Daily Times

In the context of culture there are many studies which reflect that the cultures in developing countries are unique and have different sets of values such as ritualism, tribalism, client patron relations, reciprocity, caste structure, informal interaction, seniority based authority, collective responsibility etc. The westernized bureaucracy and the formalized system of administration are thus many a times disconnected with the local cultural norms and values. Again this disconnect results in a imbalance with political and legislative institutions and it creates a communication gap between the bureaucratic elites and the common man, which in turn breeds indifference and inability of the bureaucrats to evolve programs which are realistic. These are considered to be significant factors which have perpetuated the underdevelopment of these societies.

In Pakistan, the elitism of the bureaucracy especially the CSP cadre was reinforced through multiple ways. The institutional cohesion and hold of bureaucratic power was further strengthened by the manners in which the district administration was organized. The British introduced the position of Deputy Commissioner as head of the district administration with the role of collector, district magistrate, regulator and supervisor of a vast array of economic and social activities that bordered on the political. The style of administration was more of paternalistic and authoritarian rather than legal and democratic.

It was these fundamental issues which perturbed the new leadership in both India and Pakistan in post- independence period. Addressing the probationers of All India Administrative Training School in 1947, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel stated, “Perhaps you are aware of a saying…that the Indian Civil Service, that it is neither Indian, nor civil, nor imbued with any spirit of service. In a true sense, it is not Indian because the Indian Civil Servants are mostly Anglicized, their training was in foreign lands and they had to serve foreign master. It will be your bounden duty to treat the common men in India as your own or to put it correctly, to feel yourself to be one of them and amongst them, and you will have to learn not to despise or to disregard them. In other words, you will have to adopt yourselves to democratic ways of administration.”

The Quaid-e-Azam was also explicitly clear in this regard when in his address to the civil services officers in Peshawar, on April 14, 1948, he said, “whichever government is formed according to the constitution, and whoever happens to be the Prime Minister or minister coming into power in the ordinary constitutional course, your duty is not only to serve that government loyally and faithfully, but, at the same time, fearlessly, maintaining your high reputation, your prestige, your honour and the integrity of your service.”

It is precisely in this context that when overall performance of Pakistan’s bureaucracy is analyzed it clearly depicts that they have been unable to reach out to the people and delivered services to them as part of their basic duty. Neither they have made efforts to overcome the system deficiencies, various implementation obstacles and promote welfare, development, equity and provide justice to the citizens of the state at large.

The bureaucracy’s own perception is similar to public perception and there is acknowledgement that not only integrity levels are low but the efficiency and outcomes remain dismal

What is more disappointing is that the prospects of pro-poor change from structural as well as institutional factors in the short to medium term are also limited as this is clearly linked to a performing and accountable bureaucracy. Though there are many bureaucrats having world class skills, knowledge as well as high levels of integrity but these are far and in between. As a part of government’s policy and implementation framework, the bureaucracy unfortunately comes out with a tarnished image of largely non-performing and having low morality in all its manifestations.

The bureaucracy’s own perception is similar to public perception and there is acknowledgement that not only integrity levels are low but the efficiency and outcomes remain dismal. This endemic ailment is unlikely to be curtailed or even contained through the routine calls for civil services reforms and weak codes of conduct calling for morality and ethical behavior.

This is clearly in sync with the general societal trends and presence of exceptionally high levels of corruption in all major players including the political masters and the lower judiciary. The existing internal and external mechanisms for accountability have remained ineffective largely on account of discredited political elite other than being weak institutions and embedded in a socio-political environment which is not fully geared for an impartial and systematic accountability.

The conduct of bureaucracy and the performance is an outcome of the power nexus of elites in Pakistan and despite last few years democratic dispensation it is unlikely to be altered significantly in the short term as it warrants strong, robust and accountable political system which can then ensure an institutional framework and bureaucracy which is comparatively more accountable.

There are no doubt few opportunities such as robust judiciary, media and consecutive political transitions in the country and generally growing consensus in democracy backed by more responsible and transparent and accountable political order. Thus, strengthening of state and political institutions in the context of strong citizen-state relation, having ability to hold the public and bureaucratic representatives accountable is primarily the way forward.

concluded

The writer is a freelancer, has done MPA