Accountability And Control
In recent years, there has been a great increase of governmental activities all over the world. One inevitable consequence of this phenomenon is the strengthening of public bureaucracy in terms of number and powers. In fact, in all democracies bureaucracy has become the most powerful organ of government exercising vast discretionary powers. If such a powerful bureaucracy is left uncontrolled, it will become irresponsible and despotic endangering the rights and interests of the citizens. Realising the danger of an uncontrolled bureaucracy, every democratic system of government provides for a number of controls over administration. In the words of L.D. White, “Power in a democratic society requires control and the greater the power the more the need for control. How to vest power sufficient to the purposes in view and maintain adequate controls without crippling authority is one of the historic dilemmas of popular government”.
In order to prevent misuse or abuse of authority by bureaucracy, it must be made responsible or subject to controls. The purpose of control is to make sure that bureaucracy exercises its powers in accordance with laws and established rules and procedures and that the actual operation confirms to established standards.
Broadly speaking there are two main types of controls, namely:
- Internal controls
- External controls.
I) Internal Controls Over Administration
In a Parliamentary form of government, it is the Council of Ministers who are collectively responsible to the legislature for all the departmental activities. Each minister is also individually responsible for the acts of omission and commission of his department and may have to resign if a censure motion is passed against him at any time. In his administrative work, the Minister is assisted by the Secretary of the department and other high officials. These officials are concerned with the operational aspects of routine administration and perform a wide range of activities. The main need for Executive control over Public Administration lies in the fact that under the cloak of ministerial responsibilities the powers of the civil servants are growing everywhere, and hence the ministers may find it necessary to keep a check on their powers since the ultimate responsibility to the legislature is theirs.
Executive Control
Executive control means the control exercised by the Chief executive over Administration. The Chief Executive formulates policies whose implementation depends entirely on the civil servants. The civil servants are often conservative, Very often the government finds it difficult to implement programs which in some way or the other disturb the vested interests of the civil servants. Hence it is necessary that the Executive should have proper methods of control over the administration.
Methods Of Executive Control
The Executive exercises control over administration through the following methods and agencies:
- Policy making by the Political Executive
- Departmental control by the Minister
- The Administrative process
- Budgetary control
- Personnel Management and Control
- Control by Staff Agencies
- Professional ethics and self regulation
Policy Making By The Political Executive
In the first place, control is exercised by the Chiefutive through policy-making. In India. important policy decisions are taken by the Cabinet. Within the policies laid down the line departments carry on their day to day work, They can do no more than what has been directed by the policy-decision of the Chief-executive.
For the execution of the policy the departments are under the control of, and responsible to the to policy-maker, the Chief-executive, since he is held responsible for the proper implementation of policy, he controls administration.
Departmental control by Ministers:
As a natural adjunct of his power of policy making, the minister has the power of direction, control and the supervision of the department. He has full authority to manage and direct his Department. His writ runs throughout the sections and branches of the Department. He lays down the policy and looks to its implementation. He – e issues directives to the departmental officials. No important decision can be taken without bringing the matter to his notice. He may concentrate the entire authority in his hands and reduce the power of the Secretary. He may call for any and every file and issue a directive that no action on particular kind of matters will be taken except by him. He may go round the Department in order to supervise its working. He may issue orders to eradicate red-tapism and increase efficiency. He may transfer the officials from one branch to another and make changes in the allocation of work. In short, the officials work under his general direction, control and supervision. In other words, the departmental officials are directly and wholly responsible to him.
Budgetary Control:
It is the responsibility of the Chief-Executive to prepare the annual budget and submit it to the legislature for its approval. After it is approved by the legislature, he executes and implements it. Through the budget he allocates funds among the various departments. The activities of each department ‘must be tailored to and carried on in accordance with the budgetary provisions. Provision for men and material needs is made only in the budget. Further, any administrative department can spend money and do any job only after taking the permission of the executive. The Central Finance Agency, i.e. the Ministry of Finance, plays a major role in controlling government finances.
Administrative Process:
The Administrative process has an in-built system of control in the 7 form of a hierarchical order. The minister is in charge of the ministry which may consist of one or more departments but it is the Secretary who is the head of the department. The Department is divided into wings, each wing being under the charge of a Joint or Additional Secretary; a wing is sub-divided in to Divisions which are headed by Deputy Secretaries; each division is then split into Branches under the charge of Under Secretaries; and then comes the lowest rung of the ladder, namely, he section presided over by the Section Officer. It is an accepted principle of Secretariat procedure that each paper must pass through the proper authorised channel both in its outward and inward journey. In other words, there is a regular established line of communication through which transaction of business takes place.
In the hierarchical order the employees are organised on a superior-subordinate relationship with clear-cut responsibilities and provisions of accountability. In the administrative hierarchy subordinate public servants are accountable to their superiors for their doings, thus, hierarchy itself is a powerful instrument for monitoring subordinates’ behaviour and for enforcing accountability.
Personnel Management and Control:
Another means of executive control is a centralisation of establishment or personnel functions. Personnel management control is exercised at two stages, namely:
- Recruitment Stage
- Management Stage
Recruitment Stage:
Generally, recruitment to the civil service is placed in the hands of Public Service Commission – an independent body. The general rules of recruitment laid down by the Government: The qualifications, experience age, etc. required for different posts are determined: by the executive. It has also the power to exclude certain posts from the purview of the Public Service Commission. To the higher posts of the civil service, the executive has a free hand. The ministers select their own secretaries and heads of departments. Thus through their 2. appointees, they exercise full control over the administration of the department.
Management Stage:
All the recruits to the Civil Services are subject to centralised control through rules and regulations formulated by the specialised agency. In India, this control is exercised by the Department of Personnel.
Through uniform rules and regulations prescribed by the Central personnel Agency, the executive controls the administration.
Moreover, the political executive has the power to initiate disciplinary action on the officers’ manning permanent executive positions for correcting their misbehaviour if any, in relation to the performance of his/her job.
Disciplinary Action may be informal or formal. Informal disciplinary action may mean assignment to a less desirable work, closer supervision, loss or withholding of privileges, failure b of consultations in relevant matters, rejection of proposals or recommendations. It may include curtailing of his/her authority and diminishing his/her responsibility. The reason for taking informal disciplinary action may be that the offences are too subtle, or too difficult to prove, to warrant direct or formal action.
Formal disciplinary action follows where the offence is serious and legally established. In such cases the penalties which are imposed on a member of the Civil Service can be : Censure, Withholding of promotions, Recovery form pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government or to a company, association or body of individuals, Withholding increments of pay, Reduction to a lower stage, Scale of pay, grade and post, Compulsory retirement, Removal from service, Dismissal from service depending on the intensity of the offence. In serious cases of offence, even judicial proceedings against the offender may also be launched.
Professional Ethics:
Professional ethics constitutes another means of internal control. Every profession, such as the medical, legal etc., develops a code of conduct for its members. Government service also has become a professional career. Many countries have developed their own code of ethics to be followed by civil servants.
A code of ethics serves the purpose of clearly stating to the public officials and to the public what is acceptable behaviour. A code too may carry with it sanctions. In India, for example, we have conduct rules for Civil Servants. These rules lay down what constitutes misconduct for the public servant. According to these rules, corruption, nepotism, disclosure of official information etc., constitute misconduct on the part of government servants. Such misconduct is punishable. Some persons also put great faith in the official’s own sense of responsibility to the public. The official must always ask his own conscience whether he is doing the right and for the public good. Such introspection constitutes a means of control in itself. It acts as an inner check imposed by officials on their own conduct.
Control by Staff Agencies:
There are certain staff agencies whose functions though advisory in nature operate to exercise influence and indirect control over various ministries, departments, and other administrative agencies. The Department of Administrative Reforms and the Planning Commission can be cited as examples in the above context.
The Department of Administrative Reforms functions as the apex agency for improving administrative capability on a continuing basis. As regards the Planning Commission, it is an advisory body and has neither constitutional not even statutory authority. While Commission itself, often takes the initiative in suggesting new policies or programmes, one main function is to coordinate policies and programmes originating from other agencies of government. Free form day-to-day administrative and executive work, the commission is in a position to devote itself primarily to the formulation of the plan and evaluation of the progress achieved in its execution at each stage. At the same time its composition and status in the government are such that it is in a position to maintain an effective liaison with the central ministers and State Government.
Aforesaid, we have discussed some of the instruments and methods of exercising control over Public Officials within the Executive and Administrative hierarchy. They can be summarised as follows:
- Power of appointment and removal
- Rule making power
- Civil Service Code
- Staff Agencies
- Budget
- Appeal to Public Opinion
Executive control is considered to be more effective, firstly, because it is positive in nature and content, in as much as it consists of directing, regulating, supervising, advising, inspecting, evaluating, prodding, and if necessary, punishing the derelict. Secondly, executive control is more effective because it is continuous and invisible.’
In the final analysis we can conclude that of all possible methods of holding administrators accountable, probably none is more effective in the long run than self-control on the part of administrators themselves, because they are more likely to act correctly if they want to, than it they are forced to. Although such restraint cannot always prevent serious breaches of the law, it contributes more than any other factor towards a desire among government employees to be courteous and responsive in their relations with the public.