A few days ago, it was made public that the Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the Secretaries of the Government of Nepal were having fun. Why is the Prime Minister unable to do government work effectively? He said that if it was difficult to tell the reasons, he would blow it. In response, the secretaries complained about the indiscriminate transfer of employees and the loss of morale as only the employees were involved in the action when decisions were made under the pressure of the ministers.

The Prime Minister, realizing that the secretaries blame the political leadership, sarcastically said that they did not come with their heads at home. It can be understood that they are not unintelligent. Although both arguments are correct to a certain extent, what needs to be understood is that the truth is not the only one.

What leaders should understand is that the job of the bureaucracy is to implement the law. It cannot be taken in the sense of trying to control one's power. Employees must understand that elected representatives are bound to fulfill their promises to the people. In such a case, it is against the mandate to run a "bureaucratic officialdom". In the eyes of the people, these two classes are not good, they are just different types. Both of them are corrupt, not accountable to the people and they want to blame each other and want to be clean. 

The mistrust between these two groups is not current. Every prime minister has complained about employees. I have my own experience, after Surya Bahadur Thapa was appointed Prime Minister with the support of Congress in the year 2054, he addressed the heads of departments. The essence of his speech was that the employees have become fools because they should be Hanuman, the son of the wind. When Madhav Kumar was the Prime Minister of Nepal, he gave a sermon to the secretaries and said, "Don't take off your shoes to run the leader's house, instead, I will give you a diary to write down your experiences." After Baburam Bhattarai became the Prime Minister, in an article of Kantipur Daily, "It is clear that it will be contradictory to talk about good governance and building a new Nepal without making good changes in the existing bureaucracy." In other countries too, there are examples of heads of government complaining about the way the bureaucracy works.

Former US President John F. Kennedy ordered the removal of a sign pointing the way to an intelligence agency. When the sign board was not removed after ordering it twice, he called the office manager who took that responsibility and said, 'It is now 11 o'clock, that board should be removed from the office by the time the Attorney General goes home and I will make you personally responsible for this.' He said, 'I just realized that the president has to say three times to get something done.' 

Another story is more interesting, with Jimmy Carter being taught the limits of his powers by a rat. As the heads of government of Latin American countries negotiate in the Oval Hall to sign the Panama Canal Treaty, two mice drop from the ceiling onto the carpet.

After the scandal, Carter called the head of the General Service Administration (whose job was to manage the White House) to investigate. But the administration said that since it is an external rat, it falls under the jurisdiction of the 'Interior Department', and after the 'Interior Department' says that it is not an external rat, a joint task force has been formed. After its report, a rat trap was placed in every drawer. After that incident, the media commented that the President was shown the limits of power not only by Congress but also by rats.

Chinese "Mandarin bureaucracy" is called by the philosopher Lao Tzu as "making hair by pulling one hair at a time and cooking rice by cooking one grain of rice". Overall, there is no satisfaction towards bureaucracy in developed to underdeveloped countries. Therefore, those who prefer to call themselves the promoter government are constantly trying to make this institution 'vibrant', 'dull'.

Famous author Yuval Harari's book 'Nexus' is very popular now. In it, 'Civil Service' is called 'Deep State'. Waste water from a building goes to the 'downstate' where there is a network of pipes for sewage, electricity, water etc. The Civil Servants make sure that these do not mix with each other.

It boils down to the fact that without them, life itself would be in danger. This institution is called the 'fourth branch of government'. All the three organs of the state cannot function without it. If the government is to be successful, it must be able to move in harmony with itself. This organization is like a pair of scissors, it will cut wherever it moves. 

Singapore's Kaligad Lee Kuan Yew, who led the country to the peak of development by running an administrative state, said about the civil service, "The principle of a democratic state is that a motorcar in good condition has a minister and a driver." The minister elected by the people will decide which way the driver will drive. It is the duty of the civil administration to keep that car in good condition by changing the filter and fuel. The role and limits of politicians and bureaucrats can be understood from this.

A country like Nepal, which has not had a long history of civil service and has worked in a closed society for hundreds of years, seems to be confused by not understanding the boundaries between these two classes. What is the basic religion of civil service? There has been little study and effort on what strategy is needed to transform the culture that has been internalized for hundreds of years into a modern democracy. The Prime Minister and Ministers should understand that bullying and bashing tactics cannot motivate them to work. 

Bureaucracy was built on a foundation of certain values ​​and beliefs when it came into existence as a distinct institution. Fairness, neutrality, formality, nameless, hierarchical, faceless became its values. With the development of the society, there should be a change in these beliefs, but the civil service of Nepal still does not seem to be affected by these beliefs.

Elected representatives want to do what they promised or desired because they have to go to the polls every few years. Civil servants make decisions based on long career paths. A long, complex process also delays performance. It is up to the people's representatives to simplify these procedural laws. A conflict situation seems to have been created as employees are bound to the process without trusting them and looking for job vacancies immediately.

When the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took an explanation from a secretary in India, he said 'Sir, you make rule we rule' (Sir, you make rule we rule), the reference became famous in the Indian administrative society. Now, in countries with 'merit bureaucracy', it is believed that 'politicians rule, administrators rule (politicians rule bureaucrats)'. To rule is to get stage, garland, honor, to govern is to execute the law. For this, the head of the organization should be directly responsible by making a performance agreement. 

A 'framework agreement' is made in the UK. In New Zealand, ministerial secretaries are appointed on contract for fixed terms. This experiment has been successful in those countries. In Nepal, the reason why the performance agreement between ministers and secretaries is not successful must be found. After this agreement, it is necessary to give the secretaries the responsibility of managing the units under him, appointing staff, and to some extent prescribing administrative procedures. It seems that the 'default rule' which can be specified in other procedures by including in the law only the process that cannot be separated

, has been applied in other countries. On the one hand, one year contract and on the other hand, the secretary is transferred in three months, the lower level employees working under the secretary are transferred by the minister or under his pressure.

The secretaries complain that the unions, which are considered as 'brother organizations' of the political parties, interfere unnecessarily. If it is said to tie hands and feet like this, it is sure to fail. Also, when the ministers are elected for the first time and reach this position, the momentary 'cheer and euphoria' seen in the winner issues decrees to do all the things that should not be done, which the administrators are unable to do. 

Administrators are elected representatives and agents of the people. The agent must be made accountable to the 'principal' i.e. the people's representative and the public for his performance. But it seems that there is a problem because the priorities of these two classes are different. Employees are considered to be the main obstacle for the political leadership to run the ministry according to their interests. Ministers often accuse staff of not having the necessary skills for agile service delivery, and lack of capacity for policy success.

employees complain that the ministers are not interested in consulting them, are not able to provide competent leadership, and are giving orders that are against the constitution and laws, and are interested in work that does not seem practical. Also, when the Prime Minister and Ministers step down from office, they try to avoid responsibility by saying that they tried to create paradise but failed because of the bureaucracy. Employees must obey the orders of the ministers as long as they are in accordance with the constitution and laws. Even if what the minister wants is stupid, it must be implemented if it does not conflict with the law, but the staff should be able to explain to him how stupid it is.

In Britain, the BBC ran a satirical serial program 'This Minister'. It says about the bureaucracy, "The opposition is not the real opposition, they are outsiders." Although these statements are not entirely true, it is clear that there are some problems. The culture internalized by this organization has been seen as an obstacle to agile working. It will take a long time to change long-standing traditions such as a culture of resistance, risk aversion, resistance to change, preference for the status quo, fear of mistakes over creativity.

is currently under the administration of 'Luddites' who do not embrace new technology. The attitude of seeking to serve in the governance style and preferring self-appreciation does not seem to have disappeared among the civil servants. Society has moved on, politics has entered a democratic republic. In this environment, there is a need for a radical change in the ancient style and culture of the administration. This is done by the political leadership. 

In different periods of the country's history, 'critical juncture' comes and at this time old organizations should be manufactured and made suitable for the era. In Nepal, such a critical moment has come in 7 years, 17 years, 46 years and 63 years. The political leadership does not know how to use it to make radical changes. 

The current sovereign citizens have not been able to easily accept the slowness, corruption, rude behavior in the civil service of Nepal. To a good citizen, holding a government office for some work feels like a punishment. All sections seem to have grievances against civil servants. Beneficiaries are angry at the loss of benefits, the private sector is over-controlled, academics and intellectuals are angry at the lack of knowledge, politicians are angry that their political wishes are not being implemented and citizens are angry at the delay, suffering and harassment.

Reforming this requires creative activism from the Prime Minister. The message of real guardianship of the civil service should be given by resolving the legitimate grievances of the employees. They complain that the prime minister and ministers have been 'abusive parents' so far. There are some examples of forcing them to do things that should not be done and after the punishment only the employees have to suffer. The transfer panic has not stopped the process of transfer of secretaries without working for a month or two instead of addressing their grievances which has increased administrative instability.

Who will be responsible if the performance is not satisfactory after signing a performance contract and transferring without an evaluation for a year? Service delivery cannot be improved without correcting such anomalies. 

It can be understood that the prime minister is not satisfied with the current performance because he is trying to facilitate the delivery of services through an ordinance. Even civil servants have to take it seriously and self-criticize. As the head of the government, the prime minister has got the opportunity to prove his legitimacy by reforming the administration. But it should be understood that the administrative style cannot be changed by reforming the law.

Right now, the Good Governance Act, 2064 and the Good Governance Regulations, 2065 have clearly mentioned the time period to complete the work. It is arranged that there will be a committee of directors under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. Effectiveness can be seen in administrative work only if it can be fully implemented. 

New Zealand is a country that has experimented with innovation to improve public administration. Only recently has the concept of 'New Public Passion' been introduced. If the employees are not self-motivated towards the work, any improvement will not work, they will be squeezed. For this, internal and external motivation should be created.

Success depends on being able to intrinsically motivate the value of public service by creating an environment that makes one's work interesting and enjoyable. Passion for work is the guarantee of improvement. This new concept recognizes that it should be nurtured by external incentives - mechanisms of accountability that ensure punishments and rewards. Nepal can learn a lot from such experiments.

By reforming the administration of Nepal, it is necessary to take a strategy to create internal and external motivation in them to make them the 'darling' of the people and the people's representatives. It is best to implement improvement measures in such a way that employees take ownership of the improvement. For this work, it is first necessary to establish a 'Circle of Trust'. It means that politicians, people and civil servants earn each other's trust.

The government should be able to motivate the work by implementing an incentive-based monitoring system, by giving management freedom to the administrative head of the organization during the period of the performance agreement, by making a clear legal arrangement regarding responsibility, and by preparing objective bases for evaluation.