Public servants have started eyeing ministerial posts after retirement

The lack of competence in the BJP has given rise to a situation where bureaucrats, judges, military people etc., now eye ministerial positions in the govt

Competence, or the lack of it, has long been a problem in the bureaucracy and the public sector. And there are many reasons for it. All have been thoroughly analysed and recognised.

But never before has a political party been so bereft of competence. After nearly nine years in office, the BJP has still not been able to solve the problem it started with: inadequate talent to induct into the government. Its bench strength was so poor that it has been forced to look outside its stable.

The emphasis of the two Modi governments has been on project execution. These have been infrastructure, welfare, defence and foreign policy.

To that end, not finding enough good people within the party, the prime minister has looked outside it. The list of names who have become ministers, for this reason, is quite long.

To name a few of the most prominent, we have Hardeep Puri, K Jaishankar, Nirmala Sitharaman, Smriti Irani, Ashwini Vaishnaw, RK Singh and VK Singh. The shortage in the party and the way Mr Modi has filled it has worked.

But perhaps it has also given rise to a wrong set of incentives wherein people in several government services and other state agencies can now hope for a ministerial job or a place in the Rajya Sabha — provided they are useful while in harness. Such jobs were never in play before.

Earlier bureaucrats, judges, military people etc., would look for small loaves and fish provided they would "cooperate" beyond the call of duty and legality. But the rewards were, on the whole, small. Now, however, they can hope to become ministers or at least members of parliament.

Ministers have always exploited this weakness for post-retirement jobs. Now, with the rewards being higher, so is the expected level of "cooperation". It's gradually leading to commitment on a scale not seen before.

Extend this shortage to the states, where the police come in place of the military and where incompetence is endemic; we have a level of "cooperation" that the Constitution never envisaged. Political parties were not meant to hire talent from employees of the state. They were expected to look within.

Whichever way one looks at it, this shortage of talent and competence in all political parties is not good for the country. Nor is the way of filling it. A political party mustn't run a government without at least 50 MPs who can be entrusted with the affairs of the state.

The problem is very complex and multifaceted, mainly because of political parties' need for winnability. So they tend to give tickets to only those candidates who can win.

This means all other criteria have been discarded, resulting in legislature seats being filled with persons who can't be trusted to become ministers. The problem is especially acute in the states.

So what do they do when they want competent managers? They look outside. But even here, competence is hard to find.

The gradual displacement of merit with other well-known factors has led, in the last 30 years, to ideological loyalty or servitude to a political family becoming a major factor in appointments. All political parties are guilty in this regard.

One silver lining here is that this reversion to feudalism hasn't been institutionalised yet. An attempt was made with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), but fortunately, the Supreme Court struck it down.

But that hasn't taken care of the core problem facing governments today: a severe competence shortage. And our highly competitive politics will ensure that this shortage continues. And that, in turn, will only cement the perverse incentive structure for public servants.