Civil service ethics

Talking exclusively about civil service ethics may sound a little misplaced because moral values are considered universal in nature. But generally, society expects exemplary ethical behaviour from civil servants because they are entrusted with responsibility to exercise power on behalf of society for collective and individual welfare. Practically, the manner in which civil servants provide public services or tender policy advice to government defines and shapes the citizenship experience of people. The power bestowed upon civil servants as a social trust justifies expectation of superior ethical behaviour.

During last few decades, under influence of economic liberalism, a silent revolution of social value transformation has taken place. Competition, profit maximisation and material accumulation of wealth have replaced social cooperation, altruism and solidarity as preferred social values. Today our schools inculcate winner-takes-all and Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest as desirable virtues. Civil servants are not immune from this subtle but tangible transformation of societal values. William Niskanen, an eminent American economist, has rejected the idea that people can shift their moral gear when they enter civil service. In his opinion a civil servant should be viewed in the same vein as people see manager of a private firm. Both are driven by a pursuit of self-interest.

Despite the friction between divergent views – social trust versus rational self-interest – one can argue that as the ultimate paymasters of civil servants, citizens have right to demand expect ethical behaviour from them. Of course, civil servants are paid from public exchequer. For this very reason, civil servants should feel an obligation to display higher ethical conduct than in case of a private firm manager or a shop keeper. Needless to say bribery remains the foremost problem which tarnishes the image of civil servants. Much is daily said and written about corruption and politicisation of civil service. There is need to discuss some rarely debated but important issues related to civil service ethics. Obsessive lust for fame, preferring optical impression over genuine public service, practising double standards, serving only the powerful and rich, and treating the ‘Not Important Persons (NIPs)’ with arrogance are some of the ethical maladies which need attention.

Fiction often makes a powerful representation of reality. Suchita Malik, in her novel Indian Memsahib writes about the protagonist of her story, an Indian Administrative Service officer: “For him, it was important that he established credibility with the people. Surprisingly, he never wanted to be popular. He sincerely believed that popularity was always on a politician’s agenda. Civil servants needed to establish their credibility.” This indicates existence of a natural urge for fame among those who hold leadership civil service positions in public domain. Within moderate limits, this is not an unethical desire. But in this social media age, for young civil servants, the temptation to become a social media celebrity has become really hard to resist. Indeed, some young civil servants have used social media quite effectively to improve real access to services or to disseminate public information. Bur the old dictum “actions speak louder than words” should also be remembered. It would be decent attitude to focus on public service without worrying much for personal popularity. Using social media for self-praise and personal glorification for doing the work for which one is paid from public money is questionable from ethical perspective.

Being entrusted with responsibility to make sincere policy advice and make prudent use of public finance, civil servants should not take superficial measures involving financial expenditure for sake of optical impression or what they themselves often call ‘for optics only’. For instance, a simple installation of a few street lights in a low-income area may remain ignored for ages but the main city road would be happily beautified because those-who-matter often appreciate high visibility more than genuine acts of service. A genuine spirit of public service should guide the conduct of civil servants rather than a few odd cosmetic initiatives at public expense.

Civil servants are often criticised for giving in to vested interest pressure. But what is rarely discussed is making undue concessions and favours when asked to do so by friends, relatives or colleagues. Making such occasional exceptions erodes credibility of a civil servant as an ethical professional. They should follow the same rules in all kind of circumstances. Civil servants should observe a principle of equality of treatment in their professional work.

It seems as if some civil servants always do a cost-benefit analysis when dealing with citizens and handling their entreaties. They practically turn a deaf ear to those clients who appear to them having no potential of harm or benefit. A habitual procrastination in case of such ‘no profit-no loss’ clients and priority treatment of ‘useful-harmful’ influential people is quite common observation on the part of citizens.

No book of civil service rules or code of conduct mentions arrogance as misconduct. Display of arrogance has been normalised to such an extent that sometimes even colleagues of an arrogant civil servant experience same treatment when seeking redressal of their personal grievances. However, they never forget already mentioned ‘useful-harmful’ principle to make exceptions in case of such clients. This calculated arrogance is easily switched off when such civil servants deal with those who matter in the system. This is despicably unethical behaviour civil servants should be polite and respectful in demeanour and firm in holding rule of law for everyone.

Those who have watched the BBC comedy serial Yes Minister may recall the episode ‘The Moral Question’ which was a fictional rendition of how the Whitehall bureaucrats could justify ethically wrong behaviour without any qualms or compunction. The real world of officialdom is not much different. It is time to bring the issue of civil service ethics into broader reforms discourse.