees file cases in court citing discrimination. Over ninety percent of promotions end up in court. There is hardly an issue in the civil service today that is not challenged from within the ranks. In such a situation, hostility among civil servants only increases, eroding their performance.
Job Description
Although the Ministry of General Administration approves the job descriptions of officials in ministries, departments and district offices, they are hardly followed. Since non-gazetted officers dominate the civil
service in terms of numbers, they are mostly the ones missing from their seats.
Job descriptions are followed in offices like the District Administration Office, District Land Revenue Office, Land Reform Office and other agencies that have direct interaction with the people. Other officers ignore them.
In departments and ministries, non-gazetted employees are given the responsibility of file-keeping and registration of letters. In some cases, non-gazetted first class officers work as secretaries to the joint secretaries and others.
Accountability and Responsibility
Nobody knows whom a civil servant is ultimately accountable to. Following the restoration of multiparty democracy, secretaries and other senior officials seems to be accountable to the personal assistant of the ministers and his advisers. In many cases, ministers’ advisers are seen giving orders to secretaries on policy matters.
From the prime minister to ministers, everyone appoints advisers who are not accountable to anyone. Although the bureaucracy is set up to give advice to the ministers, few seem to trust government officials. Moreover, politicians remain silent spectators when their intervention can help solve the problems.
Investment to Civil Service
The government spends more than 20 percent of its annual budget on salaries, pensions and other facilities to the civil service in the hope that it would deliver efficient and effective service to the people. Almost all gazetted civil servants receive opportunities for training and seminars abroad by turn. According to an unofficial study, the government has to spend about Rs 40 million to train a secretary. But the situation is different for non-gazetted employees, which is a leading source of resentment.
The bureaucracy is influenced more by vested interest. There is little participation among bureaucrats in taking major decisions. Coordination is virtually lacking in all spheres of the bureaucratic set-up. It is the duty of the state to make the civil service function more effectively.
There seems to be conflict among the executive, judiciary and legislative. In every administrative reform, there needs to be a specific agenda to make civil servant disciplined and law abiding.
One of the challenges of civil servants is not to attract more efficient manpower. Although the provisions have made to pave the entry of energetic persons in civil service, outsiders have shown little interest on it. Even the examination of the gazetted third class, majority of the new recruits are from within the civil service.
Instability in Civil Service
Nepal’s civil service is mired in instability. The Civil Service Act has been amended twice and officials are said to be preparing another amendment. The Civil Service Act should be allowed to run for some time before it can be expected to produce results. If rules and regulations are amended according to the whim of officials, it would go on to create greater disorder.
The existing laws and regulations are adequate to sort out the problems. One cannot bring changes by amending the statute books alone. One thing the civil service does not require at this time is a new act.
The Nepalese civil service has seen several reform programs, but these endeavor has brought greater uncertainty and insecurity. Following the restoration of multiparty democracy, the civil service has been often victimized by partisan politics. Then-prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala battered the morale and motivation of the civil service in 1993 when he ordered the dismissal of hundreds of officials from all levels of the bureaucracy.
Although many senior officials were later reinstated following a Supreme Court order, the civil service is yet to recover from that blow. The decision hampered the capability and strength of the civil service at a time
when it was adjusting to an independent existence under a liberal political system. Ever since, few civil servants have dared to contest decisions taken by the minister. Against the backdrop of job insecurity, the civil servants proposed the act denying the right of dismissal.
A major hindrance on the road to development is the lack of efficiency, predictability, transparency and accountability in government institutions. Capacity building is a critical factor for good governance and achieving objectives.
Bureaucratic reform must address the core issues of the service. As the ADB is supporting civil service reform efforts this time, public interest has naturally grown. At a time when Nepal is confronting the new challenges of globalization, the country urgently needs an efficient and capable civil service. Our place in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world will depend on, among other things, how soon we get a pool of officials who can put us there with the greatest competence and skill.