Since the last 16 months that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has been running its government at the Centre, civil servants have had to deal with a new governance structure. For some of them, the winds of change have been unsettling and for some others, the new environment has required them to reset their functioning style.
The first big change is the manner of appointing key bureaucrats in important central ministries. In the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) era, the Cabinet minister would have a substantial role in identifying the secretaries to head the various departments in his or her ministry. So much so that in some cases, even the prime minister's choice of a civil servant to head a ministry would be overruled and the secretary endorsed by the minister concerned would get appointed.
In the current NDA regime, the prime minister and his office play a decisive role in appointing a secretary in a ministry. The minister in charge may be consulted or his concurrence for an appointment may be obtained, but it is clear to both the minister and the civil servant concerned that what matters the most in the selection process is the view of the prime minister and his office.
Some bureaucrats feel that this is a good system that results in cohesive functioning as the prime minister and the central ministries can operate with better coordination. They also attribute the rising role of the prime minister and his office in the selection of secretaries to the nature of the current government. Even though it is an alliance of a few like-minded political parties on paper, it is led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which has a majority in the Lok Sabha on its own. Thus, the prime minister functions under no influence from any political party other than his own, that is, the BJP.
In contrast, the prime minister in the UPA regime was often influenced by compulsions of keeping the coalition partners satisfied. Indeed, whenever there has been a coalition government at the Centre, with no single party enjoying a majority, the ministers have had a greater say in the appointment of secretaries and the prime minister has been less influential in such matters.
The second big change that the current NDA government has ushered in is the accountability of top civil servants. This is largely an offshoot of the manner in which the prime minister has played a larger role in the secretaries' appointment. Yes, the secretaries are accountable to their ministers, but they are now equally answerable to the prime minister while discharging their responsibilities.
Apart from the monthly review meetings with all secretaries of central ministries, the prime minister also meets the secretaries directly to monitor how the various government programmes are doing on the ground and how the promises are being fulfilled. Such direct prime ministerial monitoring is something that bureaucrats were not used to in the previous governments at the Centre. Ministers may not feel very comfortable about this direct accountability of their secretaries to the prime minister and his office. For many bureaucrats, this additional accountability has required them to practise to perfection the art of walking a tightrope. Many secretaries have excelled in that exercise, while some have failed and paid the price.
Not surprisingly, about 80 secretaries have been reshuffled at the Centre in the last 16 months, compared to less than half that number being transferred in the same period of both the UPA regimes. Several central ministries have seen as many as three secretaries at their helm in the last 16 months. Secretaries have been summarily shifted or they have quit.
The NDA government has now plans for reviewing the performance of all senior officers when they complete 50 years and decide if they need to opt for voluntary retirement. This is yet another move that will bring about a major change in the civil service's relationship with the NDA government. Many of them would even resent the idea of being subjected to performance review at that age, giving them little opportunity to opt for an alternative profession when they are past their prime.
Why not subject us to a performance review when we turn 40, ask many civil servants. That will also be the right time for the government to assess what kind of specialisation a bureaucrat might need or for which stream - an economic ministry or a ministry focussed on internal security or the social sector - he or she may have an aptitude. They have a point. A new environment of greater accountability is all right, but how about a clearer career path for growth?
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
