By Lynn Ockersz-December 3, 2013,
The power relations between politicians and public servants are of such a nature in our part of the world that the latter are often compelled to do the verbal bidding of the former, regardless of whether such unwritten orders are considered right or wrong. This power imbalance contributes in no small measure towards what is wrong being committed in the public sphere, besides socially responsible public officials being forced to violate the dictates of their consciences.
Unfortunately, a landmark Indian Supreme Court ruling made in November that politicians should from now on deliver written directives and not mere verbal ones to public servants on important issues, besides spelling out other measures of importance which could help in the qualitative improvement of the public sector, is yet to become part of ‘public discourse’ in Sri Lanka.
Ideally, this epochal Indian SC ruling must be discussed and debated in this country and other parts of the developing world where senior public servants do not enjoy independence of thought, conscience and decision-making to the desired degree. That this is not happening is, perhaps, a measure of the demoralization the public sector has suffered over the decades as a result of the major power imbalance between the politician and the public servant referred to above.
It is sometimes the case that public servants have to do the bidding of powerful politicians and their top representatives in public institutions, regardless of whether these orders are seen as right or wrong, and this country’s failure to evolve suitable institutions to protect and sustain the independence of the public service is also a principal reason for the steady enslavement of state sector officials to some politicians. It is best that local politicians bear in mind the words of former Indian Cabinet Secretary T.S.R. Subramaniam, who was among 83 retired senior Indian public servants who petitioned the SC on the question of insulating the Indian public service from political interference: ‘Public servants are not private servants.’
From what an impartial observer could gather from the interactions, locally, between politicians and their collaborators who wield power in public institutions, and the public servant, the latter is sometimes expected to follow the dictates clamped on him, regardless of whether it is considered advisable to implement these directives or otherwise. That is, there is minimal or hardly any debate or discussion on many a crucial issue, between politician and public servant, and it goes without saying that this state of affairs could only do more harm than good to a country. After all, a country which has virtually ceased to think enjoys no prospects of intellectual and spiritual growth.
Sad to say, this is true of many local state sector institutions and we urge both the ‘rulers and the ruled’ to think long and deep on this issue. It just would not do for politicians and their close representatives to relate in a top-down fashion to senior public servants. Ideally, institutional reform must take centre stage in what passes off as public ‘discourse’ and we must see concrete action to put things right, to the extent possible.
Mere verbal directives are sometimes issued by some politicians and their representatives at top decision-making levels in institutions, to their officials and strict obedience rigidly exacted from the latter when it is realized by the politicians and other authorities concerned that injudicious and wrong orders are thus being made. If this were not the case, written instructions would be sent out. That this acceptable procedure is not followed points to the fact that some politicians and their top representatives have no qualms of conscience in ‘playing it safe’ while their hapless officials suffer the consequences of carrying out these wrong orders. It could very well be the case that these powerless officials would even end-up behind bars while the brow-beating, heavy-fisted politicians and other authorities remain out in the open, living to bully and bluster another day.
When what is seen as the wrong instruction or order is not given in writing, but verbally, the duty-conscious public official has no choice but to say ‘no’ to them. He has to refrain from carrying them out because he could in no way violate the voice of his conscience. Besides, he should not stand accused of doing wrong by the people of this country. After all, a weighty duty is owed by the public servant to the people because it is the latter’s contributions to the public purse which help in the sustenance of public institutions and many a politician.
However, if an order comes to the public servant, on what is considered a sensitive and crucial matter, from his ‘bosses’ in writing, he may carry it out if he thinks it would not result in any harm occurring to the common weal, but the last court of appeal as to the advisability of carrying out the contemplated measure or action is none other than the official’s conscience. The public official is obliged to say ‘no’ to these potentially harmful orders if his conscience tells him that it would be injudicious, unethical and not in the public interest to abide by the directive concerned. Besides, the official needs to consider his personal and professional integrity very deeply. Those orders which transgress the latter concerns need to be rejected as well.
In other words, the public servant cannot sell his or her soul for a ‘mess of pottage’. But saying ‘no’ to wrong orders could be a matter of life and death for the public servant. After all, his job could very well be at stake if he is seen by his bosses as defying instructions. The fact must be faced that many a public servant who is seen as ‘uncooperative’ is sacked by intolerant and position-hungry bosses.
Many a public official has no choice but to carry out orders, regardless of the advisability of carrying them out, in consideration of their jobs and livelihoods. However, a law to the effect that politicians and their collaborators should always issue written directives to their officials could go some distance in shielding public servants and their livelihoods. This will enable a court of law to apportion blame to bosses and not their hapless officials if matters arising from public servants carrying out the wrong instructions come-up for adjudication at a later date.
In the long and medium terms, public officials of this country need to emulate their Indian counterparts. Our public servants need to ensure that a law is in place to protect their independence and their personal and professional integrity. They must cease being pawns of politicians and their henchmen. Once such a law is in place, every effort must be made by public servants to ensure its full implementation.
