CARACTERÍSTICAS CAMBIANTES

In the 1990s the Czech Republic has undertaken certain reforms aimed at developing institutional environment to support competitive markets and democratic values. Progress has been made in devolving powers to local and new regional governments, introduction of certain regulatory mechanisms, and harmonization of Czech laws with EU legislation.

Little attention however was paid to the modernization of the state administration. The need for reform of public administration was regularly pronounced. However, the reform 1) was conceived almost exclusively as reform of regional and local government; 2) its implementation was permanently delayed; and 3) even when modernization of central state administration was considered, it was perceived mainly as adoption of respective legislation. “The public administration reform has been understood in the Czech Republic in a very narrow way as the

The Prime Minister chairs Government meetings which are held on a weekly basis. Decisions may be passed by a majority of members present. The Government issues decrees within the scope of existing law. Decrees must be signed by the Prime Minister and the government member concerned. Ministries, other administrative agencies and territorial self-government bodies may issue legal regulations on the basis of existing legislation and within the area of their authority.

The Office of the Government is an advisory and administrative support structure providing information, technical and organizational assistance for the activities of the government. It is a central institution which does not fulfill ministerial functions.

The line ministries are responsible for designing and implementing government policy in a specific area. Their internal organisation is decided by each minister. Formal guidelines and mechanisms for policy coordination among ministries are generally in place and are administered by a special department in the Cabinet. Policy coordination is usually achieved through government advisory structures created by a decision of the Government and by ad hoc commissions formed by separate ministries.

One of the examples of the latter was the Inter-ministerial Commission on Public Administration Reform established by the Ministry of Interior. The Commission consisted of Deputy Ministers of all ministries and Heads of selected central administration bodies. It was headed by the Deputy Minister of Interior in charge of public administration reform.

Various reports show that although mechanisms for inter-ministerial co- ordination are in place they are generally weak and the procedures are slow. Negotiations on draft laws, on policy-proposals and on budget lines take a long time and are not settled at appropriate levels. Also ministries, departments and sub- departments often have over-lapping functions and communication and management structures are blurred. Effective elaboration and coordination of policy at the central level is complicated by the tendency of line ministries to focus on narrow sectored interests at the expense of broader cross-sector priorities. As one expert stated “Each ministry is an isolated fiefdom working independently with little cooperation or sharing of information” (Chandran. 2000:10).

5.9 Civil Service: Status, Efficiency and Institutional Setting

In the 1990s the Czech Republic has undertaken certain reforms aimed at developing institutional environment to support competitive markets and democratic values. Progress has been made in devolving powers to local and new regional governments, introduction of certain regulatory mechanisms, and harmonization of Czech laws with EU legislation.

Little attention however was paid to the modernization of the state administration. The need for reform of public administration was regularly pronounced. However, the reform 1) was conceived almost exclusively as reform of regional and local government; 2) its implementation was permanently delayed; and 3) even when modernization of central state administration was considered, it was perceived mainly as adoption of respective legislation. “The public administration reform has been understood in the Czech Republic in a very narrow way as the

setting-up of regional authorities and the adoption of the Civil service Act” (NTF, 1998: 7-1-7).

A particular feature which distinguished the Czech Republic from many of its CEE neighbours was absence until 2002 of legislation providing for the existence of a civil service and respectively lack of formal status of a “civil servant” as such. Each employee had a contractual relationship with a specific institution (ministry, agency etc) but not with the state as a whole. The Labour Code served as the basis for this relationship.

The problem remained, however, that whereas by the early 2000s the number of civil servants had increased, the quality of civil service had fallen. Speaking to the deputies of the Parliament, the Czech Deputy Prime Minister remarked “The level of civil service in the Czech Republic since 1989 has dropped considerably” (Spidla, 2001).

The functions of central government bodies were not sufficiently clarified within the general system of public administration. The role of civil servants in the policy process was not clearly defined either. The internal regulations of ministries governing their structure and responsibilities of their units differed considerably in their content and extent. Typical of the Czech institutional setting has been weak law enforcement. “As with all laws in the Czech Republic, enforcement is a concern” (Chandran, 2000:11).

Promotion and appointment based exclusively on merit were rather an exception than a rule. Unethical and corrupt behaviour of civil servants continued to arouse serious concern. “The administration is still politicized and lacks sufficiently qualified staff to serve as reform agents” (SIGMA, 2003).

In spite of these negative trends the Czech Government “did not initiate any in-depth analysis of this state of affairs and did not deal systematically and conceptually with the problems of civil service in general or the personnel policy of state administration in particular” (Vidlakova, 2000:8).

An OECD report described the situation in the following way “Today many of the highest priority challenges facing the Czech Republic lie in improving the capacities of the public administration – its skills, its structures, its accountability for performance, its relation with and understanding of markets and consumer interests, its culture and its style of operation” (OECD, 2001:136).

The period of the 1990s revealed also that in the Czech Republic there was no influential political party or social group, which not only displayed interest in civil service reform but was committed and motivated to push for its implementation.

5.10 Civil Service Management

Since the institution of civil service was established in the Czech Republic only recently and the basic law which determines largely its activities has not been fully enforced yet, it is possible to speak here only about the way state administration was managed before and the way it should be managed according to the new legislation.

As we pointed out already, prior to 2002 management of the Czech state administration was largely compartmentalized and exercised mainly by the leadership of each ministry or agency. Universal standards of the organisation,

setting-up of regional authorities and the adoption of the Civil service Act” (NTF, 1998: 7-1-7).

A particular feature which distinguished the Czech Republic from many of its CEE neighbours was absence until 2002 of legislation providing for the existence of a civil service and respectively lack of formal status of a “civil servant” as such. Each employee had a contractual relationship with a specific institution (ministry, agency etc) but not with the state as a whole. The Labour Code served as the basis for this relationship.

The problem remained, however, that whereas by the early 2000s the number of civil servants had increased, the quality of civil service had fallen. Speaking to the deputies of the Parliament, the Czech Deputy Prime Minister remarked “The level of civil service in the Czech Republic since 1989 has dropped considerably” (Spidla, 2001).

The functions of central government bodies were not sufficiently clarified within the general system of public administration. The role of civil servants in the policy process was not clearly defined either. The internal regulations of ministries governing their structure and responsibilities of their units differed considerably in their content and extent. Typical of the Czech institutional setting has been weak law enforcement. “As with all laws in the Czech Republic, enforcement is a concern” (Chandran, 2000:11).

Promotion and appointment based exclusively on merit were rather an exception than a rule. Unethical and corrupt behaviour of civil servants continued to arouse serious concern. “The administration is still politicized and lacks sufficiently qualified staff to serve as reform agents” (SIGMA, 2003).

In spite of these negative trends the Czech Government “did not initiate any in-depth analysis of this state of affairs and did not deal systematically and conceptually with the problems of civil service in general or the personnel policy of state administration in particular” (Vidlakova, 2000:8).

An OECD report described the situation in the following way “Today many of the highest priority challenges facing the Czech Republic lie in improving the capacities of the public administration – its skills, its structures, its accountability for performance, its relation with and understanding of markets and consumer interests, its culture and its style of operation” (OECD, 2001:136).

The period of the 1990s revealed also that in the Czech Republic there was no influential political party or social group, which not only displayed interest in civil service reform but was committed and motivated to push for its implementation.

5.10 Civil Service Management

Since the institution of civil service was established in the Czech Republic only recently and the basic law which determines largely its activities has not been fully enforced yet, it is possible to speak here only about the way state administration was managed before and the way it should be managed according to the new legislation.

As we pointed out already, prior to 2002 management of the Czech state administration was largely compartmentalized and exercised mainly by the leadership of each ministry or agency. Universal standards of the organisation,

recruitment, assessment, motivation of civil servants were lacking. There existed general provisions in the Constitution that overall management of the central administration is exercised by the government of the day. The terms of service were regulated mainly by the Labour Code.

Management of state administration was characterized by insufficient coordination, orientation on process rather than results, disregard of the importance of proper training and considerable neglect of citizens as ultimate clients.

The level of decision-making was excessively “top heavy” with 90%of the decision-making powers concentrated on average in around 6% of employees of the state institution (NTF, 1998: 3-1).

The new law adopted in 2002 envisaged that civil service management would be exercised by the General Directorate for Civil Service which was established in June 2002 as a separate unit in the Office of the Government (SIGMA, 2003). The law also provided for the introduction of a new post in each ministry and agency - Director of Personnel who is reporting directly to the General Directorate for Civil Service.

However, full enforcement of the Civil service Act has been regularly postponed. Four years after the adoption of the Law the post of the Head of the General Directorate for Civil Service was still vacant and the Directorate’s staff was cut by 60% (Landova, 2006:60).