HE Indian political scene has now entered a coalition era. Many national political parties think that it is a temporary phenomenon and hope that the old era of a single party forming the government will return. Apparently, they are living in a fool's paradise and indulging in wishful thinking. The coalition era is an inevitablity and our efforts should be to accept this and work this new system in a more mature way. One facet of this new system – the civil service’s role in and in relation with a collation government at the Centre – has become very sensitive.
Theoretically, at least this question should not have arisen with the classical bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is supposed to be efficient, corruption-free, transparent and accountable, and more importantly, apolitical.
In the Indian context it means that the bureaucracy is loyal to the Constitution. Though under the party in power, it functions in a way which is fair to all irrespective of their political affiliations.
The bureaucratic machine which we inherited from the British was allowed to function fairly until Jawaharlal Nehru’s death. There was no undue interference in its working. There were, of course, some exceptional circumstances but they were within small and tolerable limits.
It was a long period of stable one-party government. The Prime Minister was a towering personality. Added to this was his liberal philosophy and innate respect for the parliamentary democratic functioning of the government. The bureaucracy, therefore, had no difficulty in functioning properly during his years in power.
But then started the unstable period in Indian politics. Even though the Congress formed a one-party government, its position started getting challenged. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi tried to face the challenge but, unfortunately, by using the bureaucratic machine.
The bureaucracy, which is supposed to be apolitical, was systematically subjected to become a committed bureaucracy. Such use of the bureaucracy to gain and maintain power did not escape the attention of other political parties and it became a universally accepted practice.
The bureaucracy began to face the problem of how to maintain its internal independence and external political impartiality. This aspect of the bureaucracy is very important, especially when there is no political stability in the country.
A good example is that of the French bureaucracy, which helped steer the country's economy, administrative machinery and even foreign policy through the turbulent era of French politics in the post-World War II era. Something like this can also be said about the Japanese bureaucracy.
In India the first coalition government was formed during 1977-79, another one during 1989-91 and the third in 1996 but it was a very short one. The real coalition era started with the NDA government in 1999 and it continued with the present UPA government from 2004.
I would like to repeat here what I said at the beginning of the article that the coalition era is here to stay. As a matter of fact, there is nothing basically wrong in forming a coalition government. A classical coalition government consists of political parties with like-minded philosophy, objectives and policies.
Like the practical manifestation of this combination is a common minimum programme. What is happening in India is that coalitions are formed not before but after elections. They are, therefore, purely opportunistic entities formed to gain and maintain power.
This explains the difference between the working of a coalition government, say in Germany, and that in India. Added to this is a peculiar feature of Indian politics i.e. that the partners in a coalition include a national party as well as a large number of regional parties.
The regional parties are still not used to working on a national basis as they have just started functioning in the national mainstream politics. Hopefully, over a period of time they would develop a national outlook without necessarily giving up their regional compulsions.
Another not so desirable aspect of the present coalition politics is that the partner parties not only fight over the number of ministers but also over their portfolios.
Against this background of functioning of coalition governments at the Centre, let us see the problems faced by the Indian bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, it was facing a similar problem even when there was a one-party Congress government.
The bureaucratic machine was used by political parties as the system of a political party having active field cadres had almost disappeared. The bureaucratic machine continued to be used by most parties for raising resources for the party and putting down the Opposition, especially during the election times.
It is a matter of sorrow, if not shame, that the Indian bureaucracy could not stand up to this political challenge, which made it a tool of the system and not a tool of public service. Favouritism, selections, promotions and postings and transfers were indiscriminately used. The bureaucrats also succumbed to these pressure tactics.
These unfavorable aspects are only being enlarged and widely spread during the coalition politics. Instead of facing interference from one political party the bureaucracy has now to face interference from many political parties which are partners in a coalition government.
In the absence of a major political leadership party, all the partners in the coalition pull in their own ways which not only thoroughly confuses the bureaucratic machine but demoralises it also.
I have already mentioned the experience of the French bureaucracy, which stood united and saw the country safely through a period of political turmoil and economic instability. Unfortunately, the Indian bureaucracy is in no position to play such a role, at least for the present.
The only hope is that coalition politics will evolve in such a way that the partners will have pre-election agreed policies and objectives, which are in national interest.
They would also accept that an apolitical bureaucracy is a major asset and it should not be used only for the sake of getting and maintaining power but allowed to function as an efficient, honest and responsive public service.
The bureaucracy also has its own responsible role to play in this process. Senior bureaucrats especially have a vital role to play. They should not only give leadership but also function as role models. There should be an internal code of conduct which may be informal but should be accepted and observed by a large majority of the members.
The bureaucrats should stand together to make it difficult for the political machine to play with them. Groupism, sycophancy, any supine submission to political interference and corruption should be noted and a message sent around that the members indulging in this can and will be isolated and boycotted.
This approach is necessary, especially in state governments, where coalition politics has played havoc in the past 40 years, the classic examples being Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. An enlightened, empowered and participatory civil society and its various organisations should come forward to help the bureaucracy play its proper role in coalition
politics.
The writer is a former Cabinet Secretary