De-Politicizing Nepal's Bureaucracy:
The Road to Bureaucratic Stability
Kushal pokharel*
1. Introduction
Bureaucracy is a perplexing term and has been subjected to many definitions. It is used
variously to identify an institution, a mode of operation , a view of viewing and organizing
society, a way of life, social category etc. Vincent de Gourney is said to have coined the
term 'bureaucracy' in 1745. The word 'bureaucracy ' which literally means "desk government"
is sometimes used with contempt as it is taken to imply officiousness, regimentation,
irresponsibility and arbitrariness. Since its inception, its use appears to have been pejorative
and its focus to have been on government officials. Technically speaking, the term is used in
two senses. In its larger sense, it is used to describe "any personnel system where the employees
are classified in a system of administration composed of a hierarchy of sections, divisions ,
bureaus and the like". In its narrow sense, it is used to describe "a body of public servants
organized in a hierarchical system which stands outside the sphere of effective public control".
There is no unanimity among the scholars of public administration as to the meaning
and definition of bureaucracy. Various scholars have defined bureaucracy in their own ways.
Bengt Abrahamsson says that bureaucracy has been identified with either of the following
seven divisions: state administration, group of officials, administrative autocracy, rational
organization, organizational efficiency, modern organization or modern society. He observes
that the concept of bureaucracy is multifacted. It is used as a category of persons with special
administrative tasks, as specific form of organization, and polemically and pejoratively as a
criticism of certain trends in modern society. Laski applied the term bureaucracy for a system
of government which is in control of certain hands of officials having power to jeopardise the
liberty of ordinary citizens. Another scholar Henry Monnier portrayed a day in the life of a
bureaucrat: "at nine O'clock the employees arrive at the ministry and warm themselves around
an excessively hot stove, at ten they have tea and sharpen their quills; at ten thirty they chat;
at one they have lunch; at two they go for walks inside the ministry. The only time they work
is midday, when the heads of their office make their tour of inspection". Based on the above
definitions, it can be concluded that governmental systems depend on bureaucracy without
which no modern government can function. In other words, it is considered as a government
in action.
* Researcher
120
PRASHASAN
The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration
2. Changing Concept of Bureaucracy
After the 19th century, conceptions began to emerge which recognized that there
are differences other than those of power and size between group of officials and modes
of organization. One of the most prominent of these conceptions, "transfers attention from
officials as a social group to the mode of organization of the institutions in which they serve.
This use of bureaucracy is important as a forerunner of the widespread 20th century habit of
applying the terms 'bureaucracies' or 'bureaucratic' to institutions rather than to the officials
employed in them; these latter are thus called bureaucrats as much because they work in
the institutions as members of a social group. In fact, it is the mode of organization that is
being emphasized by the modern scholars. It was Max Weber, a German sociologist, who
gave the modern concept of bureaucracy. He never defined bureaucracy in the explicit way
in which he defined "class". He considered bureaucracy as a universal social phenomenon
and the means of carrying "community action" over into rationally ordered "societal action".
He used the word bureaucracy not to refer disparagingly to rule by officials, but to designate
a quite specific kind of administrative organization. He insisted that modern bureaucratic
organization as a form of apparatus was sui generis.
3. Factors for the Rise of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries first in the countries
of Western Europe and then in other countries of the world. It attained unprecedented heights
in the twentieth century despite the triumphs in several states of Marxist ideology which seeks
to eliminate it. Scholars have their own opinions regarding the emergence of bureaucracy.
Some of these views are:
3.1 Laski's views
Laski attributes the rise of bureaucracy to several factors. First, it arose as a byproduct of
aristocracy. In its history, a disinclination on the part of the aristocracy for active government
has in some cases led to the transfer of power into the hands of permanent officials. Secondly,
its origin may be traced to the desire of the Crown to have a body of personal servants who may
be set-off against the appetite of aristocracy for power. Third, the advent of democracy helped
it in two ways: (a). in the nineteenth century, the advent of democratic government overthrew
in the Western world the chance of maintaining a system whereby officials could constitute
a permanent and hereditary caste. (b). The new conditions which accompanied democracy
made it essential to have a body of experts in charge of a particular service. Fifth, the scale
of modern state and the vastness of the service it seeks to render make expert administration
inevitable.
3.2 Martin Krygier's views
Eugene Kamenka and Martin Krygier discuss at length several factors which have
contributed to the rise of a class of permanent state officials called bureaucracy in modern
states. The significance of them are the establishment of strong centralised states in many
countries of Europe beginning with France and Prussia; industrial revolution; expansion
k|zf;g ;fj{hlgs k|zf;g;DaGwL klqsf
121
in the activities of state ; French revolution; growth of the concept that the public officials
were servants of the nation rather than of the ruler personally; introduction of the system of
payments of regular salaries to public servants, who were, it began to be argued, answerable
to the state and not personally to the ruler; etc.
3.3 Max Weber's views
There were bureaucracies in the past e.g. in the ancient Egyptian, Roman and Chinese
administration and in the Roman Catholic Church since the end of the thirteen century, but
they were less bureaucratic, limited in numbers and confined to the state and church only.
With the rise of absolutism in Europe and modernization bureaucracies became more purely
bureaucratic, proliferated and penetrated much wider spheres of social life. Besides the state
administrations, armies, churches, universities, economic enterprises and political parties also
became bureaucratized. Weber regards it as the result of the following causes:
a.
The Creation of Money Economy This process occurred when Europe emerged from the Middle Ages. Weber doesn't
regard it as an absolute pre-requisite because bureaucracies as in existence in countries
like Egypt, Rome and China even when compensation was paid in kind. But that could
not ensure dependable revenues for bureaucrats. The system of rewarding bureaucrats
by grants of land or the collection of tax revenues from given territories in turn tended
to lead to the disintegration of bureaucracies into feudal and semi-feudal domains. On
the contrary, a money economy permits payment of secure, regular salaries which in
turn creates dependable organizations.
b. The Emergence of Capitalist Economy
The system of free enterprise, the essence of capitalism, fostered bureaucracy. It created
the needs which only bureaucratic organization could satisfy. Capitalism encouraged
strong and orderly goverments in its own interests. Furthermore, not only governments
but also capitalist enterprises themselves began to follow bureaucratic principles of
organization because of the requirements of rationality and calculability, the prime
features of capitalism.
c. More Encompassing Trends Towards Rationality in Western Society
Modern Western society experienced the growth of rationalism in many spheres. For
instance, it was evident in the development of Protestant ethic which encouraged hard
work and self discipline. This ethics was the basis of the spirit of capitalism which
called for the rational investments of time and efforts so as to maximize profits and
achievements. This spirit, in turn, was one of the preconditions for the development
of rational capitalism. The general trend towards rationality was also obvious in other
areas like development of sciences and governance.
d. Rise of Complex Administrative Problems
Complexity of tasks to be performed by governents gives rise to a large-scale
bureaucratic organization. The newly emerged centralized states in Europe had to
cope with administrative tasks unknown in the past. Not only did they have to control
122
PRASHASAN
The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration
larger territories and populations but also they had to provide social services of a nature
that no previous states had to procure before. The compelxity of these tasks required
expertise and effectiveness in organization i.e bureaucracy.
4.
Evolution of Civil Service in Nepal
In ordinary parlance, civil service refers to the professional body of officials permanent,
paid and staffed. It is the main source of bureaucracy or personnel system. The history of Nepal's
public administration goes back to the Rana period. During the Rana regime, the government
services was broadly based on 'Chakari' and 'Pajani' which was primarily based on favoritism
and nepotism. Instead of universalistic criteria of merit, performance and achievements,
particularistic criteria such as kinship (Consanguinary relationship), loyalty among others
prevailed in the recruitment process. However, a few lucky ones that too belonging to high
class could enter the civil service if they passed the so called 'Char Pas' examination.
The situation changed after the revolution of 2007 B.S. The Interim Governance
Rule (2007) had a provision of Public Service Commission which opened the door of civil
service to every person on the basis of equal opportunity. In 2013, the first Civil Service Act
was enacted to govern the personnel administration of civil servants. More importantly, the
Constitution of 2015 gave the constitutional recognition to Public Service Commission (PSC)
as a recruiting agency of civil servants. After the Royal takeover, the Panchayati Constitution
of 2019 also continued the constitutional foundation of PSC. In 2021, civil service regulations
was formulated to govern the activities of civil servants. PSC was further consolidated and
made effective by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 2047. To adapt with the changed
politico-administrative milieu, Civil Service Act (2049) and Civil Service Regulations (2050)
were formulated. The first amendment to this act was made in 2055 BS. As per the new
provision, the central agency concerning personnel services administration is the Ministry
of General Administration (MOGA). It is a central personnel agency of the Government of
Nepal to regulate and manage the civil service as prescribed by the Civil Service Act and
government rules and regulations. Again, after the regressive royal takeover , in 2062 , the
Civil Service Act of 2049 was amended for the second time through an ordinance. Although
the amendment was made on the ground of removing the political abuse of civil service,
the real intention was to encourage and reward royal sycophants. After the restoration of
Parliament and subsequent declaration of republic, civil service in Nepal is heading towards a
new direction.
As per the Civil Service Act 2049, the following groups of civil services exist in
Nepal:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Nepal Economic Planning and Statistical Service;
Nepal Engineering Service;
Nepal Agricultural Service;
Nepal Judicial Service;
Nepal Administration Service;
Nepal Forestry Service;
Nepal Miscellaneous Service;
Nepal Education Service;
k|zf;g ;fj{hlgs k|zf;g;DaGwL klqsf
123
The act has further divided the classes of civil services into two- gazetted and nongazetted. Each class has four ranks. The ranks in the gazetted class are special, first, second
and third class respectively. In the same way, the positions in the non-gazetted class are first,
second, third and fourth respectively.
5.
Polito-cracy: The major Evil of Nepal's Bureaucracy
Nepal has now reached a terrifying point in its history where politics has hijacked
bureaucracy. From handling the appointments of government secretaries and ambassadors to
influencing the promotion of low-level clerks, Nepal's politicians have dug their hands far deep
into the country's bureaucracy. In doing so, our leaders despite their impressive democratic
rhetorics have shattered the value of honest meritocracy and have instead promoted extreme
form of nepotism and sycophancy. Consequently, Nepal has given birth to "polito-crats", a
breed of bureaucrats with a political mind, ready to serve as agents for political parties in
return for political sponsorship. Owing to this, corruption has multiplied and favoritism has
thrived in the government, with the honest and deserving bureaucrats getting left far behind.
Hidden in the deep fabric of Nepali polity is an unnoticed threat greater than any extremist
forces; it is the over-abundance of power given to the executive branch. Politicians seek to
alter established policies towards their preferred objectives. The country's failure to establish a
robust, autonomous and neutral bureaucracy, one that can firmly stand as a check-and -balance
against politicians means that Nepal will remain hostage to the whims of those in power.
Likewise, if both the legislature and judiciary remains the servile pawns of the executive limb,
Nepal will linger in this perpetual volatility. Moreover, an overt politicization of bureaucracy
is rapidly contributing for deteriorating the values and ethics of the civil service. Despite
the fact, that Chapter VII of Nepal civil service Act (with subsequent amendments) contains
provisions on the code of conduct for civil servants, there are hardly any cases of disciplinary
actions against any civil servants for failing to uphold code of conduct and ethics. Some of the
important provisions are that civil servants should not use political influence with an intention
to achieve personal interests, participate in political activities, criticize the government, and
join demonstrations and strikes. Furthermore, they are expected to demonstrate courtesy to
their clients and are expected to uphold his/her conduct, in accordance with his/her service
and position. But the bitter reality is that at times, political parties openly invite the civil
servants to join political rally to press the demand of the opposition party, thus motivating the
civil servants to break their code of conduct.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that in recent years, bureaucracy has been too
much politicized. Chances of being appointed to the position of Secretary or other similar
positions, Departmental Heads, chief of the public enterprises have become a zero sum game to
those that do not enjoy any proximity, with one or another, political parties. The biggest source
of political influence is in-built in the present Civil Service Act which is amended to reflect
that in the positions equivalent to Special Class/ Secretary, the Promotion Committee has to
recommend candidates three times to the number of vacant positions and the government can
appoint anybody from the list. This has motivated the Civil Servants to develop relationship
with the politicians to exert his/her influence for promotion. In fact, the provisions of the Act
encourages political parties to derive benefits through such appointments. This is detrimental
to the emergence of apolitical civil service in the country.
124
PRASHASAN
The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration
There are several factors which influence the functioning of bureaucracies. For instance,
public interests, opinion of elites in the society among others are crucial determinants of
the working of permanent executive i.e. bureaucracy. The idea that bureaucracy is much
influenced by the interest groups was expressed as early as 1936 by Herring, followed with
confirmation papers by Griffin (1939) and Sleznick (1949). However, at the turn of the later
half of the twentieth century, the elite based theory became dominant in bureaucratic literature
with Huntington's detailed historical analysis of bureaucracy published in 1952. With this, the
general consensus that bureaucracies are at danger of serving the needs of elite and political
heads rather than public interests became prevalent. This elite influenced bureaucratic paradigm
is more relevant in Nepal than in the United States or Western European States. As Ripley and
Franklin mentioned while defending Western bureaucracies in 1986 "Western bureaucracies
are not fully controlled by any superior...........they have the liability to the constitution, both
written and unwritten". As a result, a list of scholars (Wilson 1989; Aberbach 1990) leaned
towards the notion that overhead bureaucratic control cannot be achieved and that neither the
Congress, Parliament, Presidents nor the Prime Ministers had the interest or the necessary
clout to control bureaucracy. On the contrary, in developing countries like Nepal. bureaucracy
became too vulnerable to escape political manipulation.
6. The way forward
As a matter of fact, the answer for Nepal lies in blueprinting a bureaucracy with
unprecedented autonomy, isolating bureaucracy from the potential manipulation that has made
it a puppet of politicians. The solution is not to hope for honest leaders but to isolate these
leaders from daily bureaucratic affairs. No sector of the country will undergo development
if it blindly grants its keys to its leaders. Nepal's long-term structural solution, therefore,
lies not in switching the keys, but in changing the lock itself. There are some substantial
benefits of de-politicizing bureaucracy. First, there is persuasive evidence that an apolitical
bureaucracy will place meritocracy above nepotism in government and consequently lead to
higher levels of economic growth. In 1999, Peter Evans tested the 'Weberianness' in which
they examined over forty countries in the span of two decades to test if Weber was correct even
in today's context. The result was definitive. Countries like Singapore and Hong-Kong with
strictly de-politicized bureaucracies were experiencing much more economic development
than in countries like Argentina, Spain, and Peru where politicians would appoint Secretaries,
Ambassadors and other top-tier bureaucrats.
Second, unlike politicians, bureaucrats in Nepal are much more permanent part of
the system. In their long careers, they will work under an array of different administrations
with varying political ideologies. It is therefore, crucial that bureaucrats be politically neutral.
A multitude of politicians may come and go, but a weak and politicized bureaucracy may
deteriorate Nepal in the long haul. A politically impartial bureaucracy can offer stability which
politics in Nepal cannot. In a country like ours where government changes almost every eight
months, the entire bureaucracy gets reshuffled according to the new government. Every eight
or ten months, new Secretaries for ministries are appointed, new Ambassadors are appointed,
and our leaders make their bids for the top position in government. It is this frequent change
in bureaucracy, not political instability alone, that hurt Nepal the most. While other nations
k|zf;g ;fj{hlgs k|zf;g;DaGwL klqsf
125
also experience political volatility, their bureaucracy remains stable, avoiding this constant
political face-lift.
Third, the separation of politics and bureaucracy will play a key role in mitigating
corruption. In Nepal, the public offer has become a great income source for political parties.
Corruption has manifested in two ways: First, politicians expect monetary returns before
appointing certain bureaucrats into top positions. Secondly, there are a number cases in Nepal's
history where politicians appointed certain Secretaries and Ambassadors, expecting 'Chandas'
to their political parties.
7. Conclusion
For many, bureaucracy is the focus of popular dislike, the 'red tape', the infamous
'they'. It is difficult to imagine in this era of bureaucracy bashing and widespread antipathy
towards the government, that bureaucracy can be a constructive force. Yet, the political
history of modern democracies and contemporary political literature has endorsed a stronger
and independent bureaucracy. From early Aristoian scriptures to Rousseau, Montesquieu and
Locke, there is general consensus that bureaucracy is a reaction against subjugation, nepotism,
cruelty, emotional vicissitudes, and capricious judgement of leaders. For Nepal, bureaucratic
liberty and autonomy will be the strongest safeguard against the country's perpetual political
instability. Finally, as an essential part of civil service reforms, the institutional capacity in
the government for effectively carrying out anti-corruption programs need to be significantly
strengthened.
References
Fadia, B.L.,(2002), 'Public Administration', Agra: Sahitya Bhawan Publication.
Halevy, Evaetizioni (1985), ' Bureaucracy and Democracy: A Political Dilemma', 14 Leicester
Square, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Plc
Huntington, P.Samuel,(1969),'Political Order in Changing Societies', New Haven CT, Yale
University Press
Joshi, Nanda Lal (1973) , ' Evolution of Public Administration in Nepal: Experiences and
Lessons' , Centre of Economic Development and Administration, Tribhuwan
University
Sachdeva and Gupta, (1970), 'A Simple Study of Public Administration', Delhi, Ajanta
Prakashan
Nepal Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, Issues 3-305, pg-61 International Monetary Fund,
2003.
websites
www.moga.gov.np/ civil service act/english
www.nepjol.info/index.php/AMR/article/view/3046 Why Civil Service Reform Fail?- A Case
of Nepal- Article by Rabindra.K. Shakya (2009)
126
PRASHASAN
The Nepalese Journal of Public Administration