Polity versus bureaucracy in implementation of development work

Election fever will prevail in the country for the next year and not much work can be expected in terms of development of the country even if the present Government makes attempts on various fronts, given the heavy concentration on the forthcoming Presidential, Provincial Council and General Elections.

This point of view is to shed light on a perspective to which the politicians need to take a note in the future as to how the short- and long-term goals of the country can be reached in all development sectors. It is undeniable that politicians want to do something towards development with or without personal motives – be it power, or material gains, both being, no doubt, addictive. 

The government is a system which branches out from the respective election manifesto and policy documents to various acts, decisions of Cabinet, Treasury, ministries, departments, boards, corporations and government State-owned businesses in all functions including donor funding. There are procedures spelt out in financial and administrative regulations through various procurement systems and these need to be followed strictly whichever government comes into power. Deviations will end up in litigations as we have seen of late.

The unending clash between polity and the bureaucracy is hardly seen by the general public that often tends to criticise politicians. In fairness to the politicians, they would like to expedite development process and often attempt to find shortcuts to finalise processes whether there are preferred contractors or not. Most of the said projects stall halfway when they are found to have deviated from the procedure, however genuine intention of the politicians may have been. This is one side of the story.

From the viewpoint of the officials, starting from secretaries, there is a reluctance to place their signature after what they have seen in the last few years when senior government officials had to face inquiries under the spotlight of the media. Government officials would not want to take the risk of being taken to the FCID or CID, hence the delay in processing projects and tenders at present.

If one carefully assesses the existing rules and procedures in administrative and financial regulations, they cannot be challenged as instruments that are causing delays, provided the procurement processes commence on time according to the book and proceed from there. In this respect these are the main issues that are not visible to the general public:

 

• Non-availability of a sufficient number of procurement experts within the public sector who can advise public institutions how and which procedure to follow. Such advisors authorised by the Ministry of Finance should be appointed to technical and procurement committees from the beginning of the process where they would advise on the right procedure to follow and stay with it until the tenders are awarded.
•   Difficulties in awarding tenders to single source supplier/contractor even if that is the last option, without sufficient justification. Awarding tenders to single source should not be viewed as being illegal as long as they are beneficial to the organisation or country at a given time with reasoning. We hardly see senior officials taking such decisions and standing by them with authority.
• Transfers of senior officials within shorter period of times from one ministry to another where the processes must be looked at from the beginning which leads to delays.
•  Lack of proper documentation which results in audit queries which end up in COPE committees, bringing the process to a complete halt.

These are said to be issues faced by Government officials working on the procurement processes. 

Politicians on the other hand face issues which cannot be resolved without support and commitment from the bureaucracy. Here are some examples:

 

• Attempting to take advantage of single source proposals due to their attractiveness and appropriateness without going through the procedure which in fact allows such contacts with sufficient justification. However, deviations take place with the notion that Cabinet approval is sufficient, which is a misconception. 
• There might be preferences to work with party supporters for obvious reasons. Involving personnel and committees that are outside permissible frameworks of technical and procurement committees with an idea that the rules can be bent tends to backfire at some stage. 
• There have been stories about commencing work prior to finalising documentation and procedures where anything may happen between the cup and the lip and the officials are taken to task when there are incomplete files. These will also hamper work when questions are raised during implementation.
• Lack of transparency in a process where the deviations of procedures cannot be justified later.
•  Many projects require coordination required from line ministries and unless there is proper cooperation, projects tend to stall which cannot be moved with political pressure.
  
   

What has been stated so far is without assumptions of sinister political and bureaucratic motives when entering development contracts. 

The purpose of writing this note is to elaborate on this area that needs to be looked into in terms of development work, whichever government comes into power.

The ministries formulate policies and implementing agencies are expected to carry out the work.

 When there is lack of performance or irregularities, only the implementing agencies are blamed and taken to task while the bureaucracy above seems somehow left alone. 

The examples are not given as the purpose of this article is not to target persons but the system. Until this is understood and streamlined, what suffers would be the development work in the country with a never-ending invisible clash between the polity and bureaucracy. 

(The writer is formerly an official and diplomat and currently a senior lecturer.)