End confusing rules to improve bureaucracy<\/p>\n
By D. Chandramouli<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): "How many bureaucrats does it take to change a
\nlight bulb? Two. One to assure us that everything possible is
\nbeing done while the other screws the bulb into a water tap."<\/p>\n
This joke published in the Reader's Digest many years ago came
\nto mind when reading the latest report of the Political and
\nEconomic Risk Consultancy (PERC).<\/p>\n
Is the bureaucrat a servant of the government (read
\n"politicians in power") or of the people? Quite often, the
\npublic perceive bureaucracy as "the art of making the possible
\nimpossible." Over time, the word "bureaucracy" has become
\nsynonymous with procrastination.<\/p>\n
According to PERC's report, the bureaucracy in India has been
\nrated 9 on a scale of one to 10, with zero being the best grade
\npossible -- though this is hard to believe. Indonesia,
\nincidentally, scored 8.<\/p>\n
Years ago I was employed in a government department, which
\nhandled the disbursement of pensions to civil servant retirees.
\nThere was one requirement that called for pensioners to produce,
\nonce a year, a "survival certificate" signed by a government
\nauthorized medical practitioner. We insisted on this certificate
\neven if pensioners physically presented themselves to collect
\ntheir pensions -- rules were Rules with a capital 'R'.<\/p>\n
If someone could not submit the said certificate, they simply
\ndid not exist. If we paid the pensions without obtaining the
\ncertificate, serious audit objections were in store from the
\ncontroller and auditor general. Mercifully, this stringent rule
\nhas been subsequently abolished.<\/p>\n
For sure, there was no serious corruption in those "good old"
\ndays, except that people would speak of some instances of "hand-
\nouts" in the revenue department.<\/p>\n
In India, the deeply entrenched bureaucracy and concomitant
\nred tape have been a British legacy. The term "red tape" itself
\nis derived from the fastening of departmental bundles of
\ndocuments in Britain. The mind-set of the system-bound Indian
\nbureaucrats come from years of conditioning by centuries of
\nBritish rule.<\/p>\n
Frustrated foreign investors maintain that the classic Indian
\n"three steps forward, two steps back" approach to everything
\nstill remain, despite the liberalization efforts. However, many
\nresident Indians opine that reforms have indeed borne fruit and
\nthere have been vast improvements in recent years, in the railway
\nbooking offices, elections commission, customs and passport
\noffices, telephone services etc.<\/p>\n
Generally, decision-making in the government machinery
\nbelonged to the upper echelons. Only in the government, is
\ndecision-making "delegated upwards" constantly -- "abdicating"
\nresponsibility or attributing "empowerment" to the boss.<\/p>\n
In an answer to a query from superiors, a bureaucrat in a
\npublic works department once wrote in a file the following, "To
\nthe best of our knowledge, we have no knowledge!"<\/p>\n
Government jobs ensured security of employment. Usually, the
\nerring civil servants could only be punished by a transfer to
\nsome other post or region, without any cuts in their existing
\nsalary or perquisites.<\/p>\n
Consistency is a great virtue in government offices. "Turn the
\nfile and learn the work" -- it is as simple as that, for any new
\nentrant to the government. On a previous occasion, if a request
\nfrom a member of the public had been turned down, for whatever
\nreason, a new application would surely meet the same fate.<\/p>\n
There are two sides to a coin. Why should bureaucrats always
\nbe ridiculed? Is it fair to blame them totally? Government
\nservants are, after all, bound by government rules, which, quite
\noften, impede better bureaucratic judgment.<\/p>\n
Civil servants can't be expected to "drive the car with the
\nhand brake on". With a pittance of a salary, how could they be
\nenthused to become proactive people? They must enforce government
\nrules to the letter. Is it always possible for them to get behind
\nthe spirit of the rules? Obviously, they can't be the judge and
\nthe executor at the same time.<\/p>\n
Members of parliaments and legislatures, by virtue of their
\nproximity to their constituents, symbolized by their electoral
\nvictories, should be expected to know the "pulse of the people"
\nand frame laws and rules to be as user-friendly and simple as
\npossible.<\/p>\n
They should also review all existing policies and programs,
\nrules and regulations, procedures, forms, acts, etc. periodically
\nand remove, from the statute, all unnecessary, obsolete and
\nconfusing government controls. Surely, that is one way
\nbureaucrats could be expected to render better public service.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, members of the public have to be the "watch dogs"
\nover the bureaucracy. As T.N. Chaturvedi, an Indian Member of
\nParliament rightly said: "Democracy does not guarantee good
\ngovernance but it makes good governance possible. It is
\nguaranteed by the citizens."<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance contributor in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/end-confusing-rules-to-improve-bureaucracy-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }