Nobody enjoys waiting, especially when an important personal matter depends on the outcome. A person may be trying to register a business, obtain a clearance certificate, complete a pension file, or secure an approval that affects work, income, or family life.
Most citizens therefore enter a government office with one simple hope: “I hope I can finish this today.” When they are told that another approval is needed, one more document is missing, or the file must move to another section, disappointment can quickly turn into frustration.
Two different pressures
The citizen and the public officer may be looking at the same file, but they are not experiencing the same situation.
For the citizen, time is personal. They may have taken leave from work, travelled a long distance, paid for transport, closed a business for the morning, or arranged childcare. When they hear, “Please come again next week,” they do not hear only a date. They hear another journey, another expense, another lost working day, and another delay.
The officer, however, may see the same document through a different lens. A signature can carry legal and professional responsibility. Public officers work within laws, circulars, audit requirements, and internal procedures. A decision taken too quickly today may have to be justified months or years later.
So while the citizen is thinking, “Why can’t this be approved now?” the officer may be thinking, “Can I legally approve this and defend my decision later?” Both concerns can be reasonable. Conflict grows when each side sees only its own pressure.
The problem may start earlier
Many arguments at public counters actually begin long before the citizen meets the officer. A website may contain outdated information. An application form may be confusing. Different officers may give different instructions. A process may require several signatures even though only a few add real value. A frontline officer may know exactly what should be done but have no authority to act.
These are small problems individually, but together they create what might be called service friction. A citizen may first struggle with an online form, then travel to the office, wait in a queue, discover that a document is missing, and finally be told to visit another section. By the time that person reaches the final counter, frustration has already been building for hours.
This is why repeated complaints should not simply be dismissed as public impatience. If many people struggle with the same step, perhaps the process itself needs attention. Complaints can be valuable information. They show institutions where citizens are becoming confused, delayed, or unnecessarily inconvenienced.
Waiting is not always the real problem
People can often accept waiting if they know what to expect. A citizen may not like being told that an application will take 10 working days, but at least they can plan around it. What creates greater frustration is uncertainty: “Come again later,” “The file is with another officer,” or “Call next week.”
Good public service therefore does not mean that every request must be completed immediately. Some matters genuinely need checking and approval. What matters is that the process is clear and predictable. Citizens should know what documents are required, why they are needed, how long the process normally takes, and what to do if a delay occurs. Predictability itself is a form of good service.
Fast should not mean careless
Faster service should never mean ignoring necessary controls. Removing every rule can create mistakes, unfair treatment, corruption, and legal problems. The better question is whether each step genuinely protects the public interest or merely adds unnecessary delay.
Good administration should protect accountability while removing needless complexity. Citizens should not have to choose between efficiency and integrity. A well-designed public system should deliver both.
Better words, better service
Not every improvement requires expensive technology. Sometimes the difference begins with communication. Saying, “That is not my section,” may be technically correct, but it leaves the citizen at a dead end. Saying, “That matter is handled at Counter 6 on the second floor; they can assist you there,” gives direction.
The same applies when an application is incomplete. Instead of simply saying, “This cannot be accepted,” an officer can explain what is missing, why it is needed, and what should happen next. A few minutes of clear explanation may prevent another journey, another lost working day, and another argument.
Listening matters too. A citizen who feels ignored is more likely to become defensive. Listening does not mean agreeing with every request; it means allowing the person to explain before giving an answer.
Citizens have a role too
Public service is not a one-way relationship. Citizens also have responsibilities. Arriving without required documents, providing incomplete information, or expecting officers to ignore legal requirements can create delays for everyone.
The way citizens speak also matters. Asking, “What is preventing this application from moving forward?” is more likely to produce a useful answer than saying, “Why are you wasting my time?” One question focuses on the problem, the other attacks the person.
Do not digitise confusion
Technology can improve public service, but digitisation is not automatically modernisation. If a paper process has 10 unnecessary steps and all 10 are simply moved online, the citizen is experiencing the same bureaucracy through a screen.
Institutions should simplify first and digitise second. They should ask whether every document is still necessary, whether every approval adds value, and whether different departments can share information instead of repeatedly asking citizens for the same details.
The best digital service is not necessarily the most sophisticated one. It is often the one that asks the citizen to do the least unnecessary work.
Look beyond the counter
At the heart of public service are two people on opposite sides of a desk. One may be worried about a deadline, a family need, or a business opportunity. The other may be worried about regulations, accountability, and whether a decision can be legally defended. One wants an answer today; the other wants to ensure that today’s answer does not become tomorrow’s problem.
Perhaps the most useful question is therefore not “Who is making my life difficult?” but “What is making this process difficult?” That shift moves attention away from blaming individuals and towards improving systems.
A modern public institution should ask how much unnecessary effort a citizen must make to receive a lawful service. Every extra visit, unclear instruction, duplicated document, and hour spent in a queue carries a cost. These costs may not appear in the government budget, but citizens pay them through lost time, transport expenses, missed work, and frustration.
Good public service is therefore not simply about being polite. It is about respecting people’s time, dignity, and effort while protecting fairness and accountability. Perhaps real reform begins with one simple question: if people keep struggling with the same process, should we keep blaming the people, or should we improve the process?
(The writer is an independent researcher)
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the official position of this publication)