Losing the bureaucrat

Much has been written about the results of the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination in which only 200 candidates qualified out of a total number of the 10,000 who appeared. The comments, by and large, have attributed the dismal outcome of the CSS exams to the falling education standards in the country. Be that as it may, is this the only plausible explanation of the results? Is it not the case that, unlike in the past, more exceptionally talented young people are not opting for a career in the bureaucracy?

As a rule, all over the world, recruitment to civil service is made on the basis of a competitive examination conducted by an independent body. The essential idea is to ensure the induction of the best of the available lot into the bureaucracy, which remains one of the key pillars of the modern state.

Pakistan inherited its civil service structure from British India. The civil servants in pre-Partition India were known for their professionalism and integrity. Since they were the agents of an imperialistic regime, they were, of course, not supposed to be pro-people. Under both the 1956 and 1962 constitutions, independent public service commissions were established to conduct competitive examinations.

Article 242 of the 1973 constitution, which is currently in force, also provides for setting up public service commissions at both the federal and provincial levels to recruit candidates to the civil service. The working of the commissions is governed by the federal and provincial statutes. The chairperson and members of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) are appointed, for a fixed term, by the president on the advice of the prime minister, while the members of the provincial public service commission are appointed by the governor concerned on the advice of the chief minister.

The members of the commission enjoy the security of tenure and can be removed only on the recommendations of the Supreme Judicial Council, which comprises senior members of the superior judiciary. The security of tenure is meant to ensure that the members do their job without fear or favour.

The public service commissions have, on the whole, done a remarkable job in making merit-based appointments to the federal and provincial civil services. This is especially commendable when one considers that a culture of corruption and nepotism has infested most political and non-political institutions.

Despite having given a good account of their work, the public service commissions work within certain constraints. While they can, at best, ensure that the candidates are recruited on merit, they are compelled to choose from among candidates who appear in the competitive examination. If only the most mediocre candidates seek a career in the civil service, the list of people who pass the exam will not be outstanding. 

For various reasons, the bureaucracy is no longer the career of choice for those who perform well in academics. To confirm if this is the case, one needs to ascertain how many of the scions of the federal secretaries, who represent the highest career point in the bureaucracy, are working as, or aspiring to be, civil servants. The answer, in nine out of 10 cases, will be in the negative. The situation was the opposite some three decades ago, when, in nine out of 10 cases, the children of the top bureaucrats would opt for a career in the civil service.

Why is the civil service losing its charm? To begin with, some of our basic social values have undergone a drastic change. In the past, status was more valuable than wealth. Although civil servants earned less than other professionals, say, the medics, but they were considered more prestigious in view of the authority that they wielded. Today, wealth is the capital determinant of status and the principal instrument of power. Not only that, money can do wonders. If you have a bagful of money and know how to spend it profitably, all avenues are open for you.

In the past, the public sector monopolised job creation. Employment opportunities in the corporate sector were few and far between. Even within the public sector, the range of ‘respectable’ jobs was extremely narrow – doctors, teachers, civil engineers, and civil servants. Over the past two decades, not only has the private sector expanded substantially but the job base in the public sector has also widened considerably. As a result, young people today have a greater variety of jobs to choose from as compared with their predecessors.

A related factor is the deregulation and opening up of the economy and the shrinking of the socio-economic role of the state. For instance, to fulfil the commitments arising out of Pakistan’s membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has been effective since 1995, customs tariffs have been scaled down, import licencing has been done away with and greater transparency has been introduced to manage trade and the economy. 

Under the influence of neo-liberalism, several activities which were once regarded as among the core functions of the state, have now been shifted either on businesses or on independent regulators. Such developments have reduced the powers of the bureaucracy. The decrease in authority has not been accompanied by an improvement in the remuneration package, which has substantially weakened the appeal of the civil service as a profession.

The civil service has been heavily politicised and demoralised. Owing to the growing culture of political patronage and favouritism, the distinction between demonstrating accountability towards a person and an institution and displaying loyalty towards a public interest and a political party has been eroded over the years. Against their call of duty, civil servants are expected by their political masters to remain loyal to a political party rather than a public interest and remain obedient to a person instead of the law. From being a public service institution, the bureaucracy has been reduced to an agency of political patronage.

It is customary for politicians to treat public officials as if they are not the servants of the state but of those who wield power. Any attempt by civil servants to bring the ruling elite within the remit of law is deemed an unpardonable act. The recent removal of Sindh IGP is a case in point.

In the absence of any definite rule in respect of their term of office, civil servants find themselves in an insecure position. The sense of insecurity is one of the reasons – and, in many cases, the major one – which makes them comply with the wishes, fair or foul, of the influential quarters.

Politicisation has impaired the bureaucracy’s professionalism. An official who is at the mercy of politicians over whether he will remain in office is subject to uncertainty. When influential figures get angry at them and shows them the door, civil servants cannot exhibit precision and act promptly – traits that are vital to their professionalism.

The writer is a freelancecountributor.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com