JOIN USThere is some consternation at the government’s decision to appoint 10 joint secretaries in some departments by direct appointment. Is this a good move or should it be condemned? The opposition has claimed that this is a move to bring in choice RSS cadres into government, whereas those hailing the move say this is a game-changer.
Before getting into this discussion it will be worthwhile to look at some facts. In the last decade, the sanctioned positions of IAS officers have always been far higher than the actual number employed. The vacancies have always been over 20%! If we accept that the sanctioned positions are the actual requirement, leaving over 20% vacancies means that many governance functions are suffering. Most citizens would agree that they are unhappy with the governance in the nation. One reason for the permanent vacancies in IAS posts is that the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy has a limitation on how many officers it can train. If one wants a good example of the tail wagging the dog, this is it. Instead of increasing the facility for training the required number of officers, the academy’s limited capacity effectively determines how many officers will be provided to run the nation. The entire concept of having sanctioned positions is treated with disdain.
To overcome the limitation of the training institute to provide enough officers for the IAS, lateral entry at senior levels is a good option. According to one international rating, Indian bureaucracy rates amongst the worst in Asia. This nadir has been achieved by a combination of three main factors:
• Ensuring a shortage of delivery in public services to citizens. Needless to say, this provides opportunities for corruption. I would suggest that corruption is mainly a byproduct of a system that does not deliver. When government employs fewer people than the required number, it is a given that governance will suffer.
• Lack of domain expertise in the government. Secretaries wielding large powers and framing policies on various subjects generally have no domain expertise. In the early 20th century, specialised domain expertise was at a much lower level compared to now. Hence, generalists were appointed to manage business and government. In the last five decades, domain expertise has developed and there are educational programmes specific to these.
• In the hierarchy-bound system of bureaucracy, young officers are trained and moulded to be satisfied with the current state of affairs and their urge to innovate and change the system is generally curbed by the time they spend a decade or more in service.
Unfortunately, the government has not woken up to these shortcomings. Finance or transport or HR are all subjects that require specialised knowledge and hence, in a government where specialised knowledge and experience is lacking, its delivery cannot cope with the challenge of rising aspirations of citizens for greater accountability, transparency and better governance.
For better domain expertise
Inducting people in the 4-55 age group with varied experience and successful track records is a good idea to implement. The suggested figure of 10 joint secretaries is too small to make any real difference. This will be mere tokenism. The government must at least start with 100 and plan to increase it to about 10% of the sanctioned strength at the level of Joint Secretary and above. These would provide domain expertise at various levels while retaining the basic characteristic of the bureaucracy.
Our current system of having generalists at all levels is flawed and is partly responsible for our poor governance. To give an analogy, a century back, people went to a general practitioner for all diseases. Today, we would approach an oncologist or a cardiologist or a paediatrician depending on the need. We need to have specialists in decision-making and execution to bring domain expertise. Depending on outside consultants entirely is not desirable.
One doubt being expressed is that the selection process will not be transparent. This is a fault that all political parties have been guilty of when they were in power. Part of the opposition to this proposition arises from the assumption that selection will be arbitrary. Truth is, the most important positions — like various commissioners, regulators, Lok Ayuktas and many other senior positions — have no selection process. Most of them are selected as a consequence of political or bureaucratic patronage.
We have been lazy in defining the required qualities and nature of experience for selection. There is a process and criterion for appointing peons and clerks but none for senior jobs. The members of UPSC or Information Commissioners are selected without any process. My own selection as Central Information Commissioner was a random occurrence. The criterion for selection should be very well defined and experts brought in for each domain. There should be at least one interview with the shortlisted candidates which should be open to public telecast. This would ensure that the selected candidate would be subject to public scrutiny.
Another argument is that good candidates will not apply. There are many people in the 40 to 55 age group who have earned adequately and have proved themselves. There is a strong desire in many to really bring a change in the nation’s governance and to serve the nation. The government must be encouraged to tap this resource. Many of these may not have tried for the civil services in their 20s but would be happy to serve the nation after crossing 40.
This is a good move and must be backed by citizens, media and all political parties. Instead of opposing it, let us ask for criteria to be defined and a completely transparent process of selection. Citizens should be concerned with this, since if our IAS cadre is not adequate in terms of numbers and capability, we will not get good governance.
(The writer is a former Central Information Commissioner)