The decline of the institution of bureaucracy

Pakistan as post-colonial legacy had acquired an administration-driven governance system


Shahid Najam September 20, 2022
The writer is associated with Burki Institute of Public Policy. He holds degrees from London School of Economics and Wye College London and has 39 years of experience in policy and strategy formulation, development planning and programming. He can be reached at snshahidnajam@gmail.com

print-news

On gaining independence, Pakistan did not inherit a well-established and functional governance and planning structure nor the skilled and trained manpower and expertise to manage and steward the new country. The situation was indeed critical especially in the wake of a very fragile economy and the gigantic problem of settling and rehabilitating almost eight million refugees.

Fully cognizant of the key role of bureaucracy in these highly testing circumstances, the Quaid in his address to the civil servants in Peshawar urged: “Governments are formed and governments are defeated. Prime Ministers come and go but you stay on and therefore there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting this political party or that political party, this political leader or that political leader — this is not your business.” (April, 1948)

Inspired by Quaid’s exhortation, bureaucracy did exceedingly well in responding to the overwhelming challenges. From almost a vacuum start in the absence of even the minimal infrastructure, through sheer hard-work and passionate commitment, it managed to develop reasonably adequate capacity; acquired the necessary techno-professional competence; and established a robust governance architecture to carry out decisions regarding planning, development and services delivery. Impartiality, objectivity, fairness and merit, by and large, constituted the core values in the conduct of state affairs. Within 15 years of its inception, the country emerged as one of the fastest developing economies of the world. Its extraordinary social and economic performance in the 1960s was in particular acknowledged as a model for replication elsewhere in the developing world.

However, over the years, bureaucracy has witnessed a colossal decline as an institution primarily owing to its own status quo orientation and rapacity of the senior civil servants to retain lucrative posts and associated perks and privileges and be used as a tool of the rulers, military or political, to advance their interest. The junior cadres, willy-nilly, became a part of the journey downhill. In this mucky flow, mediocrity and incompetence, complacency and corruption and sycophancy and servitude became the defining axioms of civil service modus operandi.

Pakistan as post-colonial legacy had acquired an administration-driven governance system rooted in the Government of India Act 1858 which was designed to enforce imperial rule in the colonial territories through a strong “steel frame” of elite group of exceptionally talented and competent men. The hierarchical administrative apparatus of permanent secretaries, provincial governors and the district officers constituted kernel of the administrative set-up. This “path dependency” and adoption of the bureaucratic structure and culture, in due course, led to serious institutional distortions in the wake of prevalent “client-patron relationship” between the government and the traditional land-based political elite yearning for official patronage.

Ill luck would have it, the politicians acquiesced to this administration-driven governance system. The military rule in 1958-1971, 1977-1988, 1999-2008 to implement the praetorian designs aggravated the situation. Ayub Khan dismissed around 1,300 civil servants in 1959 to purge bureaucracy by a single order while Gen Yahya did away with 303 civil servants in 1969. Gen Zia went further to institutionalise the intake of 20% quota of army officers directly into the civil service. Gen Musharraf, through the implementation of his ill-conceived devolution and decentralisation plan of 2001, truncated the time-tested district governance system, weakened the writ of the government by abolishing executive magistracy and invested the district level politicians with huge administrative and financial powers which they were neither trained nor capable to exercise. The most atrocious legacy of his reforms was the replacement of Police Act 1861 by the Police Order 2002 which mercilessly exposed the people directly to the batons, boots and guns of police. The lack of independent accountability to and oversight of district Police by the District Magistrate massively increased Police’s vulnerability to be abused as coercive tool of oppression in the hands of despotic rulers. The recent police-gardi around 25 May against innocent citizens to deny them the right of political protest and brazen violation of the sanctity of chaadar and chardiwari speaks of the travesty and aberration of the force.

Paradoxically, the post-1971 “democratic periods” of popularly elected governments in 1971-1977, 1989-1999 and 2008 to present also witnessed scanty efforts to establish the supremacy of political institutions or to reform civil bureaucracy. Under the garb of “reforming” civil service, instead, ad hoc and slapdash measures were introduced which, as the subsequent evidence reveals, were geared more towards taming bureaucracy to meet the self-serving political interests. Prime Minister ZA Bhutto unceremoniously sent home as many as 1,400 civil servants in 1973. He withdrew the constitutional security of the civil servants and introduced “lateral entry” system on the pretext of “professionalising” the civil service to induct “politically loyal” professionals and experts to head key positions. Even civil service reforms of 2020-21 by PTI government smacked of mere patchwork confined to streamlining disciplinary action against delinquent civil servants and introducing performance-competence-integrity based promotion. The rapid transfers and postings of senior civil servants including the senior most bureaucrats, Chief Secretary and IGP in Punjab, is a palpable testimony of their politically motivated and perfidious approach to reforming civil bureaucracy.

The cumulative impact of this deplorable decline, during the course, has altogether changed the occupational culture and organisational norms of bureaucracy. The widely pervasive state of institutional paralysis find eloquent expression in: gross rationality deficit in policy, planning and programming processes as the civil servants blindly follow the personal commands of the political masters and even create ex-post justification of their unsustainable actions; proliferation of symbiotic groupings and networks between the ruler-politicians and bureaucrats based on loyalty for patronage appointments of “blue-eyed-hand-picked officers” through legal and extra legal means; autocratic and coercive pattern of governance with corruption, nepotism, mediocrity and “ability to deliver” assuming the criteria for postings and promotions; wastage of a large majority of brilliant civil servants who are penalised incessantly for lack of “political loyalty” thus severely compromising the ability of the state to provide quality services or protect citizens’ rights; and regressive institutions averse to reforms either from within or without.

A well-functioning and efficient bureaucracy at all levels is fundamental to stability, security and economic growth. Bureaucracy needs to be revitalised as an efficient institution to conduct public affairs. For this to happen, a broad national consensus across the political spectrum is sine qua non to depoliticise bureaucracy and embark on systemic reforms athwart the entire gamut of institutional management i.e. recruitment, deployment, learning and development, promotion and career advancement, compensation and benefits and human resources information systems. A civil service invested with the necessary skills-mix and techno-professional competence and driven by the core values of integrity and commitment, motivation and morale, objectivity and impartiality, and equity and fairness is fundamentally imperative to handle the massive development challenges faced by the country. A real commitment of the political parties is sine qua non which, given the current scenario, is perhaps asking for the moon.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20th, 2022.

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

COMMENTS (6)

Rauf | 2 years ago | Reply It s more like asking for a black hole Mr Najam
Shaukat Javed | 2 years ago | Reply The worst type of police gardi on may 25 was witnessed in Islamabad which incidentally is governed under police act of 1861 and not under police order 2002. There is a district magistrate and executive magistracy in Islamabad . Similar arrangement is also in vogue in Azad Kashmir and GB and one could judge if the law and order or policing in these areas is better than those areas where police order is enforced The British rulers in 1986 brought three residency towns of India Bombay Calcutta and Madras which had a concentration of white population under a police law made on the lines of London metropolitan police where police was independent operationally and there was no executive magistracy. Unfortunately the events of 1987 first war of freedom mutiny forced them to introduce govt of India act of 1958 under which the police law of 1861 on the lines of Irish constabulary act was enacted to safe guard the interests of crown. Thus two parallel police systems were working in India till 1947. Unfortunately none of residency districts came to Pakistan. A law for karachi was made in 1948 on the lines of residency towns on the instructions of Qaid e Azam but it was not signed by the governor general due to his ailment and vested interest never let it approved later. Police order 2002 was a step in that direction because the experiment of metropolitan policing met a thumping success in India and after independence they have extended that system in more than 60 cities of the country. A similar system was also introduced in Bangladesh where it is functioning in four major cities. In Pakistan two provinces Sind and Baluchistan reverted back to old system of 1861 in 2009 and one can see the plight of law and order there under district magistrate and executive magistracy. Punjab is sticking with amended police order 2002 while KP introduced a new law on the lines of police order 2002. It is commonly believed that law and order and policing in KP is much better then other provinces. Another point is that if police is required accountability supervision of district magistracy then who is responsible to oversee the accountability of revenue affairs Police or some other department How can one bureaucratic group supervise accountability of other group There has to be an independent accountability mechanism as is the case in most of the democratic countries. Police need operational and administrative autonomy it has to be impartial and specialised in affairs of policing and should serve the people and not a particular political party. Unfortunately this dispensation has not been introduced so far in the country.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ