Effective public institutions are indispensable for a fair and firm enforcement of laws as well as for formulation and implementation of public policy. The litmus test of institutional development is the ability of state organs to rise above the interests of vested groups and to identify themselves with the collective good of the people.
The processes by which public institutions disentangle themselves from vested interests are often complex but based on the experience of advanced societies, the barest minimum requirements for building up institutional capacity in a society can be identified.
The industrial societies of Europe in the nineteenth century and of East Asia in the recent past show the way. At the heart of their development experience lies the transformation of corrupt, inefficient and patronage-based government institutions into modern, professional and merit-based systems of public administration. It is also important to keep in view our own specific historical context and the vision of the founding father of the country.
Quaid-e-Azam, in his addresses to civil officers spelt out his vision of governance and the role of the public services. The guidelines that he set forth are as follows.
One, public services are “the backbone of the state”; they are called upon to play a pivotal role in nation building. Two, public services should be a permanent institution, representing the continuity and integrity of the state, regardless of changes of government: “Governments are formed, governments are defeated…but you (the public servants) stay on and, therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders”.
Three, politicians and civil servants have their respective spheres of responsibility: “I hope that each one of you will understand his own sphere of duty and responsibility and act with others harmoniously and in complete cooperation, keeping in mind that each has to do his duty within the sphere to which he belongs”. However, civil servants should reject political pressure and assist the constitutionally formed government only within the confines of law and public interest: “…you should not be influenced by any political pressure…but do your duty as servants to the people and the state, fearlessly and honestly”.
Four, the public services can only play their role if they emerge as a powerful institution and enjoy a sense of security: “It is you who can give us the opportunity to create a powerful machinery, which will give you a complete sense of security”.
And finally, while recognizing the important role of civil servants in nation building, the Quaid reminded them that “Those days have gone when the country was ruled by the bureaucracy…make the people feel that you are their servants and friends, maintain the highest standards of honour, integrity, justice and fair-play…and not merely should justice be done but people should feel that justice has been done to them”.
Quaid-e-Azam envisioned the public services to be a repository of good traditions and also emphasised the need to create an enabling environment in which the public services can perform their prescribed duties, unhindered by extraneous influences.
The quintessential character of the public services as a permanent institution fortified by constitutional guarantees that, inter alia, enabled them to rise above the pressure of powerful political and economic groups has eroded since the early 1970s. Under the rubric of reforms, changes were made in the structure of the public services in 1973, which undermined their institutional strength and suited the requirements of personalised governance.
The distortions so created have not since been rectified. Although successive governments have paid lip-service to following the rules, arm-twisting of civil servants by political and military rulers for securing undue benefits has been the order of the day. As a result, public services have fallen prey to widespread corruption, cronyism, and lack of professionalism.
The Government of India Act 1935, and the constitutions of 1956 and 1962 provided guarantees to civil servants regarding security of tenure, pay protection, and immunity against extra-legal arbitrary action. The constitution of 1973 did not provide such guarantees, leaving civil servants at the mercy of powerful groups in society. The restoration of constitutional guarantees is essential to enable the public services to act independently in public interest.
Merit-based entry and career advancement in public services is the essence of institution building. This not only creates space for capable and deserving persons but also obviates elitist capture of state organs. A patronage-based system, on the other hand, has the opposite effect. This is easier said than done. It means going against the grain of the prevalent social system.
There are two ways that merit can establish itself against the pitched resistance of vested groups. One, governments sincerely and firmly uphold the principle of merit. If merit flows from the top, there is no reason why it should not permeate the entire society. But if nepotism and injustice continue unabated, it may take the form of public protest forcing the holders of power to play by the rules.
Another important aspect of strengthening the public services is the issue of adequate compensation to government employees. No work force, however public spirited, can remain satisfied if it is not provided with a decent living standard. The issue of low salaries paid to public servants is compounded by the poor quality of basic services.
Upright public officials are living through a nightmare; they are not even able to make both ends meet in view of runaway inflation, increased utility costs and inadequate government housing facilities. The basic issue here is whether we want to institutionalise corruption on an even larger scale or establish a rational system that removes incentives to corruption.
A merit-oriented, professionally competent and secure bureaucracy is the lifeblood of an effective state. Any programme of administrative reform, unaccompanied by measures to reinforce the quality, ethos, security and esprit de corps of the public services, will elude the cherished goal of institutional strengthening and good governance. Empowerment of public services, however, should be accompanied with strict accountability to prevent abuse of authority.
The author is a former cabinet secretary.
Email: samisaeed7hotmail.com