Making Associations Stronger

editorial:-
So, government servants can no longer become members of associations. Also, the service regularization process should be done “properly” and in abidance with all prescribed rules. Government offices will also now remain open for 12 more days every year with the scrapping of the second Saturday holiday regime. Even as many see this as some form of retribution by the ruling party of a group it suspects of having voted the other way, strip it of suspected intent and possible motivation, and one cannot help but admit that such measures were long due. Apart from their own service/ cadre associations, government servants should not become office bearers at other organizations because such positions could pose conflict of interest complications or extend undue benefits to such organizations due to the leverage the government officers enjoy. Service regularizations, no matter how expansive or complicated, should always have been carried out properly and every extra day that the people receive to get ‘office work’ done is welcome. In a place as small as Sikkim and with jurisdictions and interests as overlapping as one sees in the State, it is always welcome to have clear guidelines for its public servants. Such initiatives must have been recommended by commissions tasked with administrative reforms in the past, but were obviously not implemented in fear of the disgruntlement it would have caused in what is admittedly a huge and influential collective – the government servants. Hence, even if the latest attempt at being ‘strict’ is to chastise a pampered group, it is welcome because it has provided the political will to take unpopular but constructive in the long-run decisions.
There is already a lot of talk about how most of the associations and organizations will collapse and go defunct if government servants are withdrawn from it. Before one proceeds, it is clarified that this section endorses the right of all government servants to become ordinary members of associations and organizations, but recommends that they be discouraged from becoming office bearers in such groups. Returning to the worry that association will fall apart; to begin with, very few such associations were very vibrantly engaged in their respective tasks anyway. Organising one event [even on a grand scale] once in a blue moon is no proof of vibrancy. Social or community or sports associations which need government servants to remain relevant are anyway being artificially sustained and will not be missed. Associations or organisations which claim to represent something should ensure a more sustained involvement and that requires passion and clear priorities. Having a government servant as an office bearer compromises the said association’s commitment to its stand because someone on the government’s payroll will think job-security and possible repercussions before taking any stand. While this might be good for his/ her career or social progression, it is not necessarily healthy for the association/ organization.
Withdrawing government servants from all associations is arguably the biggest service that the government is doing to these groups. After the initial confusion and shock, these groups can emerge stronger and tougher since they will not be staffed anymore with office bearers who need to hedge all their decisions against possible impact on their day jobs. These groups can now become genuinely representative of what they stand for and because this is a very real possibility, one needs to commend the government for having taken this step; once freed of govt servant influence on decision-making, associations and groups could become more critical, vocal and persistent, necessary attributes which one missed because in a majority of associations since they had too much ‘government’ presence thus far…