Bureaucracy assumed additional importance in the context of developing countries. While the Western scholarship focussed on particular formal organizations either within the government or in the corporate sector to witness the functioning of the bureaucracy and relating it to efficiency and effectiveness, bureaucracy was, and is, viewed in the context of the countries of the developing world as the executive wing of the governments–colonial governments, monarchies and dictatorial regimes. The word bureaucracy, in such contexts, refers to the top bureaucrats who run the affairs of the government.
In the criticism of the bureaucracy in developing countries, the focus is not so much on the internal working of the system as on the attitude of the top bureaucrats in managing the affairs of the State and in maintaining law and order. These bureaucracies were trained during colonial rule to keep the ‘subjects’ under control, and therefore created rules and procedures to obstruct the work of the common man. The rule structure was created on the premise of distrust: Distrust everybody unless and until he proves trustworthy. Bureaucracy in this sense was seen as anti-people, and the bureaucrat was seen as an agent of the ruler, and a loyalist of the regime. In India, the British ruled the country first by a cadre trained in England for the Indian Civil Service (ICS), which initially consisted only of the British nationals under whom the Indians worked on a hierarchy of subordinate positions. With the attainment of independence from British rule, the Government replaced the ICS with the IAS–Indian Administrative Service—and other ancillary services. Gradually, the ICS was weaned out with the retirement of the officers. The early IAS officers, however, treated the ICS bosses as role models, and followed their style of functioning despite the redefinition of their roles with additional charges.
Although law and order continues to be the responsibility of governmental bureaucracy, they were charged with the additional responsibility of participating in the task of social and economic development and in nation-building. During the British regime, the bureaucrats were treated as the ‘mai-baap’ (parents) of the people, but in the changed scenario of a democratic polity, they had to redefine their role as ‘servants of the people’. Ambivalence was quite understandably apparent amongst those bureaucrats whom India inherited from the British Raj. For them, it was a period of transition. Recalling the past behaviour, common men treated the oldies in the bureaucracy with certain amount of disdain, regarding them as representatives of the Raj.
However, credit must be given to the Indian bureaucracy, which tried hard to adjust to the new milieu. Commenting on the performance of the Indian bureaucracy in the 1960s, S.C. Dube acknowledged that ‘Despite the pathologies and dysfunctions from which Indian bureaucracy–as it was inherited from the British rule–has suffered, it has made positive contribution towards achieving developmental goals of independent India’ (Dube, 1966: 348).
He had a ‘word of honest praise for its role in facing horrendous situations efficiently in maintaining a degree of national cohesion, and in putting on its feet a nationwide economic development’. But he also pointed many of its shortcomings. These are listed below:
- In the area of economic development the Indian bureaucracy initially remained hesitant and unsure. As a result, its standard of performance and levels of achievements have not been ‘equal to its reputation’.
- The structure and ethos of the bureaucracy was suited more for the maintenance of law and order than for massive nation-building.
- Bureaucracy’s ‘adaptation to the emerging milieu has been beset with organizational incompatibilities, psychological resistances, and value conflicts’.
- ‘It suffers from certain lags and finds itself unable to grapple with the new challenges with ease and confidence. The bureaucrat had difficulties working with technocrats on equal terms, as he was trained to work as a superior rather than as a colleague. ‘The paternal-authoritarian approach has so mentally conditioned him that he cannot run partnership projects in their intended and overtly articulated spirit.
A bureaucrat is trained as a generalist so he can take up any assignment. In the Indian bureaucracy, transfers are made from one ministry to another and the officer is expected to perform equally well. Of course, some bureaucrats tend to develop a certain expertise in the area of their liking and manage to spend more time in that particular department. However, the programmes of development require specialist knowledge in planning, execution and evaluation. For this, technocrats are recruited on par with senior bureaucrats. This gives rise to conflicts, where the generalist-administrator points out the lack of administrative acumen in the technocrat and the technocrat highlights the lack of technical competence in the bureaucrat. India’s development plans faced these difficulties. Dube was a witness to this process as he was inducted to assist in the massive Programme of Community Development as a social scientist. Thus, what he has written about the bureaucracy is based on his ‘participant observation’.
Apart from the tensions between the technocrat and the bureaucrat, the latter also had to work under multiple political pressures, which put his efficiency to severe test. Politicians serving as ministers had to work to please and satisfy the public on the one hand, and depend on the bureaucrats working under them to meet the demands of the electorate. With a long and assured tenure the bureaucrats carry the bag of experience where politicians are like the ‘birds of passage’ who come and go with every election. It is the bureaucracy that ensures the continuity of administration and is thus, indispensable, despite its shortcomings. In such circumstances, the bureaucracy is characterized by the following symptoms, according to Dube:
- Failure to take decisions at the appropriate level
- Passing the buck
- Roping in others in decision-making
- Making unequivocal recommendations31
- Anticipating what the boss wants and acting accordingly, although he knows what can be done
- Rationalization of failures
- Underplaying the essentials and magnifying the grandiose
- Outright sycophancy
Dube highlights the point that
old procedures are cumbersome and ponderous and the interminable journeys of files and cases from level to level, and from department to department, are necessarily time consuming, and at the same time new norms calling for speed and despatch are still amorphous and, therefore, uncertain.
Dube wrote all this more than 30 years ago. There have been several changes and improvements in the bureaucratic structure and in the personnel. Introduction of computers and other features of information technology has helped in clearing several bottlenecks. A majority of bureaucrats are those who are young and who have not seen the colonial rule or early phases of Indian bureaucracy in independent India. Their orientation and training are geared to meet the new requirements. They are also exposed to the outer world and to the processes of globalization. Several examples of well-motivated officers trying to improve governance are frequently reported,32 and yet a Hong Kong-based survey published in Indian newspapers on 4 June 2009 says that ‘Indian Babus are the Worst in Asia’ (see Mail Today, Hindustan Times, or Times of India, 4 June 2009). Even the new government has promised to improve governance, and drive out the corruption that is rampant in government offices at all levels–which is an admission of the pathology that exists in the Indian bureaucracy. Corruption is a subject for some serious research; its structural roots need to be investigated to cleanse the system.33
One point is certain: Bureaucracy continues to be a necessary evil. It departs in all circumstances from the Weberian model and yet bureaucracy is essential for managing large-scale organizations and the affairs of the state.
Leave a Reply