Idea Transcript
T E X
Periodicals
Literature Search
34,826,278 articles and books
Keyword
Title
Author
Topic
The Free Library > Science and Technology > Economics > Political Economy Journal of India > July 1, 2011 The Free Library > Social Sciences > Political science > Political Economy Journal of India > July 1, 2011 The Free Library > Date > 2011 > July > 1 > Political Economy Journal of India
Article Details
Conflicts between administrators and politicians: a study of Himachal Pradesh.
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Author: Sharma, Sapna K.; Agnihotri, Simmi
Link/Page Citation
Publication: Political Economy Journal of India Article Type: Statistical data Geographic Code: 9INDI
Introduction
Date: Jul 1, 2011
Conflict in an organization is obvious. In simple words, conflict may be understood as collision or disagreement. The conflict may be within an individual when there is incompatibility between his or her goals or events; may be between individuals, when one does not see eye to eye with another, and in the process tries to block or frustrate the attempts of another; or between two groups in an organization. Conflict between administrators and politicians is an important aspect in their relationships. The administrator needs autonomy and discretion in much the same way as the politicians need control and intervention. There is thus an inherent clash in public administration between political control and administrative autonomy. The administrator's preference for autonomy might stem from his respect for rules and regulations and uniformity, and from his genuine concern for speed and promptitude. The politicians' from his perspective is a stumbling block in the way of disciplined and expeditious action. On the part of the politicians, the administrator might appear as an interloper and a competitor. Bureaucratic rule adherence and political intervention in the interest of the client often clash with each other. The relationship between the politicians and the administrators tends to move toward a collision course in a situation where the politician is keen to help his supporters and constituency members by disregarding bureaucratic rules and regulations. The politicians are constantly pestered by supporter for some benefit or the other. It is also in the interest of the politicians that the constituency should be nursed properly. As he approaches the administration on behalf of his clients, many a time he finds the bureaucracy unhelpful and unwilling to accommodate his requests. This leads towards conflict between administrators and politicians.
During the interaction of politicians and administrators there were many avenues which lead towards contacts between politicians and administrators. To fulfill the demands and proposals politicians contacted administrators. When administrators fail to comply with politician's demands and proposals then there arise situations of conflict between both of them. In this connection politicians pressurize administrators to attend their demands make necessary efforts to meet them. The present study attempts to analyze the area of conflict between administrators and politicians. The analysis is based on politicians' reaction to administrator's refusal to comply with their demands, administrator's perception about politician's reaction, pressures put on administrators and administrators. Methodology The present study was based on the primary data. The data was collected through a sample survey. For the collection of primary data schedules were used, which consisted of both open-ended and close-ended questions, and administered to the respondents selected through sampling method. For the collection of first hand data in the present study multi stage random-cum-purposive sampling was adopted. At the first stage, two districts (Chamba and Una) were selected to represent Himachal Pradesh. At the second stage, two blocks, one from each district, namely Chamba (Chamba district) and Haroli (Una district) were selected purposively. At the third stage, panchayats were selected. There were 39 gram panchayats in Chamba block, out of these 39 panchayats; 10 gram panchayats (25 per cent of the total gram panchayats) were selected. In Haroli block, out of total 43 gram panchayats, 11 gram panchayats (25 per cent of the total gram panchayats) were selected. At the last stage, a total of 220 respondents, which includes 116 politician (58 from Chamba district and 58 from Una district) and 104 administrators (51 from Chamba and 53 from Una district) were selected. Result and Discussion Politicians' Reactions In the event of administrators' inability or failure to meet the demands of politicians, it is natural that politicians will react to it in certain ways depending on their personality structure, the extent of their commitment to institutional norm, and the nature of their appreciation of administrators' functions. Also the kind of reaction politicians will have also determine whether or not they will pursue the matter further and go to the extent of putting various kinds of pressure on administrators to get done what they want. It is therefore relevant for the purpose of study to enquire into the reactions politicians usually have when they are confronted with administrators' refusal to meet their demands. Therefore each politician has been asked to give their opinion about how he feels when an administrator refuses to meet the demands and proposals. In order to have their reaction eight items were selected.
Table 1 (See Annexure I) reveals that 52.59 per cent of politicians in overall sample felt that the administrators were prejudiced against them, therefore, they do not listen their demands. However, the fact that such a large number of politicians felt this way indicates that they do not expect to get a fair deal from administrators. On the other hand, 33.62 per cent of politicians recognized that administrators were not prejudiced against them, while 13.79 per cent of politicians remained silent on this issue. District-wise data reveals the same trend. This is further supported by the fact that 62.07 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 58.62 per cent of politicians in Una district and 60.34 per cent of politicians in overall sample felt that the administrators declined to comply with their demands without giving a careful consideration. This indicated towards widespread dissatisfaction with the way administrators function in the district. Further, politicians did support the conventional characteristics of bureaucrat as an impartial public officer who carefully consider each demand and proposal before making a decision. The responses to next items show that 50.00 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 44.83 per cent of politicians in Una district and 47.41 per cent of politicians in overall sample felt that the administrators are not justified in refusing to comply with politician's demands. On the other hand, 34.48 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 41.38 per cent of politicians in Una district and 37.93 per cent of politicians in overall sample were of the view that administrators are justified in refusing to comply with politician's demands. Next responses are related with administrative system. The fact cannot be denied that administrators are helpless due to procedural and administrative difficulties. In this regard, data in Table shows that 58.62 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 51.72 per cent of politicians in Una district and 55.17 per cent of politicians in overall sample were inclined to blame the system which makes administrators helpless in meeting their demands. But 30.17 per cent of politicians in overall sample did not blame the system instead they think it is incumbent not the system which makes them ignore their demands. The percentage of those politicians who remained silent on this issue shows that there is nothing wrong with the system. In this case, politicians blame individual administrators and perceive the necessity of taking some action against him. It is evident from the data that 50.00 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 53.45 per cent of politicians in Una district and 51.73 per cent of politicians in overall sample felt that the behaviour of unobliging administrators should be exposed in public. While on the other hand, 37.93 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 31.03 per cent of politicians in Una district and 34.48 per cent of politicians in overall sample didn't want to expose administrator's behaviour in public. Similarly, 53.45 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 56.90 per cent of politicians in Una district and 55.17 per cent of politicians in overall sample felt that administrators are incompetent so action should be taken against them. However, 32.76 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 31.03 per cent of politicians in Una district and 31.90 per cent in overall sample were of the view that administrators are competent. However, the feeling of complaint and expression of anger manifested in the politicians' inclination to actions against the erring administrators is in many cases matched by an equally strong sense of inability about taking the administrator to task. In this regard, as much as 62.07 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 68.97 per cent of politicians in Una district and 65.52 per cent of politicians in overall sample were of the opinion that the administrators enjoy powerful protection so hardly anything can be done about it. Administrators' Perception of Politicians' Reaction The discussion of reactions stemming from administrators' refusal to comply with politicians' demands will remain incomplete if we left out of it what administrators themselves visualize politicians adopting certain course of action in this context. The responses of administrators in the regard have been presented in Table 2 (See Annexure II). It reveals that 39.22 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 43.40 per cent of administrators in Una district and 41.35 per cent of administrators in overall sample were of the opinion that politicians cease to cooperate when their demands are rejected by the administrators. But on the other hand, 37.25 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 43.40 per cent per cent of administrators in Una district and 40.38 per cent of administrators in overall sample did not agree with this. The percentage of those administrators who remained neutral was 18.27 per cent in overall sample. Responses to the item that politicians will try to spoil service records shows that 39.21 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 47.17 per cent of administrators in Una district and 43.27 per cent of administrators in overall sample felt that politicians tried to spoil service records. One important thing is that the percentage in this regard was higher in Una district than Chamba district. On the other hand, 41.18 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 35.85 per cent of administrators in Una district and 38.46 per cent of administrators in overall sample were of the opinion that politicians did not try to spoil service records. This has been done by persuading superior officials to make an adverse remark in the administrator's confidential reports. It was found that politicians attempt to disturb administrator's service conditions. As much as 56.87 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 60.38 per cent of administrators in Una district and 58.65 per cent of administrators in overall sample felt that politicians would take recourse to disturbing their service conditions, means affecting such conditions in the service that the administrators would be greatly inconvenienced. Transfer of administrator is one of the service conditions. Transfer of administrators by politicians to such areas where they may face several problems, namely, health hazards, lack of educational facilities for the administrator's childrens etc. Another reaction of politicians relates to the administrators' fear that the politicians, if they can do nothing else, can at least tarnish their reputation. Out of total administrators, 45.10 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 39.62 per cent of administrators in Una district and 42.31 per cent of administrators in overall sample had the feeling that politicians will try to tarnish their reputation. On the other hand, 50.98 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 47.17 per cent of administrators in Una district and 49.04 per cent of administrators in overall sample did not have such feeling. The responses to next items reveal that the percentage of those administrators who were of the opinion that politicians can hardly do any harm was low. It was 35.29 per cent in Chamba district, 32.08 per cent in Una district and 33.65 per cent in overall sample. This upholds overall previous data. It can be concluded that when administrators refuse to comply with politicians' demands or proposals, politicians can take any of the above said course of action. They would either cease to cooperate or try to spoil service records or disturb service conditions or tarnish reputation of administrators. Pressures put on Administrators It is a well established fact that politicians have frequently came to experience disappointment in persuading the administrator to comply with their demands and their tendency to blame administrators personally for this. It is not unexpected that politicians will frequently take recourse to putting pressures on administrators for making them comply to their demands. What kinds of pressures do politicians really put on administrators? It is this question which is examined here. In general, two types of pressures that politicians may usually take recourse to are: the first type relates to those pressures a politician himself applies on the administrator. The second type pertains to those pressures which a politician applies on the administrator through others, that through friends, relatives, higher level politicians or official at the higher level. The data in this regard has been presented in Table 3 (See Annexure III). Table 3 shows data regarding first type of pressure, that is, pressure put by politician himself. In regard to the promise of the politicians to take the consequences of administrator's action, it was found that 23.53 per cent of administrators and 29.31 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 22.64 per cent of administrators and 24.14 per cent of politicians in Una district and 23.08 per cent of administrators and 26.72 per cent of politicians in overall sample were of the opinion that politicians frequently promise to take responsibility of consequences on them in return to the compliance of administrators with politicians demands and proposals. While, 39.22 per cent of administrators and 31.03 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 39.62 per cent of administrators and 32.76 per cent of politicians in Una district and 39.42 per cent of administrators and 31.90 per cent of politicians in overall sample were of the opinion that politicians sometime use this on administrators. On the other hand, 37.25 per cent of administrators and 39.66 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 37.74 per cent of administrators and 43.10 per cent of politicians in Una district and 37.50 per cent of administrators and 41.38 per cent of politicians in overall sample were of the opinion that politicians never uses this pressure. Comparatively the percentage of those politicians who did not recognize this pressure was higher than the percentage of administrators. It can be concluded that promise to take responsibility of consequences on him is an important pressure put on administrators by the politicians. Responses to next pressure reveal fewer consensuses between administrators and politicians. It has been observed that 21.57 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 22.64 per cent of administrators in Una district and 22.12 per cent of administrators in overall sample recognized that politicians frequently promise of better career opportunity. While 52.94 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, 45.28 per cent of administrators in Una district and 49.04 per cent of administrators in overall sample opined that politicians sometime promise of better career opportunity. While the responses of politicians regarding it shows that it is not an important pressure, as 63.79 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 67.25 per cent of politicians in Una district and 65.51 per cent of politicians in overall sample never made such promises to administrators. With regard to offering monetary incentives or other rewards administrators again differ from politicians, as about 47 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, about 41 per cent of administrators in Una district and about 44 per cent of administrators in overall sample recognized that politicians frequently or sometime offer monetary incentives or other reward. On the other hand, 89.66 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 91.38 per cent of politicians in Una district and 90.52 per cent of politicians in overall sample never offered monetary incentives or other rewards to administrators for fulfilling their demands. In relation to affecting service records of administrators the table reveals that about 64 per cent of administrators in Chamba district, about 56 per cent of administrators in Una district and about 60 per cent of administrators in overall sample opined that politicians either frequently or sometime made an attempt to affect service records of administrators. On the other hand, majority of politicians did not favour it. Out of total politicians, 93.10 per cent of politicians in Chamba district, 96.55 per cent of politicians in Una district and 94.83 per cent of politicians in overall sample never tried to affect service records of administrators. Among politicians this pressure does not seems to be very important. Another pressure which the politicians try to put is disturbing service conditions by transfers, complains to higher level. In this regard there seems some consensus between both administrators and politicians. Out of total respondents, 63.46 per cent of administrators and 37.93 per cent of politicians were of the opinion that politicians uses this pressure frequently, while 30.77 of administrators and 45.69 per cent of politicians recognized that politicians sometime try to disturb service conditions. District-wise data reveals the same trend. From the above analysis it can be concluded that most important pressure which is being put by the politicians is disturbing service conditions by transfers and complaints to higher level. Conclusion On the basis of above discussion it can be concluded to fulfill the demands and proposals, politicians contacted administrators. When administrators fail to comply with politicians' demands and proposals then there arise situations of conflict between both. In this connection politicians pressurize administrators to attend their demands make necessary efforts to meet them. Above discussion reveals that politician hold three kinds of viewpoint when they confronted by the refusal of an administrators. Firstly, they felt that it is the bureaucratic system that put severe restrains on the capability of the administrator to give effect to the demands of politicians. Secondly, politicians also felt that the administrators are incapable of meeting their demands. The refusal according to politicians is due to administrators' prejudice. They favour that the behaviour of administrator's should be exposed in public and also favour the action against administrators as well. Thirdly, there was a feeling among the politicians that the administrators enjoy powerful protection so hardly anything can be done about it. When administrators refuse to comply with politicians' demands or proposals, politicians would either cease to cooperate or try to spoil service records or try to spoil service records or disturb service conditions or tarnish reputation of administrators. Most important pressure which is being put by the politicians is disturbing service conditions by transfers and complaints to higher level. The important pressure which is regularly used by the politicians is the disturbance of service conditions, followed by promise to take responsibility of consequences on him. ANNEXURE-1 Table 1: Politicians' Reaction to Administrators Refusal to Meet Demands Items Responses Chamba Yes No Can't say The administrator is 29 (50.00) 20 (34.48) 9 (15.52) prejudiced therefore he does not listen to the demands. The administrators decline 36 (62.07) 18 (31.03) 4 (6.90) to comply with the demands without giving a careful consideration The administrator is 20 (34.48) 29 (50.00) 9 (15.52) justified in refusing to comply with the demands and proposals The administrator is 34 (58.62) 16 (27.59) 8 (13.79) helpless due to procedural and administrative difficulties Administrator's behaviour 29 (50.00) 22 (37.93) 7 (12.07) should be exposed in public. The administrator is 31 (53.45) 19 (32.76) 8 (13.79) incompetent; therefore action should be taken against them. The administrators enjoy 36 (62.07) 14 (24.14) 8 (13.79) powerful protection hardly anything can be done it. Items Responses Una Yes No Can't say The administrator is 32 (55.17) 19 (32.76) 7 (12.07) prejudiced therefore he does not listen to the demands. The administrators decline 34 (58.62) 20 (34.48) 4 (6.90) to comply with the demands without giving a careful consideration The administrator is 24 (41.38) 26 (44.83) 8 (13.79) justified in refusing to comply with the demands and proposals The administrator is 30 (51.72) 19 (32.76) 9 (15.52) helpless due to procedural and administrative difficulties Administrator's behaviour 31 (53.45) 18 (31.03) 9 (15.52) should be exposed in public. The administrator is 33 (56.90) 18 (31.03) 7 (12.07) incompetent; therefore action should be taken against them. The administrators enjoy 40 (68.97) 12 (20.69) 6 (10.34) powerful protection hardly anything can be done it. Items Responses Total (Una +Chamba) Yes No Can't say The administrator is 61 (52.59) 39 (33.62) 16 (13.79) prejudiced therefore he does not listen to the demands. The administrators decline 70 (60.34) 38 (32.76) 8 (6.90) to comply with the demands without giving a careful consideration The administrator is 44 (37.93) 55 (47.41) 17 (14.66) justified in refusing to comply with the demands and proposals The administrator is 64 (55.17) 35 (30.17) 17 (14.66) helpless due to procedural and administrative difficulties Administrator's behaviour 60 (51.73) 40 (34.48) 16 (13.79) should be exposed in public. The administrator is 64 (55.17) 37 (31.90) 15 (12.93) incompetent; therefore action should be taken against them. The administrators enjoy 76 (65.52) 26 (22.41) 14 (12.07) powerful protection hardly anything can be done it. Note:--Figures in Parentheses represent percentage.
Annexure-II Table 2: Administrators' Perception of Politicians' Reactions when their Demands are turned down Items Responses Chamba Yes No Can't say They will cease to 20 19 12 cooperate. (39.22) (37.25) (23.53) They will try to spoil 20 21 10 service records (39.21) (41.18) (19.61) They will disturb service 29 17 5 conditions. (56.87) (33.33) (9.80) They will try to tarnish 23 26 2 reputation. (45.10) (50.98) (3.92) They hardly do any harm. 18 24 9 (35.29) (47.06) (17.65) Items Responses Una Yes No Can't say They will cease to 23 23 7 cooperate. (43.40) (43.40) (13.20) They will try to spoil 25 19 9 service records (47.17) (35.85) (16.98) They will disturb service 32 15 6 conditions. (60.38) (28.30) (11.32) They will try to tarnish 21 25 7 reputation. (39.62) (47.17) (13.21) They hardly do any harm. 17 26 10 (32.08) (49.06) (18.86) Items Responses Total (Una +Chamba) Yes No Can't say They will cease to 43 42 19 cooperate. (41.35) (40.38) (18.27) They will try to spoil 45 40 19 service records (43.27) (38.46) (18.27) They will disturb service 61 32 11 conditions. (58.65) (30.77) (10.58) They will try to tarnish 44 51 9 reputation. (42.31) (49.04) (8.65) They hardly do any harm. 35 50 19 (33.65) (48.08) (18.27) Note:--Figures in Parentheses represent percentage.
Annexure-III Table 3: Types of Pressures Put on Administrators by the Politicians Items Responses Chamba Promise to take AD 12 20 19 responsibility of (23.53) (39.22) (37.25) consequences on him PL 17 18 23 (29.31) (31.03) (39.66) Promise of AD 11 27 13 better career (21.57) (52.94) (25.49) opportunity. PL 7 14 37 (12.07) (24.14) (63.79) Offer monetary AD 3 (5.88) 21 27 incentives or (41.18) (52.94) other rewards. PL 1 5 (8.62) 52 (1.72) (89.66) Affecting service AD 14 19 18 records (27.45) (37.26) (35.29) PL -- 4 (6.90) 54 (93.10) Disturb service AD 32 16 3 conditions by (62.75) (31.37) (5.88) transfers, PL 21 29 8 complaints to (36.21) (50.00) (13.79) higher level. Items Responses Una Promise to take AD 12 21 20 responsibility of (22.64) (39.62) (37.74) consequences on him PL 14 19 25 (24.14) (32.76) (43.10) Promise of AD 12 24 17 better career (22.64) (45.28) (32.08) opportunity. PL 6 13 39 (10.34) (22.41) (67.25) Offer monetary AD 2 20 31 incentives or (3.77) (37.74) (58.49) other rewards. PL -- 5 53 (8.62) (91.38) Affecting service AD 10 20 23 records (18.87) (37.73) (43.40) PL -- 2 56 (3.45) (96.55) Disturb service AD 34 16 3 (5.66) conditions by (64.15) (30.19) transfers, PL 23 24 11 complaints to (39.66) (41.38) (18.96) higher level. Items Responses Total (Una + Chamba) Promise to take AD 24 41 39 responsibility of (23.08) (39.42) (37.50) consequences on him PL 31 37 48 (26.72) (31.90) (41.38) Promise of AD 23 51 30 better career (22.12) (49.04) (28.84) opportunity. PL 13 27 76 (11.21) (23.28) (65.51) Offer monetary AD 5 41 58 incentives or (4.81) (39.42) (55.77) other rewards. PL 1 10 105 (0.86) (8.62) (90.52) Affecting service AD 24 39 41 records (23.08) (37.50) (39.42) PL -- 6 110 (5.17) (94.83) Disturb service AD 66 32 6 conditions by (63.46) (30.77) (5.77) transfers, PL 44 53 19 complaints to (37.93) (45.69) (16.38) higher level. Note:-- i) Figures in Parentheses represent percentage. ii) 'AD' represents Administrators and 'PL' represents Politicians.
References K. Aswathappa, (2005): Organizational Behaviour, Himalaya Publishing House, Delhi, p. 393-394. Mohit Bhattacharya, (1998): New Horizons of Public Administration, Jawahar Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi, 1998, pp. 226-227. A. R. Tyagi, (1993): Public Administration, Principles and Practices, Atma Ram and Sons, Delhi. Shanti Kothari and Ramashray Roy, (1969): Relations between Politicians and Administrators at the District Level, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. http://www.essex.ac.uk/ECPR/events/jointsessions/paperarchive/ grenoble/ws21/jacobsen.pdf COPYRIGHT 2011 Centre for Indian Development Studies No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder. Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Please bookmark with social media, your votes are noticed and appreciated:
The Free Library > Science and Technology > Economics > Political Economy Journal of India > July 1, 2011 The Free Library > Social Sciences > Political science > Political Economy Journal of India > July 1, 2011 The Free Library > Date > 2011 > July > 1 > Political Economy Journal of India Publications by Name A-D E-O P-T U-Z
Publications by Date before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 2010-
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters
Literature A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Words: 4367 Previous Article: An economic study of doorway hurdles to entrepreneurship among the students of Tamil Nadu. Next Article: Ancillarisation and technical efficiency of firms: an empirical study of rail coach factory, Kapurthala in Punjab. Topics: Autonomy Laws, regulations and rules Autonomy (Political science) Laws, regulations and rules Conflict management Laws, regulations and rules Political aspects Politicians Political activity Statistics
T