Public perception about civil service

A few weeks ago, I wrote about bureaucrats’ perspective on civil service reforms and their issues relating to low compensation, excessive accountability, political interference and judicial scrutiny.

But the worldview about civil service is entirely different. The public feels that civil service is corrupt; breeds a culture of non-responsiveness, apathy, elitism and arrogance; and enjoys excessive perks in the form of official vehicles, palatial residences and unlimited allowances.

The public concern about corruption is not unfounded. Pakistan ranks 120th on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index amongst 198 countries. According to the 2017 Global Corruption Barometer Report, more than 60 per cent of people who came into contact with police or public utilities said they had to pay a bribe. The same report also showed that it’s the poor people in Pakistan who end up paying most bribes, reflecting an extortionist culture.

The elitism allegations on bureaucracy are also not far-fetched. Walking in the corridors of the federal secretariat, one can still see flickering red and green lights outside the rooms of senior bureaucrats, indicating if they are busy or free, reminiscing the days of afsar shahi (royal civil service) of the British Raj. But even a green light does not mean that a citizen can walk into the room of a bureaucrat and public servants remain out of reach for the general public.

On low responsiveness, let me narrate a personal experience. I remember attending a meeting a few years ago, where officials from federal and provincial investment promotion agencies (IPAs) were claiming to do a phenomenal job in facilitating investors. To test these claims, I ran a small experiment and sent an email from a fictitious address to half a dozen national and international IPAs, posing as an investor, requesting for an exploratory call. I remember receiving immediate responses from all international IPAs, but none from Pakistan. I also wrote about this experiment in this paper.

On the subject of bureaucratic perks and privileges, a recent study by PIDE found that that total compensation of a BPS-22 officer can be as high as 900 per cent of his original wage, after accounting for car allowance, cash allowances, government housing (average market value), medical costs, etc. These perks may not be available to all officers, but what remains true is that the government does incur a huge cost on these perks and privileges, which are disproportionately enjoyed by a small group of civil servants.

Lastly, and most importantly, people do question what bureaucracy has delivered over the last several years. A broad-brush performance review of the government for the last ten years can reveal some shocking results. Pakistan’s textile earnings have gone down even in nominal terms. Our ranking on e-Government Development Index has dropped from 146 to 153, while our manufacturing value added as percentage of GDP has gone down from 13% to 12.4%, during the last ten years. Similarly, over the last 7-8 years, our ranking on intellectual property protection on the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index has declined from 46th to 97th, while on Global Food Security Index, we have slipped from 75th to 78th position. Yet we continue to have large ministries and organisations such as Textiles Division (now defunct), IT Ministry, Industries and Production Division, Ministry of Food Security and Intellectual Property Organisation bustling with resources and burning taxpayers’ money, who we have paid to bring down this phenomenal decline. The public is not wrong in questioning what the civil service has delivered.

The public view is and should be that no matter what the government does with civil service cadres, trainings, recruitments and compensation, it doesn’t matter until it results in performance on ground, which should be the ultimate litmus test for the success of any civil service reform effort.