Complementarity of Politics and Administration

[This blog post is sourced from one of the studies by James H.Svara named "The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration"{here}.I think sharing analytical excerpts from this article will be helpful to interested readers, researchers and bureaucrats.This blog post focuses on two dimensions for interpreting political administrative interactions by Svara i.e two dimensions: ‘political control’ and ‘professional independence’]

Nepal government has announced the key moment in the country's transition to democracy the date for holding the local level election on May 14,2017 after 20 years(May,1997). Election is compulsory for safeguarding all agendas and implementing the constitution for the functioning of democracy. There are total 34,888 officials are going to elected from total 744 local bodies. Local councils are democratically elected, run by local people; accountable to their communities. They are neither under national control, nor acting as quangos.

Bureaucracy is one of the major stakeholders in the political dynamics of decentralization. Local governance has been handled by bureaucracy after the term of elected local bodies expired 14 years ago. The High-level Administration Reform and Monitoring Report-2016 has suggested the government to reform the administration and bureaucracy for an effective service delivery and also suggested the government to prepare an outline of the administrative structure at the central, provincial and local levels as per the constitution.

The nature of that relationship (between politics and administration) and the proper role of administrators in the political process have been the subject of contemporary debate prior to election in context of Nepal.

Complementarity Condition

"Politicians and administrators are highly dependent upon each other for getting their respective jobs done"----Svara,2001

The ‘control dimension’ refers to the capacity of politicians to set directions and maintain oversight,

Figure :Understanding the Interaction between Politicians and Administrators

while the ‘bureaucratic independence dimension’ focuses on the professional capacity of bureaucracy in policy formulation and implementation.

The author suggests that a high degree of political control may actually co-exist with a high level of bureaucratic professional independence. Svara calls this ‘a state of complementarity’: it entails reciprocal influence and mutual deference between elected officials and administrators.

Bureaucrats are involved in shaping policy by giving it specific content and meaning in the implementation process. Politicians oversee implementation, controlling over bureaucratic performances. In this way politicians and bureaucrats maintain distinct roles based on their perspective and values, and their formal positions, but their behavior necessarily overlap. 

Complementarity seems to solve a typical dilemma in public administration life. How can politicians keep control and, at the same time, allow bureaucratic independence in terms of professional values and responsiveness to the public?

The solution might be in recognizing the reciprocal values, role and influence that underlie complementarity. Political élites could in theory dominate administrative action, but they are bounded by a respect for bureaucratic competence and commitment.Bureaucratic élites could use their relevant resources to become self-directed as well, but they are constrained by commitment to accountability.

The bureaucracy draws strength from its permanent stature, stronghold over information, expertise and experience in administering the country. Using the resources at their disposal, this institution has been able to exert considerable influence over the policy-making process. But, Nepal does not possess a strong and committed administration. Corruption is part of service delivery by the public sector. Bureaucratic inefficiency and inaction stems both from structural and cultural factors. Structurally, Nepal’s generalized multipurpose bureaucracy is not geared for dealing with today’s complex challenges of governance. Culturally, the bureaucrats see themselves as a class apart; hence the self-centered hubris often comes in the way of true public service.

After the election, that type of complementarity condition between politics and administration is utmost needed in Nepal.  For that administrators who are going to work in local level to serve people must need some qualities.There are however, some needs that requires to be duly addressed  as discussed by Tara Dahal on topic "Public Bureaucracy in Nepal: Tasks Ahead" (here).