Civil Service: Blame or Reform?
The civil service is the backbone of public administration and the permanent government. Recently, various debates have emerged on social media and other communication platforms about it. Criticisms have been raised regarding the excessive politicization of the civil service. Arguments also point out that the system is overly procedural and slow. Furthermore, the civil service faces criticism for failing to keep pace with rapid technological developments and fulfill public expectations. Some advocates call for comprehensive reforms, while others suggest that mere reforms are insufficient and argue for a fundamental transformation of the civil service’s very ‘DNA.’
As societies evolve, change within the governance system and civil service becomes necessary and must be accepted as natural. The civil service itself has recognized the need for transformation. However, the question of whether the civil service is capable or incapable should not be viewed in an absolute sense but within a relative context. To address this, worldwide characteristics of civil services need to be analyzed. Only through focused debate on areas that require improvement can effective solutions be found.
According to Max Weber, the pioneer of the modern civil service, its fundamental features include merit-based selection, supremacy of rules and laws, neutrality, impartiality, hierarchical structures, and defined job descriptions. Scholars such as Karl Marx, Robert K. Merton, and Victor Thompson have emphasized the practical and psychological aspects of the civil service, highlighting its permanence, bureaucratic procedures, professionalism, supervision, and control mechanisms.
Overall, the civil service is a permanent apparatus working within legally defined jurisdiction. It bears the primary responsibility of implementing government policies professionally and maintaining political neutrality. It converts political will and programs into execution and upholds key accountability for implementation. The civil service maintains designated positions with corresponding job descriptions and systematic career development paths.
Change in governance and civil service is imperative in tune with societal transformation. It must be naturally accepted. The civil service itself acknowledges the need for transformation.
When discussing civil service transformation, its foundational character must not be forgotten. Assessing the extent to which the present civil service retains those characteristics provides the best basis for recommending improvements.
Two weeks ago (on Falgun 21), the House of Representatives elections were held. An 18-year-old girl voter questioned, “If voting procedures are so simple and well-organized, why do other government services involve so much hassle?”
Similarly, during an employee skill enhancement program, a notable discussion emerged where leadership-level civil servants expressed excellent views about policy-making and integrity. The facilitator asked, “Why do such capable employees fail to reflect these qualities in their workplaces?”
Reflecting on these questions leads to another: Is the civil service genuinely incompetent and ineffective? The answer is no. The recent elections were conducted in a changing political environment following the ‘Janajati’ movement. The election, announced six months prior, was peacefully and harmoniously completed nationwide. Like the young first-time voter, we all experienced the excellence of the election civil service. The factors contributing to this successful election include:
Clear Definition of Tasks, Outcomes, and Timelines: The responsibilities, expected results, and deadlines for election staff were clearly outlined. All focused on conducting a free and fair election. The fixed timeline made it a top priority. There was clarity on “what to do, why, and when.” Effective coordination determined who would do what. Guidance, codes of conduct, and authority prevented duplication and enabled timely completion.
Extensive Coordination and Collaboration: The entire country became election-focused during the period. The government’s priorities were shared by the civil service. Offices nationwide provided manpower support. Training and alternative arrangements were made for risk management. This created national synergy and the civil service upheld its historic responsibility.
Political Priority and Ownership: The civil service never hesitates to enact political priorities. With political leadership support, the civil service takes risks and creates an environment for smooth operation. Such an environment prevailed during the election.
Alternative arrangements for structures affected by the ‘Janajati’ movement were also made. Despite criticisms, the undeniable contribution of the civil service to the successful conduct of the election must be acknowledged.
Measurable accountability was ensured. Stakeholders clearly understood the election process, with regular monitoring, control, and reporting mechanisms in place. Authorities were empowered to resolve issues promptly. The assured disciplinary consequences fostered a sense of mandatory work among responsible officials.
Local elections could not be held for a long period after 2054 BS. Only in 2074 BS were elections conducted under federalism. During this interval, the civil service managed service delivery in the absence of active local bodies.
In numerous disasters and crises, employees have risked their lives, dedicating themselves to public service. The civil service also leads in managing transition periods following each political change.
The civil service’s role in managing alternative structures and records impacted by the ‘Janajati’ movement was crucial. Despite criticism, its significant contribution to the successful conduct of elections cannot be overlooked.
While expecting results from the civil service, it is essential to recognize its professional lapses and limitations. Although bound to operate within rules, laws, and procedures, professional shortcomings exist and reform is imperative:
1. Lack of Political Neutrality: Trade unions affiliated with specific political parties are active within the civil service. Their pressure on transfers, promotions, and disciplinary actions reveals professional lapses. This must be legally prohibited.
2. Absence of an Evaluation System: There is no objective performance evaluation system. Without clear distinctions between performing and non-performing employees, healthy competition is lacking. Morale has declined among deserving staff, while protected individuals’ confidence has risen. Laws should incorporate measurable indicators along with reward and punishment mechanisms.
3. Influence of Intermediaries: Professional monitoring is weak. The absence of depoliticization and the influence of intermediaries from procurement processes to large projects have weakened the civil service. Political and administrative leadership must demonstrate commitment to eliminating intermediary influence in all sectors.
Where the civil service has operated independently and resisted political pressure, significant improvements have occurred. Promoting such good practices and encouraging employees is essential to nurturing a culture of excellence.
The Nepalese civil service has experience managing the country prudently even amid political transitions. The recent elections confirm its continued capability. Going forward, it is necessary to streamline it further while boosting morale.
Only with correct political oversight and support can the civil service deliver effective results. With clear policies, laws, resources, and timelines supported by proper monitoring, the civil service can demonstrate transformative progress. Thus, blaming the civil service for inefficiencies is a leadership failure. The civil service’s capacity is relative to the capability of its leadership.
Despite the promulgation of the constitution, the absence of laws to systematize the civil service is challenging. Recognizing its deficiencies, the civil service is willing to reform. The current government and parliament hold significant opportunities to enact laws that will transform and enhance civil service effectiveness, and they must seize these opportunities.
– Niraula is the Joint Secretary of the Government of Nepal and Paudel is a Study Director at the Nepal Administrative Training Institute.
Read the Good Governance Series: