I. Decline of Neutrality Concept: The traditional concept of neutrality,however,has been challenged on many grounds.The earlier concept of separation of politics and administration in watertight compartments is considered no more valid. The role of the Civil Service has been changing from being a mere agent of the political executive to that of collaboration with it.The involvement of bureaucracy in the political arena is now widely prevalent.The breakdown of the theory of neutrality has come about because of a number of reasons.
II. Responsible factors:
1. Firstly, (a) the processes of policy-making are no longer confined to the political executive.The truth is that the bureaucrats play an important role in policy-formulation, perceived to be the exclusive preserve of elected politicians.This has happened because the statutes passed by the parliament are not clear enough.
(b) The legislative behaviour follows no consistent pattern whereas,some measures are too detailed,some only identify the problem.The minister is rarely an expert in the work of his department or the techniques of public administration.He merely has general ideas in line with the political ideology of his party,but he often is not sure what is the best solution to a particular problem.He is, therefore,forced to rely on his permanent staff for facts and advice.In effect then,it is the administrator who has a major role in framing the policy.
2. Secondly, (a) the decline of neutrality can be attributed to the demands and pressures of coalition politics.In coalition governments,ministers are busy in the power game and manoeuvring for their survival,and have neither time nor inclination to guide,direct and control their department or bureaucracy.Also at times,the legislative process is so stormy and full of diverse views that a statute passed incorporates a number of a contradictory policy guidelines.
(b) The necessity of reaching a compromise solution to hold the coalition together leads the legislators to use vague language and the administrator has to use his own judgement to interpret the policy. Therefore, bureaucracy has clearly made inroads in policy-making and despite the regulations governing the civil servants they have been politicised considerably.
3. Thirdly, (a) according to some political commentators, the classical theory of civil service neutrality presupposes agreement on principles fundamental to democracy. In other words,neutral,value-free bureaucracy is possible only in a society where consensus exists on values; but in transitional societies like India,where dissent and conflict exist it is too much to expect anyone to be neutral.
(b) For a developing country like India where speedy socio-economic development has to be steadily pushed through,the nature and character of bureaucracy assume special significance.
4. The involvement of civil servants in numerous decisions, be it the location of a steel plant or a school building in a village,makes them partners in development along with the politicians.Their value preferences get inextricably mixed up with technical advice.
5. In the context of large-scale welfare programmes, therefore, neutrality is not possible.In fact a certain commitment to the goals and objectives of the state on the part of bureaucracy is inescapable.Neutrality cannot be allowed to degenerate into disinterestedness.
6. The successful carrying out of developmental tasks requires on the part of administrators not only qualities of initiative and leadership but also a sense of emotional integration with the policies and programmes and identification with the interests of the common man. The idea of bureaucracy as a neutral instrument in the conduct of public affairs thus stands refuted.
