Bureaucracy and kabaddi

In kabaddi, a player on the offence has to tag as many players as he can, without being tackled. So is the case with bureaucrats these days. They want to pass on any serious decision to anyone and everyone above or below them, without assuming any responsibility, to avoid being “tackled” by NAB. They do not want to sign off on procurements, recruitments, pending payments, project approvals or even licences and permits.

Nudging by the top bosses sometimes forces them to put their stamp on very “safe” decisions but for anything out of the ordinary, nothing short of a court order can force them to perform this miraculous feat.

Court orders have become insurance policies for civil servants. Considerations for personal survival have overtaken public interest. No one cares about the cost of foregone opportunities but only about not causing a direct “loss to the exchequer”. Facing NAB could mean possible arrest, an immediate media trial and an overnight loss of reputation.

The bureaucracy’s reluctance to take decisions has not gone unnoticed in the corridors of power. PTI ministers have been seen sharing their frustration for not being able to deliver on the promises they made. The financial guardians are worried that this “inaction” may impede the ongoing IMF programme, the lifeline for the country’s economy, especially when it comes to structural reforms.

Responding to some of these concerns, earlier this year, the NAB chairman took away the powers of his directors-general to arrest young bureaucrats belonging to grades 17 and 18. He also decided not to summon bureaucrats until strong evidence against them is available and reviewed. Instead, they would be asked to respond to a questionnaire sent to them. But these measures did little to assuage the concerns of the bureaucrats.

More recently, the government has been mulling over some amendments to the NAB law. The task forces on civil service reform has also given some suggestions in this regard such as introducing supervisory committees to greenlight any action by NAB against serving or retired bureaucrats.

These are all good suggestions. But more than the law what needs to change is the practice. Civil servants all over the world have to take decisions in good faith and statutory provisions leave room for such decisions to keep the wheels of the government moving.

Consider the case of a civil servant who has to approve a contractor’s payment, which has been pending due to a minor procedural error. Public interest demands that he approve the payment to avoid any late payment penalty. Although the procedural error can be fixed later, he could be held accountable for taking this decision in “good faith”. If he refuses however, the contractor will either have to wait or go to the court. This may waste time, delay the project and even result in penalties but would ensure that he remain outside the “accountability net”.

Sections 23A and 23B were inserted in the Civil Servants Act 1973 precisely for this reason, to provide immunity to official acts done in good faith and to exclude the jurisdiction of all courts except the Federal Services Tribunal. However, unfortunately, these two statutory firewalls are often disregarded. A senior civil servant manning a very important position in the federal capital told me that during the 60 days of his posting, he had to personally appear in 42 court hearings.

Removing the fear of undue accountability and harassment may not be a sufficient condition to make the country’s bureaucracy functional but it is surely a necessary pre-condition and unless and until the government fixes it, things will not move.

It is time to cut through the deafening sounds of “kabaddi, kabaddi” and hear the wheel of the government coming to a screeching halt.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 27^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.