Of ministers and secretaries

This piece is about the imperative need for harmony between politicians and bureaucracy. The unanimity must not be of protecting self-interest, but of the passion to serve selflessly the Nation. The harmony must be of good intent and not of collusion to gnaw together at the roots of the State.

Every time there is a new prime minister, politicians of all ilk, hues, and colours, whether of the winning party or not, in anticipation, keep gazing at their cell phones. The wait is for that adrenaline boosting call, either from the PM (designate) himself or from his private staff. The cell phone is never out of their sight, just as it is never from that young sixteen year old lass, who is confused between love and infatuation.

What’s the expectation? Which words of greatest melodious import they keep wishing to ring in their ears? (No matter, if proverbially, the hearing due to occupational hazard of being politician may have turned them into being stone deaf). The sound of the nightingale (PM) whose voice otherwise could be hoarse and rough, is eagerly awaited, that likely will inform, “I have selected you to be the Minister for…” Wow!

The clownish jumping jack child within the politician gets so overwhelmed that the individual starts to jump from one platform to another in an act of political trapeze, with very weak and flimsy nets underneath. The mind beguiles and strays away from the reality and the rush of adrenaline suggests that finally, the PM has realised, the need to place a person of high calibre (falsely assumed) in an important ministry.

In reality, most ministers (designate) have no clue of the ministries they are likely to lead. A person who has a degree in metallurgical sciences can be asked to lead the ministry of culture or, on a far-fetched imagination, could be the ministry of “Religious Affairs”.

Since political parties in our democratic setup do not have the basic democratic element of developing ‘Shadow Cabinet’, whilst in opposition — the selection is random and erratic— in many cases mind-boggling, that tests the basic intelligence of the otherwise ‘illiterate’ electorate. At least, one political party as an exception had “indicated” who would get a particular portfolio, if they make it to power, and they did; however, the nominated individual was ill-prepared for the job; in fact, he was ‘innocent’ of the requirements of the assignment.

If Zulfikar Ali Bhutto commented on international or foreign affairs, he had every right to do so; he was qualified, competent, had a keen sense of history, he could articulate like no other could and above all possessed an “attitude to learn” from the seasoned bureaucrats. Aziz Ahmed, his foreign secretary, is a case in point. Benazir Bhutto was another who made the right impact internationally.

Bureaucrats convince that no shadow minister must be given the shadow ministry because the minister having spent time on the subject may actually attempt to put in place a workable policy that may give results to the disadvantage of the bureaucracy. For bureaucracy that would be blasphemous.

Once the politician is assigned a ‘ministry’ and should he/she happen to know the least about the portfolio, the individual is at the mercy of the bureaucracy led ably by the Secretary. We as a Nation are so fond to put square pegs in round holes. The malaise afflicts both the government and private sector. And what a cobweb of entrapment is bureaucracy, all about.

Politicians in consonance with the dictates of the Party’s manifesto are expected to lay down the broad parameters of the policy to be pursued, be it agriculture, interior, foreign affairs, commerce and trade, economy and finance. Once the policy has been framed the job of execution falls in the lap of “bureaucracy”. A “lap” with no shores, defined ever, anywhere, in any part of the world of bureaucracy, across various geographies.

Politicians and bureaucrats have one thing in common, at least, and that is both have their unique ability to misuse language, a trait invaluable and priceless. The need for clarity, precision, accuracy and relevance is at the mercy of these master players of demagoguery. A yes is a no. A no is a yes. Ambiguity and vagueness is their mutually agreed creed of operations.

In the toughest of situations/problems, the Secretary always throws in the life jacket to the ministers, it is another matter that the minister doesn’t know why and by whom he was thrown to the sharks in the seawater in the first place. The Secretary and the Minister both remain always equally unreliable about failures in action and implementation but are confident about successes.

A complaint Secretary offers solutions to problems by making available a choice to be made from the menu of options:

a. What happened?

b. What he believed happened?

c. What he would like to have happened?

d. What he wanted others to believe happened?

e. What he wanted others to believe that he believed happened (borrowed from Yes Minister). Now only a smart Alec can walk out of that maze of options.

My father was with the civil services. He narrated at our dining table anecdotes, and one was about an altercation between the minister and the Secretary. In a meeting, a young minister to throw his weight around lost his shirt upon the Secretary, in doing so he made unprintable and unpalatable remarks. The cool-headed Secretary, in all grace and humility, said: “Sir, you are highly educated and I believe you were a student of English literature too. You would have read, The Brook by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, where he says about the stream, “men may come, men may go, but I go on forever…” Altered for your consideration is my version, Sir, “ministers may come, and ministers will go, but bureaucracy will go on to serve” (even as OSDs). The minister turned into bright shining red turnip!

The Secretary’s primary task is to ensure that the minister doesn’t get to press any keys on the panel of decision making. Immobilise is the slogan. If the minister says I wish to “fire” all the deadwood from the SOEs that are white elephants, the Secretary rescues and says, “the minister means that following an evaluation process, the available human capital can be considered at an opportune time for redeployment.”

To a query why an inquiry report is not being released, only the expertise of the bureaucrats comes in as a handy deluge of useless arguments to the politicians: it still has unanswered questions; the evidence is inconclusive; many aspects open a Pandora of possible other interpretations and we also notice the contents at a few places are contradictory. (No one says the questions are unanswered because the questions haven’t been raised at all). To every question raised the answer is “that’s a good question”. Press briefings and conferences become commercials of the government.

If any minister wishes to know “more” he gets inundated with piles of files until he shouts out, I cannot read all the files. Every act of kindness is laced with self-interest.

Bureaucrats are extremely kind to one another; they create enough work for each other. The simplest tasks are converted into complex issues, requiring multiple inputs from across several ministries. By the time a final opinion is formed on any subject, it is time for elections! Hurrah.

Post script: Will someone pull out from the warehouse of the bureaucracy — the civil services reforms authored by Dr Ishrat Husain? We have to make bureaucracy work with the politicians like they do in Japan, Singapore and South Korea, to name a few.