In the United Kingdom, the last Labour government came to power led by Tony Blair through a massive victory in the 1997 general election. Tony Blair was hugely popular initially but lost much of his support when he joined hands with the United States to invade Iraq on the pretext of eliminating hidden nuclear and chemical weapons. He eventually resigned in 2007 when Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister. The Labour Party lost the general election in 2010 when Conservative Party and Liberal Democratic Party formed a coalition government.
During the 13 years of Labour government there was one Mr. David Blunkett who served as a cabinet member under both the prime ministers and headed a number of departments at different times. He was Home Secretary from June 08, 2001 to December 15, 2004. He was a blind person who used to move around with his guide dog. He was a very knowledgeable and efficient minister who never showed any sign of disability or incapacity.
Mr. Blunkett had a Filipina domestic aid. This maid was always busy running around the Home Office to fix her visa/residential status. Whenever Mr. Blunkett asked for her, she was away to the Home Office. The minister got quite upset. One morning, the minister asked his Private Secretary to ring up the Director of Immigration to find out the problem relating to the status of his maid. In a few minutes his secretary told him that the problems had been solved. The minister looked happy.
The happiness of the minister did not last long. Within the next two days he faced questions in parliament. He was accused of 'over-exercising', in other words, misusing his powers. He replied that he merely wanted to know the status of the case and nothing more. The members of parliament reminded the minister as to what it implies to a director when the minister wants to know the status. That was enough. Mr. David Blunkett resigned as the Home Secretary.
The obvious thing that may come to the mind of a reader is that the minister was in-charge of the entire ministry and as such he could have even asked for the matter to be settled as per his wishes. When I talked to a Spanish friend of mine about this matter, his views were also similar. I did not blame my friend for holding such views. After all, Spain was under military dictatorship for a long time. Democracy will take time to establish its ethics, standards and tradition in Spain.
In the United Kingdom, it is different. Civil servants carry out all the day-to-day operations in accordance with rules, procedures and guidelines given by the government/ministers. The ministers do not interfere with the delegated functions of the civil servants. Ministers oversee, on behalf of the government, the work done by civil servants. The minister can ask for explanations of the relevant civil servant when s/he feels there has been violation of procedures that compromises policy of the government. This is because at the end of the day the minister remains answerable to parliament. What the minister cannot do is to dictate the civil servants what to do or how to do. That would amount to interfering with the functions delegated to the civil servants. This would also mean misuse of power. At the same time the civil servants are also intelligent and matured enough to understand when to refer to the minister a case that may have political implications. These matters are established by practice and procedures.
Mr. Blunkett acted beyond his usual call of duty when he asked his private secretary to ring up the director of immigration in respect of a particular case. That was not acceptable to the tradition of British democratic governance and he had to go. In the process, it set a bench mark of standards and a precedent for future reference. This is how the democratic governance works in Britain that has no written constitution.
In developing countries, most of which were under colonial rule for long period of time, the relation between government/ministers and civil servants is not well defined or understood. Lack of documented procedures and government guidelines are to blame. This is a big obstacle to democratic governance. It becomes a serious problem when the ministers are corrupt. They try to get the civil servants also involved in their corrupt practice and procedures. The ministers even pass un-written orders and instructions. In most cases the civil servants are not bold enough to take a stand. The civil servants also remain afraid of losing their jobs. This is how state machineries are used for political gains.
Hence, there should be rules/regulations and documented procedures in addition to governmental policy guidelines for conducting routine operational duties by the civil servants on behalf of the government. [In Bangladesh, the Rules of Business are supposed to regulate the relations between the political authority and the administration.] The minister must ensure that every decision is arrived at in full compliance of set procedures. After all, it is the minister who is answerable to parliament.
It must not be necessary for everything to be referred to the ministers which will drastically reduce efficiency. The civil servants should be trained and efficient enough to discharge the delegated functions. This delicate
balance should be maintained. That is the true spirit of democratic
governance.
fazlu.chowdhury@btinternet.com