Why are officials and employees in the public sector called public servants? Because they are practically and figuratively servants. Simply put, those in government are there to serve and not be served.
In the language of service, this is so that the welfare of the public doing business with the government is advanced and they do get the kind of service they seek from said office, and life is made easy for them.
Those in government serve by discharging faithfully the functions of their office. By oneself, a single public servant may be insignificant; but taken together with all public positions within an office,
constitute a whole office, which becomes a critical part of the entire department.
The seemingly insignificant position then becomes an important cog in a bigger machinery that makes performing its functions possible. Add this machinery to similar machinery or offices, and eventually, you will have a government bureaucracy that is serving the public as it should.
How the different functionaries in a government office, just like in private offices, are organized so that methodical handling of the business at hand and thoroughness are accomplished can be gleaned in their organizational setup, whose apex is the chief of office who oversees the smooth workflow.
A friend once spoke of this one cog working in sync with other cogs in uncomplicated simple terms. He said, "if everyone in government did only what he is supposed to do per the job description of his office, then the government would function as it should, and ultimately this would result in a better country where everything works."
I call this the will to serve, and it is based on government functionaries making a conscious decision to be purposefully useful to the public whom they serve in accord with what is required of them by their job descriptions. One must always remind oneself that public officials and employees are not called public servants for nothing.
Why is it so difficult for those in government, especially in the higher echelons, to be virtual if not real servants? This is so because we are used to putting our officials on a pedestal and serving them on an everyday basis as if they were emperors or potentates.
When a Metro-Manila-based head of office, for example, visits a branch office in the province, one gets all the good treatment that the branch office can give. Said official is booked in the best hotel and made to dine in the best restaurants.
Many will make little fuss of this because it may just express how much we love and respect our superiors, but what is its effect on the official concerned? Over time the feeling of being above others influences the public official and very soon one is acting out the duties of the office as one who virtually holds title to the same.
This tends to produce this very dangerous consequence: that one is in office to be served rather than to serve, and it dulls the sense against using one's office for personal gain or to advance private interests.
I do not tire of saying that Republic Act 6713 also known as "The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" enjoins government agencies to conduct on a regular, even continuing, basis seminars and studies to improve the services dispensed by them.
Two areas need particular attention: lessening paper and leg work when transacting with the agency (e.g., is there a real need for attachments to be certified true copies?) and boosting the morale of government employees, especially the rank and file, so they are happy to serve.
This should not be taken lightly; it should be one of the more prominent preoccupations of every government office. This much government officials owe to the public they serve.
