The Minister or the Secretary?

Unfortunate though, the question as to who wields the real power of the government, the minister or the secretary has been made an issue that is baffling many a people in our country.

The politicians i.e the elected representatives of the people and the ministers, are expected to reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people in the governance of the country. The bureaucracy and the secretary, on the other hand, constitute the machinery for running the government and are required to implement the decisions of the political masters i.e. the prime minister and the Cabinet of ministers who are the executive authority of the government and collectively responsible to the parliament.

Various groups of people and individuals have various perceptions about the roles and responsibilities of the politicians and the bureaucracy, their relationship, and how they perform in the conduct of business of the government.

The other day, while talking to me on the subject, a member of parliament expressed his frustration by saying that the minister never means what he says. Ministers very often give false assurance of doing this or that but hardly fulfil their promises. In actual fact, the MP said, the minister is a prisoner in the hands of the Secretary. If the secretary says that a certain proposal is not accepted because it is not permissible under the rules, the minister feels helpless. The MP further says that if the bureaucracy does not support a case it will die a natural death.

Secretaries and bureaucrats on the other hand often complain that the ministers interfere in the proper conduct of administrative process and also usurp the powers and authority that belong to the attached departments and subordinate offices under the ministry. A chairman of a corporation told me that he could not fill up the post of a few junior officers even though a panel had been selected on the basis of open competition by written test and viva-voce as per rules. The Minister told the Chairman that none other than the ones sent by him should be appointed in those posts even though the chairman was the appointing authority. A director general of a department complained that even though the government speaks of decentralisation of administrative powers to the departments under the laws and rules, the heads of department are not allowed to exercise such powers and files on administrative matters are required to be submitted to the minister for decision/approval.

Some ministers, on the other hand, complain that the secretary/bureaucracy does not follow his instructions or implement his decisions. Contrary to this a joint secretary expressed his disappointment about a secretary who was always too eager to oblige the minister and would not write any thing in the file unless the minister gave indications of what he wanted.

One secretary claimed that he was the administrative head of the ministry and was responsible for conducting the business of the ministry. As such he was not required to submit cases to the minister except those which are specifically required to be submitted to the minister under the rules and laws. The minister was responsible for policy matters only and should not ask for files for taking decision on executive and administrative matters. The minister, on the other hand, was frank enough to say that he would be glad enough to hand-over the policy matters to the secretary and himself deal with administrative and executive matters which really touch upon the people in their every day life. It is for these matters that the people approach the minister for redress of grievances or for grant of favours.

A Secretary when approached for a grant for some public institution or organisation said that all such grants are now given by the minister personally without processing such cases through administrative channel. Government fund may not in such cases be utilised for the purpose for which it is sanctioned, the secretary opined.

It is any body's knowledge that if the minister and the secretary are at loggerheads on a particular matter, the decision is delayed for months and years and the case is lost in the shelf.

The issue who is more powerful, the minister or the secretary was recently highlighted in the columns of an esteemed Bangali national daily under the captions "bureaucrats still in control of powers" and "who is in possession of the Republic."The main theme of the writer is that even though the new Rules of Business gives more powers to the ministers, in actual fact the bureaucrats have retained the actual powers of conducting the activities of the government because of their knowledge, skill and technique on the one hand and the lack of quality, cowardice and vested interest of the ministers on the other. At one point it is stated in the report that the history of the last 50 years of our country is in a sense a history of struggle against the civil and the military bureaucracy. As days are passing bureaucrats are extending stronger grip over the governance of the country.

This view in my opinion takes the matter a little too far in so far as the bureaucracy, both civil and military, has been painted as an enemy against which the whole nation has been fighting. The question arises, is it a fight against the members of the civil and military bureaucracy or it is against the system of bureaucracy. If it is against the bureaucrats, it has to be remembered that the bureaucrats are also sons of the soil and except for a few rajakars, all bureaucrats fought for the freedom of Bangladesh by giving all possible support - physically, intellectually and morally, and also by taking part in the war of liberation; how could they be enemies of the people? Bureaucrats hardly take any important decision without the approval of the minister and as such ministers are also a party to the "anti-people" decisions taken by the government. On the other hand, if the so-called fight is against the bureaucratic system i.e. the rules and procedures of administration, is it not the responsibility of the ministers and the elected representatives of the people i.e. the politicians, to take steps to rectify the anti-people provisions of the rules and procedures? After all, executive authority of the state is vested in the prime minister and his/her cabinet of ministers. Another writer commenting on the same report in the same newspaper contended that the minister also does not show any concern about public complaints and grievances and may not even know the rules and procedures under which the bureaucracy is required to work.

The other day I was passing through Kuala Lumpur and had a chance meeting with a dynamic Bangladeshi entrepreneur who had set up a joint venture company in Bangladesh with Malaysian collaboration. He praised the fast growth and success story of Malaysia in economic development and asked me, "Do you know, who is actually responsible for the spectacular achievement of Malaysia? "It is the secretary and the bureaucracy," he said, "which is the main instrument that has changed the face of Malaysia under the dynamic leadership of the prime minister and his cabinet colleagues. The people of Malaysia have great respect for the Malaysian bureaucracy."I had the occasion to meet another Bangladeshi personality, an erstwhile minister, in Kuala Lumpur. While talking about the splendid achievements of Malaysia in economic development, the former minister told me that the ministers in Malaysia give decisions and directions on policy and programmes but leave their implementation and administration to the secretary and the bureaucracy. He further said that a Malaysia minister whom he knew from before had told him that the ministers in Malaysia give more attention to matters of public policy and parliamentary and party matters. The secretary himself brings up important cases involving public interest to the notice of the minister if he considered necessary.

In the fast developing countries of Asia the issue for the political leaders and the bureaucrats is how to accelerate the growth target, how to maximise efficiency in providing service and how to establish harmony between the minister and the secretary. They are striving for achieving synergy between the public and the private sector. In our country, the main issue seems to be who is bigger and higher, whether bureaucrats are more powerful or the politicians, who has more authority to interrupt and intervene in the process of administration and development. According to some views, the question of how to help somebody to solve his problem by taking a positive attitude, how to enhance the standard of service and how to speed up development of the country does not appear to be the common concern of the ministers and the secretaries.

The real issue is not whether the politician/minister is more powerful than the bureaucrat/secretary but whether and how they can work together as a team on the basis of mutual understanding, co-operation and trust for achieving the objectives of the government and implementing the programmes of the government to attain the welfare and development of the country and provide efficient service to the people.

The relationship between the Minister and the Secretary should be based on the following principles:1. Minister is charged with the responsibility for the over all directions of business of the ministry and secretary is the Minister's principal adviser and agent and responsible for the management of the ministry and its programmes.

2. There must be full sharing of confidence and trust between the Secretary and the Minister and respect for each other to establish harmonious relations in the discharge of their respective roles.

3. There has to be mutual understanding about their respective roles and an accepted pattern of the structure, the means, and the approach through which the business of the Ministry is to be conducted. The objectives and priorities of tasks should be identified through mutual understanding and consultation.

4. The Minister and the Secretary have to give leadership to the bureaucracy as a whole including the departments and subordinate officers for achieving the objectives and implementing the programmes of the Ministry for the efficient performance of the public service.

The question therefore is not whether the power lies with the minister or the secretary but how the minister and the secretary work as a team for the public interest. It is their attitude and dedication that really matter. The writer is a former Cabinet Secretary.

The next article will deal with Rules of Business and their application on the roles of Minister and Secretary.