Ministers and Public Officials - Masters and Servants?

Ministers and Public Officials - Masters and Servants?....by R. M. B. Senanayake
Some retired administrators recently had a seminar on the topic "Relations between Ministers and Public Officers". Mr. Bradman Weerakoon, one of the speakers, pointed out that the relationship between the ministers and the top officials has now become a ‘master-servant’ relationship.

Prior to 1972 the relationship was different where the ministers respected the top officials and accepted the fact that they were acting in the public interest. They respected their opinions since they had more learning and more experience in the operations of the department.

Those who have watched the TV series "Yes Minister" would have noted that the secretary, I think he was Mr Humphreys, referred to the minister as Mr Minister and not as "Sir". The common understanding was that while the minister was the political head of his ministry the administrative head was the secretary, who is a permanent official unlike the minister who will leave when his party’s term expires. The secretary will remain.

The secretary has long service and extensive experience in the affairs of the government and of the ministry. The concept of the secretary as the head of the departments under the ministry was not adopted in our country although the former Treasury Secretary Shirley Amerasinghe issued a circular stating that the heads of departments in the ministry were assistant secretaries and that the ministry and the departments are integrated.

In our administrative set up the integration of the department and the ministry office did not take root. The location of the ministry office away from the department also did not help to integrate them.

The question of what sort of relationship should prevail between the top officials and the ministers, depends on what role the higher administrative layer has to play and whether the minister should have any role in the internal administration of the department.

Public Administration theory has been of the view that the internal administration of the departments is not a matter for the minister since he has neither the time nor the experience and expertise in running an organization. Early theorists drew a distinction between policy and administration and said the minister should confine himself to policy making and let the permanent officials in the hierarchy to run the operations. It is similar to the model which prevails in the business enterprise.

In any organization while the chief executive has the reserve power to intervene in operational decisions he would not do so unless it is absolutely necessary. At most times the power is delegated to operational heads in the hierarchy.

But it is difficult to keep policy and administration in water-tight compartments. So it is vital that the relationships between the political head and the administrative heads are harmonious. Of course harmonious relations in any organization are not easy to establish. It depends on the skill of the minister and the top officials.The policy making function of the minister however requires the input of the top officials. The minister would generally know little or nothing of the factors that determine the policy outcomes. So if the relationship between the minister and the top officials is one of master –servant, then the latter would not express their genuine opinions but prefer to curry favour or at least not antagonize the minister by telling him anything that he would not like to hear. In short the top officials would either become sycophants or mere passengers who will not express their opinions.

This will result in bad policy making for good policies are the outcome of knowledge and experience, both of which the ministers lack. The people will pay the price for bad or pernicious policy outcomes. If we continue with the ‘master-servant’ type of relationship then there is no hope for efficient governance. If the ministers are dishonest and corrupt there is also no hope of good governance either. Kautilya pointed out that there is very little probability of getting a ruler who is both morally upright and also administratively competent. Modern government requires much knowledge and expertise in a variety of fields.

Consider what knowledge and experience a minister of health requires. He must have medical experience. One can imagine what would happen if lacking such knowledge and experience he would select drugs for the hospitals. If his officials have to follow his orders in a master-servant relationship, the public officials will not oppose a ministerial decision even if it is wrong and detrimental to the public. The public will pay a heavy price if the minister makes a mistake.

Lacking knowledge and experience how can the minister decide correctly without the intellectual and experiential input of his officials? On the other hand, as Machiavelli pointed out, it is useless giving a prince advice if the prince is either stupid or perverse. We perhaps have a surfeit of them today.

Check on autocracy

The historical evolution in the West was that autocratic and despotic rulers were resisted by the barons or the nobles from the days of Magna Carta in 1215 to the English Revolutions, the French and the American Revolutions. They all introduced checks on the autocratic powers of the ruler. The American Revolution went further and introduced the separation of powers between the three branches of the State and put in place checks & balances. Thus the problem of the tyranny of the ruler was solved.

With development after the Industrial Revolution the need for expertise in the governance emerged. Democracy ushered in government by elected representatives of the people. The case for them is not that they know better than the bureaucracy what hurts the people. They are responsible to the people in a direct way.

Just as the proof of the pudding is in the eating it is the people who know the good and bad effects of any policy. However good a policy is, it must be not harmful to the people and it was argued that if they are harmful, the people will not re-elect their representatives. So the responsibility must be with the elected representatives. But then how can the elected representatives who lack knowledge and experience make policy?

So the problem of expertise in the running of the functions of the state remained. This problem requires a competent knowledgeable bureaucracy. But how can there be such a bureaucracy when with every change of government the officials are changed? So the West introduced Civil Service Commissions to be in charge of appointments, promotions and discipline of the top officials, taking them away from the control of the president and the ministers. We had the same institution.

But in 1972 the Marxists persuaded that the way forward is to subjugate the bureaucracy to the politicians as in Communist countries where there was a one party dictatorship. It was perhaps a step taken in the direction of a one party government.

The choice before us today is to revive a bureaucracy or continue with a spoils system; between a servile officialdom as under feudalism or to go for a modern bureaucracy with expertise who are given protection and security of tenure and allowed to express their frank opinions on matters of governance which require decision-making.



www island.lk