I could not help listening to a conversation between two people a couple of days ago. I am not a nosy person but, because they were talking loudly in a frustrated tone, it was impossible not to overhear them. It was indeed a sad tale. The complainer was narrating how he had to complete a project and, when finished, was told it had to be attested by a government agency.
He approached the agency, only to be greeted with the most overused and oft-repeated sentence in the lexicon of bureaucracy here: “Come tomorrow.” The next day he was surprised, or even shocked, when an employee told him that he should not have started the project in the first place, as it had not been approved! To compound his problems, the bureaucrat told him he had broken the law.
“Which law?” asked the complainer.
“I don’t know,” came the reply, “but this is not within the jurisdiction of those who told you to go ahead with it.” Kafkaesque indeed!
No amount of pleading could move this stony-hearted and admittedly uninformed employee. No logic, no reason; just a wall of “Nos.”
Hearing this, I remembered the incident of a Saudi student who bought his car in the United States, intending to import it into the Kingdom. With papers in hand, he went to the customs officials who asked for a complete file, a hanging file of course. The poor guy took some time to obtain it. He thought it would take a day. To get a registration number, off he went to the traffic department. Again there was the need for the usual enormous number of papers and the inevitable request to “Come tomorrow: Your papers are not complete. The Comparing Committee should give you a certificate. By the way, one paper is missing.” Apparently it had been held by mistake at the customs.
So, back he went to be told that the paper was missing. “Are you sure you did not bring in a stolen car?” asked an employee there. The young student just glared at him.
Between them, the customs and the traffic department wasted more than 25 days. The young man was so frustrated he simply decided to cut short his vacation and go back to the States. On leaving the country, his words to me were very significant. “How are we going to progress and become an effective member of the WTO (World Trade Organization) with an attitude like this? I have never felt so frustrated in my life.”
I couldn’t agree with him more. Bureaucrats are known as public servants. They are supposed to serve. It’s a simple and very powerful idea, but often unrecognized it seems. They are not supposed to hear “For God’s sake” or “Please do this.” They should use their imagination, flexibility and have empathy with the user of their service, putting the interest of the citizen first. After all, that is what they are paid to do.
The significant point that emerges from these examples, reflecting the bitter observation of the departing student, is this: How much of critical national productivity is wasted by shortsighted, stubborn and uninformed bureaucrats? When Saudi Arabia becomes a full member of the WTO, other members will have high expectations of us. Are we up to them? We may have the product, but do we have the service infrastructure?
In addition, how much does the level of frustration rise among people who have to plead and cajole for what is their right? The citizen has an expectation — indeed, a right — of good, efficient and prompt service from people employed to provide it. So often, the provision of a civil service is simply not there. Gerrymandering and prevarication seem to be more commonplace than simple efficient service.
The young man sent me an e-mail yesterday. He told me he had acquired another car, registered it, insured it and driven it away all within two hours. That’s service for you. When are we going to reach that level of efficiency? Perhaps not until there has been a radical overhaul of the bureaucracy and a fundamental change in the attitude of those who administer the system.
