In developing countries, the slow pace of work at every level of governance has almost become a kind of disease. Even though there are clear guidelines regarding what procedures should be followed in administrative work or how long a project should last, in reality these guidelines are hardly reflected in practice.
Instead, what is often seen is a kind of sluggishness or stagnation in work. This not only wastes time but also creates deep frustration and resentment among the public. As a result, responsible officials are often despised and humiliated by ordinary people.
Unfortunately, when one responsible person is replaced by another, the new one also delays matters by saying “I am looking into it” or “I will see to it.” There is a proverb: “Shubhasya Shighram, Ashubhasya Kalaharanam,” meaning that good deeds should be done immediately while bad deeds should be postponed or avoided as long as possible.
But in the administrative systems of many of these countries, this principle seems to be completely ignored.
The complexity of bureaucracy and the tyranny of red tape are not new topics either. It is often said that bureaucracy was created precisely to slow down work. A simple file or order must travel a long path from one desk to another, and in this process the public interest is often lost. This is what is meant by the “tyranny of red tape”.
In this endless exchange of hands, files remain trapped for months. In an attempt to speed up work, “red telephones” were installed in ministries. But has that really produced any results? Even the United States itself is concerned about the slow pace of government work. However, it has chosen to address this inertia by reducing the size of the government.
Policymakers in third-world countries also need to reflect on the size of government and its unnecessary interference. In fact, the situation in these countries is the opposite. Here the government is not only large, but is becoming increasingly bigger. From the oil market to tree plantation and fish farming, the government seems compelled to interfere in everything.
Does this strange tendency to establish government control over everything not slow down the pace of work? Where many tasks could be accomplished by encouraging the private sector and providing policy support, why should ministers and bureaucrats spend time on trivial matters?
Often, being busy with minor or less important issues, they fail to devote time to genuine policy-making tasks. Such pervasive government intervention also stifles dynamism in work.
In reality, the lack of accountability and the farce of investigations are also involved behind this problem. In the United States, where central supervision exists from institutions like the White House, in these countries even the smallest matters require approval from the ministries.
When an investigation into an incident is assigned, it often becomes equivalent to sending the matter to cold storage. Investigation reports rarely see the light of day, and even when they do, they are seldom implemented effectively.
When even a simple file takes anywhere from one week to fifteen days or more to receive approval, is it not somewhat like building castles in the air to dream of development or to bring about a revolution in it?
In conclusion, if developing countries truly wish to build developed states, they must break this stagnation in administration. Governments must become dynamic and people-friendly. By avoiding unnecessary interference, they should encourage the private sector.
Unless bureaucratic complexities are removed and transparency and speed are ensured, development will remain confined to paper only. Realizing the truth of the proverb, “A stitch in time saves nine,” making the administration of developing countries more dynamic has become the most urgent task.