In a modern democratic polity, there is the concept of political executive and permanent executive.…

Question

In a modern democratic polity, there is the concept of political executive and permanent executive. Elected people's representatives form the political executive and bureaucracy forms the permanent executive. Ministers frame policy decisions and bureaucrats execute these.

In the initial decades after independence, relationship between the permanent executive and the political executive were characterized by mutual understanding, respect and co-operation, without encroaching upon each others domain.

However, in the subsequent decades, the situation has changed. There are instances of the political executive insisting upon the permanent executive to follow its agenda. Respect for and appreciation of upright bureaucrats has declined. There is an increasing tendency among the political executive to get involved in routine administrative matters such as transfers, postings etc. Under this scenario, there is a definitive trend towards 'politicization of bureaucracy'. The rising materialism and acquisitiveness in social life has also adversely impacted upon the ethical values of both the permanent executive and the political executive.

What are the consequences of this 'politicization of bureaucracy'? Discuss.

Ghissu Editorial · Accepted Answer

Politicization of bureaucracy erodes frank advice, uses transfers as punishment, makes the rule of law selective and replaces neutrality with loyalty, eroding public trust. In T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) the Supreme Court required oral instructions to be recorded and tenures fixed through Civil Services Boards.

**Introduction**

The core dilemma is between Political Responsiveness, a government's right to have its mandate carried out, and Bureaucratic Neutrality, the officer's duty to the Constitution. The issues are transfer-posting patronage and a politician-bureaucrat nexus.

**Consequences for Governance and Public Service Delivery**

1. **Loss of frank advice**: Officers seeking postings tell ministers what they wish to hear, a **Motivated Blindness** that leaves errors uncorrected.
2. **Transfers as punishment**: Ashok Khemka's [officer] 50-plus transfers and Durga Shakti Nagpal's [officer] 2013 suspension after acting against sand mining warn every honest officer.
3. **Selective rule of law**: Politicised policing led Prakash Singh (2006) [case] to order Police Establishment Boards for transfers.

**Consequences for Neutrality, Ethics and Democratic Trust**

SKETCH: venn | Political Responsiveness vs Bureaucratic Neutrality
a: Political Responsiveness
b: Bureaucratic Neutrality
overlap: Committed to the Constitution

1. **Committed bureaucracy**: Weber's neutral official gives way to a loyal one, and **In-Group Bias** in postings rewards loyalty over merit.
2. **Conscience Laundering through Hierarchy**: Officers obey improper oral orders, which T.S.R. Subramanian (2013) [case] answered by requiring them to be recorded.
3. **Federal friction**: The Centre's 2021 recall of West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay [current event] showed officers caught between governments.
4. **Lost trust**: Citizens see officers as party agents, breaching the Nolan Principles of Objectivity and Selflessness.

**Justification:** Kant's Categorical Imperative: serving the party in power rather than the law cannot be universalised without destroying impartial administration.

**Conclusion**

Politicisation turns a permanent instrument of the Constitution into a temporary instrument of power. Fixed tenures, recorded instructions and independent boards build **Integrity-as-Architecture**, keeping officers responsive to every government but partisan to none.

Model answer

Practise this question

Civil Service Ethics: The Discussion Tradition5 questions

Ghissu