Altering the moral pattern
It is best to stay within the established pattern and not challenge its morality too often
The writer is a bureaucrat on a sabbatical
A broad review of bureaucracy indicates that ethics are in short supply. The effect of this shortage is apparent in extensive damage to the state and its citizens. Under performance, corruption, political appointments, slanted evaluations and meritless promotions have been discussed to death by commissions and harshly worded superior court judgments. Explicit details of malpractice are exposed in the media. Numerous techniques are devised by economists and development consultants to change the essential character of the bureaucrat. Retired role models have joined the bandwagon in a quest to transform a system they once upheld with great joy.
Analysing governance often leads to a close examination of the bureaucracy. Researchers may find this a tedious exercise. Government functionaries perform mundane tasks. Internal structures are convoluted enough to deter curious strategists and planners. Bureaucrats are seen as managerially lacking in innovation and inspiration. More often they are viewed from a time-barred, project-based lens to reform. These efforts are often based on imported ideals. Self-improvement is also encouraged in training with references to ‘steel frames’ and ‘moral fibre’. Religious sermons have been invoked to resuscitate morality. Despite these attempts, bureaucracy in Pakistan remains a most formidable entity.
Civil bureaucracy is authoritarian. It exerts itself abundantly to ensure a cyclical preservation of interests. In theory, it creates a link between the citizens and the state. In practice this link is protected with haphazardly created webs in the absence of direction. This direction (or lack thereof) is roughly defined as the guiding principle underlying the purpose of a state. The bureaucracy steers clear of questioning the direction and confines itself to implementing accidentally or purposely crafted laws, policies and strategies. It knows full well that questioning the direction is unwise and can result in self-destruction.
Government functions entail citizens’ access to the state and subsequent rights and services. Joining the exclusive government club holds the promise of perennial domination and power over these citizens. This hegemony is not absolute and sufficient room is present for other power structures. However, in an over-centralised state the government offers boundless prospects for opportunists and exploiters.
There is ample criticism of government machinery that is seen as corrupt and outdated. Attempts to reform have remained futile in altering the fundamental code of function. An amateur effort was made in 2011 by forming an association of officers called Moral Revival. The movement encouraged a moral high ground for civil servants. They were championed to uphold the law, do the right thing and perform their tasks dispassionately. A large number of young officers joined the virtual movement in principle (and in spirit). A Supreme Court judgment gave clear protection to bureaucrats and disallowed politically motivated displacements and persecution. The judgment was celebrated and is often quoted and cited. Victims and perpetrators were both bureaucrats. It is presumed that the public at large has benefited from this protection of tenure.
It is a fact that the bureaucracy rejects change. The establishment does not alter its chosen path which is somewhat detached from the maintenance of minimum ethical standards. It continues to create webs keeping the larger population subjugated and ensnared. Many young enthusiasts are drawn to this practice. Over the years, a few have struggled to preserve personal integrity and dignity. However as each day passes the internal qualities of serving bureaucrats are gradually chiseled to fit the individual into the desired frame. Most succumb to temptation while others move to the peripheries to utilise their skills. And yet some choose to confront the contradictory norms of public service. Anecdotal research shows that it is best to stay within the established pattern and not challenge its morality too often.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 4th, 2017.
Analysing governance often leads to a close examination of the bureaucracy. Researchers may find this a tedious exercise. Government functionaries perform mundane tasks. Internal structures are convoluted enough to deter curious strategists and planners. Bureaucrats are seen as managerially lacking in innovation and inspiration. More often they are viewed from a time-barred, project-based lens to reform. These efforts are often based on imported ideals. Self-improvement is also encouraged in training with references to ‘steel frames’ and ‘moral fibre’. Religious sermons have been invoked to resuscitate morality. Despite these attempts, bureaucracy in Pakistan remains a most formidable entity.
Civil bureaucracy is authoritarian. It exerts itself abundantly to ensure a cyclical preservation of interests. In theory, it creates a link between the citizens and the state. In practice this link is protected with haphazardly created webs in the absence of direction. This direction (or lack thereof) is roughly defined as the guiding principle underlying the purpose of a state. The bureaucracy steers clear of questioning the direction and confines itself to implementing accidentally or purposely crafted laws, policies and strategies. It knows full well that questioning the direction is unwise and can result in self-destruction.
Government functions entail citizens’ access to the state and subsequent rights and services. Joining the exclusive government club holds the promise of perennial domination and power over these citizens. This hegemony is not absolute and sufficient room is present for other power structures. However, in an over-centralised state the government offers boundless prospects for opportunists and exploiters.
There is ample criticism of government machinery that is seen as corrupt and outdated. Attempts to reform have remained futile in altering the fundamental code of function. An amateur effort was made in 2011 by forming an association of officers called Moral Revival. The movement encouraged a moral high ground for civil servants. They were championed to uphold the law, do the right thing and perform their tasks dispassionately. A large number of young officers joined the virtual movement in principle (and in spirit). A Supreme Court judgment gave clear protection to bureaucrats and disallowed politically motivated displacements and persecution. The judgment was celebrated and is often quoted and cited. Victims and perpetrators were both bureaucrats. It is presumed that the public at large has benefited from this protection of tenure.
It is a fact that the bureaucracy rejects change. The establishment does not alter its chosen path which is somewhat detached from the maintenance of minimum ethical standards. It continues to create webs keeping the larger population subjugated and ensnared. Many young enthusiasts are drawn to this practice. Over the years, a few have struggled to preserve personal integrity and dignity. However as each day passes the internal qualities of serving bureaucrats are gradually chiseled to fit the individual into the desired frame. Most succumb to temptation while others move to the peripheries to utilise their skills. And yet some choose to confront the contradictory norms of public service. Anecdotal research shows that it is best to stay within the established pattern and not challenge its morality too often.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 4th, 2017.