Bureaucracy worsens suffering

The Namibian Public Service Charter guarantees service delivery, accountability, and transparency for all Namibians, but efficient service delivery remains a dream for many Namibians.

The general perspective on public service delivery is not positive.

Extreme bureaucratic procedures are impeding social and economic development as well as worsening people's suffering.

Public institutions in Namibia have been accused of being ineffective, cumbersome, too procedural, costly, red-taped, and opaque.

Further to this, negative behavioural issues such as acute lateness, absenteeism, clock watching, early closing, insubordinations, infighting, truancy, service delay, bribery, etc. are contributing to service dissatisfaction.

Also, there are complaints of service delays to stakeholders in the areas of programme durations, processes, payment of allowances, financial claims, as well as securing permits or approval for other socio-economic services.

This has resulted in massive demotivation of stakeholders, leading to a lack of concentration and disservice, bribery and corruption, moonlighting, a lack of faith, and the devaluation of institutional values, etc.

Many competent public servants are also demoralised by bureaucratic procedures - weeks to buy a pen or sign a letter, months to fill a vacancy, and years to fix or repair damaged infrastructure.

The bureaucratic machinery, rather than fueling development through service delivery, continues to slow development as a consequence of excessive bureaucratic administrative processes coupled with corruption.

It is also perceived that some government employees, particularly those in the procurement and planning division, postpone the advertisement of tenders or the procurement of materials if they do not receive someone who promises to reward them.

Due to bureaucracy, many projects take time to be completed or remain incomplete, and money not spent is returned to treasury. This results in low productivity, negatively affecting the performance of the central government and local governments.

Conduct of public servants

A majority of the public servants have a poor work attitude, and this has had an overbearing adverse effect on service quality.

In the same vein, bureaucratic processes and a poor attitude towards work have bedevilled the entire public sector of our national economy. Observation shows that not only public servants but virtually all public parastatals and agencies are symbolic of delayed and slow attention when it comes to quality and efficient service.

In general, public servants do not act as servants of the people but rather as masters without any sense of accountability or transparency. Some public servants use the bureaucratic system to stress customers or clients who are told that the delay is caused by a certain office while, in reality, they are sitting on it waiting to be touched on the fingers (be paid).

The consequence for most clients is an increase in the risk of having to pay a bribe, given that a bureaucrat is available while he or she is urgently in need of that service. This is another reason why some people are discouraged from visiting government offices because they have to wait for long periods of time to be helped.

The term bureaucracy

The administration of a country is run not only by members of the executive branch, but also by civil servants.

The point to note is that the executive branch depends upon the expert advice of the bureaucracy (i.e., civil servants).

The real burden of government, which is about running the administration, falls on the shoulders of the bureaucracy, which is responsible for the administration of a country.

While proponents of bureaucracy advance a strong influence on organisational structure, the term has become synonymous with delays, complications, and the malfunctioning of the state.

Bureaucrats are generally driven to maintain uniformity and control within the organisation by complying with rules, but excessive bureaucracy makes public entities more arthritic and self-serving, less able to achieve their core missions, and less responsive to service users.

It is characterised by red tape, excessive paperwork, fear of innovation, poor customer service, duplication of working procedures, strict adherence to procedures, weak management practices, low morale, etc. From a contextual perspective, when bureaucratic institutions fail to meet the expectations of consumers in service delivery, the effects have serious repercussions on the political, social, and economic growth of a state.

Departments working in solitude

The Namibian public sector consists of various tiers of government and departments, with each department having its own agenda. Some departments do not cooperate with other departments to get the job done. This leads to delays in proceedings, resulting in the ineffective implementation of policies. In addition, heads of departments feel responsible first for protecting the department, its people, and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organisation’s mission.

The departmental bureaucracies result in a poor work environment, which has a strong bureaucratic effect on the organisation’s output.

It involves a lot of unhealthy stress for people, which lowers their output.

Furthermore, employee mistakes and failures are covered up or ignored, which has a negative effect on the organisation.

Because of bureaucracy, responsibility for mistakes and failures tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others. Reports also show that promotions are based on politics rather than actual achievements or competency on the job, which has a damaging effect on an organisation’s performance.

The paradox

It is paradoxical that the bureaucracy has received harsh criticism from everyone who is affected in some way by its activities and actions.

Yet no one has the cojones, especially policymakers, to dispense with it.

It is therefore fundamental that the rules and regulations be made flexible to be able to adjust to the dynamic and changing nature of the business environment. There should be periodic reviews of the rules so as to give room for initiative and discretion that breed innovations and creativity in service delivery.

It is also imperative to consider the merit or urgency of the service to shorten the bureaucratic procedures to assist those who urgently need it.

The time has also come for departments to be granted autonomy to manage their own affairs.

Administrative, recruitment, promotion, and disciplinary decisions should be made by departments.

Until government pursues strong public sector reforms, sets measurable objectives, disciplines corrupt public servants, and reprimands ineffective institutions, bureaucracy will continue to worsen people's suffering and confidence in the public sector will not be restored.