The Namibian Public Service Charter guarantees service delivery, accountability and transparency for all Namibians, but efficient service delivery remains a dream for many Namibians. The implementation of services and ensuring that they are delivered on time to the people and places to which they are intended are referred to as public service delivery.

However, the general view on public service delivery has not been acceptable, with complaints of excessive bureaucratic procedures stalling social and economic development, as well as deepening the suffering of the people. Public institutions in Namibia had been accused of being ineffective, cumbersome, too procedural, costly, red-taped and opaque (not transparent). Negative behavioural issues such as acute lateness, unauthorised absenteeism, clock watchers, early closing, insubordination, infighting, truancy, service delay and bribery also contribute to service dissatisfaction.

Also, there are complaints of service delays to stakeholders in the areas of the duration of programmes, processing and transfer of transcripts, payment of allowances and financial claims, as well as securing permits or approval for other socio-economic services. The delay has resulted in massive demotivation of stakeholders, leading to a lack of concentration and disservice, bribery and corruption, moonlighting, a lack of faith and the devaluation of institutional values, etc.

Many competent public servants are also being demoralised by bureaucratic procedures that take weeks to buy a pen or sign a letter since it has to go through many supervisors, months to fill a vacancy, and years to fix or repair damaged infrastructure.

The bureaucratic machinery, rather than fuelling development programmes through service delivery, continues to slow development as a consequence of excessive bureaucratic administrative processes, coupled with corruption.

Due to bureaucracy, many projects take time to be completed or remain incomplete, and money not spent is returned to the Treasury. This is resulting in low productivity, which negatively affects the performance of the central government and local governments.

Because of the bureaucratic tendency, the majority of public servants have a negative attitude towards work, which has a significant negative impact on the quality of service provided to citizens and their needs. In the same vein, bureaucratic processes and a poor attitude towards work have bedevilled the entire public sector of our national economy. Observations show that not only public servants, but virtually all parastatals, ministries and agencies are symbolic of delayed and slow attention when it comes to quality and efficient service. In general, public servants do not act as servants of the people but rather as masters, without any sense of accountability or transparency.

Some public servants use the bureaucratic system to stress customers or clients who are told that the delay is caused by a certain office while, in reality, he or she is sitting on it, waiting to be touched on the fingers (paid). The consequence for most clients is an increase in the risk of having to pay a bribe, given that a bureaucrat is available while he or she is urgently in need of that service. This is another reason why some people are discouraged from visiting government offices because they have to wait for long periods of time to be helped.

In Namibia, the term “bureaucracy” is often heard and used in connection with the conduct of public affairs, and the activities of public officials in particular. The administration of a country is run not only by members of the executive branch, who are at times dilettantes in the art of administration, but also by civil servants. The point to note is that the executive branch depends upon the expert advice of the bureaucracy (civil servants). Moreover, the period of office of a minister is not fixed since the minister is like a bird of passage or is changeable like the climate, while the civil servant goes on forever. The government is not the executive branch alone, but also the civil service or bureaucracy. The real burden of government, which is about running the administration, falls on the shoulders of the bureaucracy, which is responsible for the administration of a country.

While proponents of bureaucracy advance a strong influence on organisational structure, the term has become synonymous with delays, complications and the malfunctioning of the State. Bureaucrats are generally driven to maintain uniformity and control within the organisation by complying with rules, but excessive bureaucracy makes public entities more arthritic and self-serving, less able to achieve their core missions, and less responsive to service users. It is characterised by red tapeism, excessive paperwork, fear of innovation, poor customer service, duplication of working procedures, strict adherence to procedures, weak management practices, low morale, etc. From a contextual perspective, when bureaucratic institutions fail to meet the expectations of consumers in service delivery, the effects have serious repercussions on the political, social and economic growth of a state.

A major benefit of bureaucracy in organisations is that top executives or management have control over the entire organisation, which enables service users to know who to hold responsible when they encounter problems. One can presume that the slowness in relaxing some of the bureaucratic rules might be due to mistrust, perceived incompetency, or unethical behaviour of the department heads.

The Namibian public sector consists of various tiers of government and departments, with each department having its own agenda. Some departments do not cooperate to help other departments get the job done. This leads to delays in proceedings, resulting in the ineffective implementation of policies. In addition, heads of departments feel responsible first for protecting the department, its people and its budget, even before helping to achieve the organisation’s mission.

The departmental bureaucracies result in a poor work environment, which has a strong bureaucratic effect on an organisation’s output. It involves a lot of unhealthy stress for people, which lowers their output. Internal communications to employees within the organisation, which are poor, also cause distortion by reflecting what the organisation would like to be, rather than what it really is. Furthermore, employee mistakes and failures are being denied, covered up or ignored, which has a negative effect on the organisation. Because of bureaucracy, responsibility for mistakes and failures tends to be denied, and where possible, blame is shifted to others. Reports also show that promotions are based more on politics than actual achievements or competency on the job, which has a damaging effect on an organisation’s performance.

It is paradoxical that the bureaucracy has received harsh criticism from everyone who is affected in some way by its activities and actions. Yet, no one has the cojones, especially policymakers, to dispense with it. It is, therefore, fundamental that the rules and regulations be made flexible to be able to adjust to the dynamic and changing nature of the business environment. There should be periodic reviews of the rules so as to give room for initiative and discretion that breed innovation and creativity in service delivery. It is also imperative to consider the merit or urgency of the service to shorten the bureaucratic procedures to assist those who urgently need it. The time has also come for departments to be granted autonomy to manage their own affairs. Administrative, recruitment, promotion and disciplinary decisions should be made by departments. Until the government pursues strong public sector reforms, sets measurable objectives, disciplines corrupt public servants and reprimands ineffective institutions, bureaucracy will continue to deepen people`s suffering, and confidence in the public sector will not be restored.