After the discussion yesterday by Sir Nemenzo, I've come up with a thought about the members of the bureaucracy, the BUREAUCRATS. I think, bureaucrats, in general, are not open to reforms or changes in their work or in the processes in the bureaucracy. But I still believe that this can still be changed, not by changes in policy or structure, but through changes in values.
Sir Nemenzo discussed the Russian bureaucracy, especially the case of the bureaucrats of the central economic planning agency. Although the central planning agency was the one behind the extremely fast industrialization and rise to economic prowess of Russia, it was also the very reason why the Russian economy stagnated and had a fast downturn. The economic managers from the central planning agency did not cope with the changing environment, i.e. the imbalance in the outputs of the various factories and industries being micro-managed by the planning agency. In the end, it created a lot of wastage in huge volumes.
And then, he shared his experience during his term as UP President, when he learned that a permit to travel needs at least 2 weeks before being released. This was because the computers were used by the 'permit processors' as a typewriter for the permits and they type the permits one by one, instead of saving a template in the computer.
From the two aforementioned conditions where bureaucrats are involved, I've come to think and believe that this is also happening now, especially in the government. And that they are the stumbling block to achieving changes in the very bureaucracy they belong to. Why did I come to come up with this belief?
It is primarily because the aspects of bureaucracy that are targeted for changes or reforms has become heavily incorporated into the routines of bureaucrats, that sometimes, some of them even treat it as a norm or tradition. An interesting case in point would be some government offices in the Philippines, especially in city halls and municipal halls. Government employees usually take their lunch breaks by 12 noon. So, if a person arrives in a government office by 11:30 am, then he/she should still be attended to by the government employee in that office. But, this doesn't happen. Instead, they (government employees) would strongly advice that person to just come back after the lunch break (which is at 1 p.m.) because they already spend the 30 minutes before their break time to put on make-up, chit-chat with their co-employees, or to surf the web using the office computer. Whenever they are asked why they do this, most of the old-timers will simply answer that it's the norm in the office. While for the newbies, they use the excuse of such practice being somewhat like a tradition in the office, to justify why they also practice such. And this is something that is not exclusive to government offices. This also happens in private offices where a bureaucratic pattern of management is implemented.
We are aware (or should be aware) that one of the hardest things to change or even permanently stop are those that have become the norms or traditions of a group of people or of a certain place. This is the reason why fraternity hazing, which is believed to be part of the "tradition" of fraternity brotherhood, is not totally eradicated by simply enacting a law against hazing. Also, this is the reason why despite the great opposition of the Philippine Catholic Church to the self-flagellation done by 'devotees' in a Pampanga town every Good Friday, they still go on and perform what they believe to be their tradition. And maybe, this is the reason why even if President Aquino tells us with full conviction that his administration will be different from the previous one, we can still trace similarities of the two. But this doesn't mean that problems rooted in traditions, norms or values, that have been already in place for so long, have no solution anymore.
Reforms in rules, policies, processes and structure of bureaucracy, or even imposition of a leader's political will, will not necessarily mean that positive and drastic changes will be seen and that the old conditions of the system will readily cease to exist. The problems are in the values system of those who are in the bureaucracy. These values systems can't be easily changed overnight. There will be strong opposition to it, just like in societies where the old order is replaced by a new one. It takes time before they are changed. Just like in the Russian central planning agency, their values system did not change until they have realized that their prolonged inaction to changes in the environment has already taken its toll on the economy. No one knows when that time will come until it shows itself.
Sir Nemenzo discussed the Russian bureaucracy, especially the case of the bureaucrats of the central economic planning agency. Although the central planning agency was the one behind the extremely fast industrialization and rise to economic prowess of Russia, it was also the very reason why the Russian economy stagnated and had a fast downturn. The economic managers from the central planning agency did not cope with the changing environment, i.e. the imbalance in the outputs of the various factories and industries being micro-managed by the planning agency. In the end, it created a lot of wastage in huge volumes.
And then, he shared his experience during his term as UP President, when he learned that a permit to travel needs at least 2 weeks before being released. This was because the computers were used by the 'permit processors' as a typewriter for the permits and they type the permits one by one, instead of saving a template in the computer.
From the two aforementioned conditions where bureaucrats are involved, I've come to think and believe that this is also happening now, especially in the government. And that they are the stumbling block to achieving changes in the very bureaucracy they belong to. Why did I come to come up with this belief?
It is primarily because the aspects of bureaucracy that are targeted for changes or reforms has become heavily incorporated into the routines of bureaucrats, that sometimes, some of them even treat it as a norm or tradition. An interesting case in point would be some government offices in the Philippines, especially in city halls and municipal halls. Government employees usually take their lunch breaks by 12 noon. So, if a person arrives in a government office by 11:30 am, then he/she should still be attended to by the government employee in that office. But, this doesn't happen. Instead, they (government employees) would strongly advice that person to just come back after the lunch break (which is at 1 p.m.) because they already spend the 30 minutes before their break time to put on make-up, chit-chat with their co-employees, or to surf the web using the office computer. Whenever they are asked why they do this, most of the old-timers will simply answer that it's the norm in the office. While for the newbies, they use the excuse of such practice being somewhat like a tradition in the office, to justify why they also practice such. And this is something that is not exclusive to government offices. This also happens in private offices where a bureaucratic pattern of management is implemented.
We are aware (or should be aware) that one of the hardest things to change or even permanently stop are those that have become the norms or traditions of a group of people or of a certain place. This is the reason why fraternity hazing, which is believed to be part of the "tradition" of fraternity brotherhood, is not totally eradicated by simply enacting a law against hazing. Also, this is the reason why despite the great opposition of the Philippine Catholic Church to the self-flagellation done by 'devotees' in a Pampanga town every Good Friday, they still go on and perform what they believe to be their tradition. And maybe, this is the reason why even if President Aquino tells us with full conviction that his administration will be different from the previous one, we can still trace similarities of the two. But this doesn't mean that problems rooted in traditions, norms or values, that have been already in place for so long, have no solution anymore.
Reforms in rules, policies, processes and structure of bureaucracy, or even imposition of a leader's political will, will not necessarily mean that positive and drastic changes will be seen and that the old conditions of the system will readily cease to exist. The problems are in the values system of those who are in the bureaucracy. These values systems can't be easily changed overnight. There will be strong opposition to it, just like in societies where the old order is replaced by a new one. It takes time before they are changed. Just like in the Russian central planning agency, their values system did not change until they have realized that their prolonged inaction to changes in the environment has already taken its toll on the economy. No one knows when that time will come until it shows itself.
"Time is the measurer of all things, but is itself immeasurable, and the grand discloser of all things, but is itself undisclosed."
CHARLES CALEB COLTON, Lacon
I think the problem does not fully involve the value systems of the people. And on the contrary, I believe policies and reforms can fix the system.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem in cases like the one that you mentioned is that these acts have been institutionalized over time and have been inculcated in our culture. As we have the cases of formal institutions like office buildings, laws and policies and other things essential in the system, these acts are what we call "informal institutions". Note that institutions need not be tangible. A good example, though one that can be frowned upon, is our institution of talking our way out of things, like in traffic situations when we get caught. A better example is our institution of "pakikisama" where we traditionally help those in need. Going back, these informal institutions hinder the smooth flow of the system and disrupt the good intentions of the bureaucracy, which is to provide for the state and to operate the state. This, I agree with your point on that.
However, policies can lessen and stop these faulty traditions, especially in government agencies and offices under the bureaucracy where jobs are at stake. Take for example the Civil Service Commission. They have a high regard for the ethics of the Commission. Several of their programs in terms of ethical improvement are pursuant to RA6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Government Officials and Employees. They encourage citizens to report cases like these. And while value changing can change the system, I believe it would be better to enforce the policies like terminating those who are found guilty for these ethical violations and even those who are not working up to par. It would be more efficient to do so. The problem can be solved not by character change, but by proper enforcement of the policies and laws, and those found guilty of failure to reinforce and failure to comply can lose their jobs. Yes, you may also say that it is because of the faulty character that hinders the proper implementation. However, that may not be the only reason. We can talk about lack of funding, lack of public servants to do these jobs and the large scope of the bureaucracy, but I'm getting ahead of myself. I still believe that policies can make drastic changes, even in a small scale, and if many small groups comply, we can have a system that actually works.
I was pointing out the need to have a change of the values system of the people in the bureaucracy as a first step of removing the blocks against reforms. It may have been an oversight on my part to not explicitly say in my post that my stand was about introducing character change in the bureaucracy before instituting reforms. By doing so, it would be easier to implement institutional reforms in the bureaucracy. Or maybe, policies wouldn't be needed anymore because the bureaucrats themselves have already imbibed a reformed lifestyle/work ethic that would make them less hostile and resistant to reforms and changes.
DeleteBut with all due respect, I believe that policies and reforms alone cannot fully achieve the goal of reforming the bureaucracy. I'd like to cite Nikita Khrushchev as an example. Khrushchev served as the leader of the Soviet Union from 1955 up to 1964. As said by Dr. Nemenzo in last afternoon's discussion, he already thought of relaxing the highly centralized economic policy of then Soviet Union, way before Mikhail Gorbachev formulated the perestroika and glasnost. As a result of his proposal to the central committee of the Communist Party (which is also the bureaucracy of then Soviet Union), he was removed from being the First Secretary. This goes to show how hard it is to enforce policies whose objective is to implement reforms on the bureaucracy.
I'd like to raise a few questions regarding reform implementation by bureaucrats with "faulty character." How can reforms be implemented if those who are trying to implement it have faulty character? Or assuming that bureaucrats with faulty character are able to implement reforms, how are we going to be assured of its implementation's sustainability and credibility? I raise these questions not to hastily generalize the people in the bureaucracy, but to point out the significance of moral ascendancy of a bureaucrat.
I agree with Mark Sing's idea that a change in our values should be the step for reforms to be implemented successfully. Without a change in custom, reforms would not have a long term effect. It is one of the reasons why the Philippines is stuck in its gloomy position, it is not just the authority who is at fault here but it is everyone who is controlled by their defective custom.
ReplyDeleteI agree to Mark Sing's point, but I think it is still possible to change these systems, even if it's really hard to do. First, there has to be a really influential and powerful leader who can repel the employees' tradition, and implement a new, orderly system. Then, after implementing, there has to be follow-ups. People have to get used to it. If the messed up system is in their tradition, then the only way to change is to embed the new one into their tradition too. It will be hard to ask people to change without any authority.
ReplyDelete