Liladevi Gadtaula became Nepal’s first woman chief secretary, the top position in the country’s civil service, before her retirement on August 30, 2024. The Post’s Thira Lal Bhusal sat down with her for insights on Nepal’s bureaucracy, its evolution and the system’s efficiency in service delivery.

You have completed a three-decade journey in Nepal’s civil service, in different capacities from a section officer to the chief secretary, the highest position in the service. How do you evaluate our civil service system?

After graduation, when I was exploring my professional career, I found civil service more secure. I came from a remote district in the eastern part of the country. Hailing from a humble family with no political, bureaucratic or business background, I had to prove myself. I had heard that the Public Service Commission conducts fair and strict exams to recruit employees in the government sector.

It is obvious that most of those who join civil service aspire to reach the highest possible post of the bureaucracy. Few of them make it. For that, one has to update and upgrade oneself first. The government employees have to follow the Civil Service Act and regulations that govern them. They have to upgrade their academic qualifications as well as professional efficiency to climb up the professional ladder in a competitive way.

I worked under three constitutions. When I joined the government service three decades ago, the country was governed by the democratic constitution of 1990. Then, we adopted the Interim Constitution-2007 and now we have the new constitution of 2015. The laws have changed in accordance with the constitutions. I worked in three different political systems and in contrasting situations. For instance, earlier we worked under a unitary and centralised system while now we have not only a different political set up but also a drastically different governing system: federalism. So civil servants have to constantly upgrade themselves.

General people don’t find our civil service cooperative. Why aren’t they happy with our bureaucracy?

When I joined the service, the democracy that had been reinstated in 1990 was in a nascent stage. People expected a better situation in democracy but the system couldn’t deliver as per public expectation. There are various reasons behind that but bureaucracy is also blamed for it. Civil servants were one section of the society that helped the movement to reinstate democracy.

After the democratic government came into office, the government employees demanded the right to get organised. Allowing them to form organisations was not a bad idea but we saw various anomalies in the use of these organisations. The government had no option other than to work with them. Efforts were made to address these issues of unionisation but it couldn’t get a priority due to various political and other changes. So, it is true that our bureaucracy does not deliver optimal results.

How do you see various changes such as the presence of women in our bureaucracy in the past three decades?

The political revolution heralded by the People’s Movement in 2006 is the turning point in this connection. The new political scenario brought about drastic changes, particularly in the sector of inclusion. The inclusion of women, dalits, indigenous and other marginalised and backwarded communities greatly changed the image of our bureaucracy. With the adoption of inclusive policy, when people saw women as officers, even common people thought that their daughters and sisters could also make it to the positions. It boosted the confidence of the girls as well as their parents. This is in fact a revolutionary change seen in the past two decades.

Has the larger society benefited from that?

Earlier, Nepali households were highly dependent on the incomes of male head of the family, throwing gender relations and social dynamics into a state of imbalance. Now things have changed a lot. You can see girls in large numbers in schools and colleges. There are various reasons for that, but the hope that they can get jobs is also one. You can find examples of parents from a simple background whose daughters have gone on to occupy important positions that the parents could not even have imagined. The message and the confidence it gives is immense.

How does the presence of a woman, a person from a marginalised community or a differently abled person in a government office help improve service delivery?

Though it can’t be quantified, it certainly helps. For instance, if a woman has a problem, she may hesitate to share her problem with a male official. But if there is a female official in the office, the same woman can frankly share her issues. In Madhesh, people there can clearly explain their problems if there is an official who can communicate in their local tongue. Similar is the dynamics with the indigenous groups.

Thus diversity in bureaucracy helps increase common people’s access to state agencies and improve service delivery and that automatically strengthens its relations with the general public. When people from Dalit community see an officer from their community, they confidently and proudly talk to the people there.

A proposal to allow an individual to compete under reservation quota only for one time or two is under discussion. What is your take on this?

An individual should be allowed to compete under reservation quota once for a non-gazetted position and once for a gazetted position. There is no need to link these two things because people face quite different circumstances while working in a non-gazetted position. If a person joins civil service directly from a gazetted post under a reservation quota, the official shouldn’t be given the same opportunity again.

After that, the officials should prove themselves. I held this conviction from the beginning. If you refer to the government data on the recruitment of employees under reservation quota, it shows more than the actual number because the same individuals have been selected multiple times under the reservation category. The person deprives other people of the same community, gender or group from the opportunities.

Also a proposal to introduce a two-year cooling-off period for retired bureaucrats before they are considered for constitutional bodies is under discussion.

When I heard about this proposal, I checked how many former bureaucrats there are in constitutional bodies. I found around seven former bureaucrats serving as chiefs or commissioners in constitutional bodies such as the Election Commission, the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority, the National Natural Resources and Fiscal Commission and the Public Service Commission. This condition doesn’t apply to rest of office bearers who were in other services or sectors. The average number of former bureaucrats-turned office bearers at a time could be around 10. Should the state keep on changing laws for as many as 10 people?

On the other hand, a proposal to increase the retirement age of civil servants from 58 to 60 years is under discussion. If a bureaucrat, who retired in 60 years and completed the two years of cooling-off period, is appointed in a constitutional position, they cannot serve a full term as they can’t work in a constitutional body after 65 years of age. If a person is appointed as election commissioner, he/she may retire without holding an election. Under such circumstances, the office bearers can’t make meaningful contributions to the organisation and the country. We can’t get better results by making more restrictive laws. So, the policymakers and lawmakers, while formulating policies, should foresee these complications that may arise.

What kind of people are joining our civil service now?

More people have shown trust in the Public Service Commission’s recruitment process. Urban people used to show no interest in government service in the past. Most government employees were from villages and those who studied in community schools. These days, even children of top bureaucrats and those who studied in elite schools have entered the civil service. The attraction of becoming a chief of an important section or department and leading the team and the opportunities to study abroad have attracted a good number of promising youths.

What about the trend of quitting jobs to go abroad?

I don’t know about the situation in security forces and other sectors but the proportion of those making this choice in the civil service is not so big. To some extent migration and movement should be taken as natural. For instance, we left our village and moved to the city.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of our bureaucracy?

Institutional memory is a strength of our system. But it has not succeeded in satisfying the public through service delivery. This is a serious weakness. Lack of efficiency, unnecessary hassles and dilly dallying in service delivery has marred our system since the Panchayat era. It is not going to improve unless we end the system of in-person services. Therefore, we have to promote faceless services. We have to expedite the process of digitalization of the system and introduce online services in as many areas. That will gradually but significantly reduce bribery, corruption and promote good governance. The digital system also makes the employees more accountable. The people working in our bureaucracy are capable but they need to be constantly nudged for the results. There are exceptionally promising civil servants but they are in the minority.

What are the things that need to be reformed in our administrative machinery?

The first thing is the salary and other incentives for the employees. They need to be increased. The current scale is not sufficient. Second is evaluation of work, which is very weak. There should be an effective system of performance evaluation. For instance, the unionists don’t work but their in-charges can’t act against them because the union leaders have strong political connections. Such situations have vitiated the working environment in our government offices.

Politicians blame bureaucracy for the failure in delivery while civil servants argue their job and image might be at risk if they do everything as asked by politicians. Who do we believe?

The employees follow the same laws which are made by the politicians. Employees are the ones who face the consequences if they do anything prohibited by a law. Thus, this is a valid concern on the part of government staff. But it is the duty of a bureaucrat to convince politicians by explaining legal provisions and giving facts and figures as to why certain things can’t be done.