Daily Times

After nearly 16 years, the much vaunted administrative prop of Colonial British rule has staged a comeback, riding on the back of the lack of imagination of our national decision makers in the sphere of public administration. The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Law and Justice, as reported in the press, has prepared its recommendations for re-empowering the steel frame of the Raj, as in a District Administration Group with magisterial powers at the district level.

The Deputy Commissioner’s appointment that was converted into the District Coordination Officer (DCO) after separation of the executive and judicial powers under General Musharraf’s reign is now being resuscitated. The reasons being adduced in support of the recidivism into colonial governance are plausible but wrong, as much as tendentious insomuch as the serving of a particular group of civil service, as in the District Management Group’s interests is concerned. A sedulously nurtured campaign was mounted by the CSP-DMG’s sympathisers and cliques ever since the atomisation of the powers of the all powerful Deputy Commissioner in 2001.

In order to understand why the magisterial powers were separated from executive administration, it is pertinent to understand the context under which the decision was taken. The Civil Service of Pakistan was begotten out of the Indian Civil Service inheriting all the traditions, powers, and rules of service. Indians under Nehru however separated the judicial powers vested in the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner in keeping with the constitutional requirement of separation of judiciary from executive.

Pakistan however continued with the unadulterated colonial model till 1973 when a consensually framed constitution finally introduced separation of judiciary from the executive right from the lower tiers of governance and administrative structures of the state. The bureaucracy dominated by the CSP group ruled the roost, forging alliances of convenience with military despots as well as democrats. It was the bureaucratic hubris that was one of the contributing factors leading to the Bengali alienation in East Pakistan where these anachronistic remnants of the Raj ruled through autocratic orders from the bureaucracy at the cost of inclusiveness and national integration.

Though Musharraf was the first ruler to introduce structural changes in bureaucracy at the district level, it was one of the finest judicial minds, Justice A R Cornelius, who proposed the restructuring of the anachronistic Deputy Commissioner’s appointment, harking back to colonial times

The 1973 Constitution stipulated that judicial and executive functions would be separated in line with the best constitutional practices of liberal democracy the world over. A time period was fixed for the purpose and the civil service was made more egalitarian and inclusive by renaming them as the Pakistan Administrative Service. Over twelve main administrative groups comprised the civil service cadre with the ex CSP rechristened as the District Management Group, which still dominating the pack. Despite this amalgamated civil service, the power of the Deputy Commissioner remained undiminished since no government whether civil or the military had the vision or inclination to balance the powers of the District Management Group as per the stipulation of the constitution.

One of the reasons for all governments to shy away from the much needed bureaucratic reform was political inertia and the other was the utility of this despotic instrument at the district level for the political and military elite to serve their interests. For politicians, the Deputy Commissioner was useful in doing their bidding without checks and balances as long as it helped them win elections while for military rulers he was useful in imposing order and discipline without being hindered by judicial niceties. The most effective assault on this colonial bastion of bureaucratic power was made ironically by a military ruler, General Musharraf in the initial flush of his reformist evangelism.

Though Musharraf was the first ruler to introduce structural changes in bureaucracy at the district level, it was one of the finest judicial minds, Justice A. R Cornelius who proposed the restructuring of the anachronistic Deputy Commissioner’s appointment, harking back to colonial times. The District Collector’s appointment primarily meant to collect revenue for our former colonial masters. This was vested with judicial and administrative powers to maintain order, control the police,collect revenue, dispense justice, and supervise myriad line departments like health, education, local government structures, and disaster management.

The appointment first introduced in 1772 by the first de-facto Governor General of the subcontinent, Warren Hastings, was rechristened as District Coordination Officer with the powers distributed amongst several line departments of the district during Musharraf era. The magisterial powers were also taken away from the Deputy Commissioner and vested in judicial magistrates. The step was in line with the constitutional requirement of separation of the executive from judiciary besides empowering line departments where the specialists in education, health, and other departments could head their departments more effectively. The District Coordination Officer was to act as the focal point or coordinator of the district local governance structures in support of the District Nazim, the elected head of the District.

The new concept introducing DCO was wedded to the local democratic government structures at district level. This was put into operation through the now defunct Local Government System introduced by Musharraf. Ironically it was an undemocratic ruler who introduced the local government system empowering the people’s representatives at the grassroots level while a democratic government rolled back the system reintroducing colonial bequests.

The idea of introducing reforms in the district bureaucracy was first mooted by Justice Cornelius in the 1960 Pay and Services Commission Report. Justice Cornelius had pointed out that the appointment of District Commissioner had become a symbol of colonial despotism as no single appointment should combine powers to collect revenue, administer justice, and deliver services lording effectively over all line departments in a district. The concept, as per the report was against all modern practices of civil administration and democratic governance. It promoted inefficiencies due to subordination of experts to a generalist besides usurping the democratic rights of the people.

Now let us have a look at the arguments being marshalled by our visionless politicians and their partners in district governance; the district management group in favour of the anachronism called the Deputy Commissioner. It is argued that due to separation of the executive magistracy the Deputy Commissioner would not be able to administer effectively at the district level as single point contact is necessary for all decision making and enforcing the government’s writ. The argument holds no water when viewed against the universally held principle of span of control and expertise to handle complexity in administration.

When a law cannot be effectively enforced by the specialists heading the line departments the reasons may be found in root causes of the non compliance with the law. Some of those root causes include non participatory administrative structures with real administrative and financial powers not devolved to the public representatives. The authoritarian predilection of the federal and provincial governments to govern through unelected bureaucrats keeping the lowest tier of the local government dysfunctional is the real root cause of bad governance at the district level and below. The public outcry against this bad governance and poor service delivery at the district level and below is thus cleverly presented by the bureaucrats as a consequence of the atomisation of powers of the Deputy Commissioner and not a result of structural maladies in the government.

All developing and developed countries including those belonging to the commonwealth fraternity have moved away from the outmoded colonial era bureaucratic structures while our romance with these archaic relics from the Raj continues to haunt us. The solution to our governance deficit and law and order anomie at district level does not lie in reviving the 1772 vintage Deputy Commissioner rearmed with the magisterial powers that rightly belong to judiciary as per our constitution but structural reforms like true devolution of powers to the elected local government representatives, introduction of specialists in bureaucracy, de-politicisation of police, and a system of service delivery accountable to public like in developed nations. The credo of governance should therefore be devolution of powers and public accountability as opposed to bureaucratic despotism.

The writer is a PhD scholar at NUST. He can be contacted at rwjanj@hotmail.com

Published in Daily Times, November 3^rd 2017.