close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Pakistan yet to ensure merit based appointments

It has nearly been a fortnight since the Pakistani Army Chief General Raheel Sharif had expressed his concern over political interference in the police functioning, but nothing practically has seemingly been done by the civilians at the helm of affairs to take the first concrete step to at least reduce

By Sabir Shah
March 01, 2015
It has nearly been a fortnight since the Pakistani Army Chief General Raheel Sharif had expressed his concern over political interference in the police functioning, but nothing practically has seemingly been done by the civilians at the helm of affairs to take the first concrete step to at least reduce (if not instantlty curb) nepotism, favouritsm and cronyism in jobs related to law nforcement agencies.
At a juncture when the Army and the federal government are hell-bent upon launching a decisive operation against terrorists and criminals in every nook and corner of the country, the sweeping discretionary powers of the men holding sway in echelons of power should be curtailed to prevent the menace of out-of-merit appointments from flourishing further in the public sector.
There is thus a dire need to devise a fool-proof mechanism to give out jobs on merit and reduce the influence of the presidents, premiers and the chief ministers in this regard.
And once that is done, ministers and other legislators would automatically be discouraged and will have to step backwards.
Had this been done by now, it would have gone a long way in making the state-run institutions grow stronger both professionally and financially, besides emitting positive signals to the otherwise reluctant local and foreign investors.
In Pakistan, the oft-surfacing tales of corruption and professional negligence in public sector giants like PIA, Ogra, SNGPL, SSGC, Railways, Wapda and Pakistan Steel Mills etc speak volumes of the fact that out-of-merit selection of friends and associates has financially destroyed these entities.
Parliamentary oversight and formation of appointment commissions in all provinces could have ensured that the best people get the top slots, but powerful vested interests have reigned supreme since Pakistan’s inception.
A research conducted by the Jang Group/Geo Television Network shows that numerous progressive nations already have enviable systems of the checks and balances in place, when it comes to appointing the right people.
In Pakistan, one sees a lot of square pegs in round holes, primarily due to state patronage.
However, every global constitution, whether codified or un-codified, allows presidents or prime ministers around the world to appoint people on prized slots, but not without the consent of the parliaments.
Resultantly, people bearing faulty or shady educational/character-related credentials are never shortlisted for any position.
In fact, they are seldom considered anywhere on earth, except Pakistan and a few African banana republics, where repercussions of giving out-of-merit jobs have never been discussed seriously.
In the United States, political appointees are subject to heavy ethical restrictions, more so than their elected counterparts.
One of these restrictions requires political appointees to take an ethics pledge, in which they pledge not to accept gifts from their lobbyists.
This is because of Executive Order 13490 under Section 102 of Executive Order Number 12674; political appointees who are appointed by the US president are not allowed to receive any income/gift from outside employment or activities.
However, exceptions to the gift rule include positions within the uniformed services and US Foreign Service positions that do not require Senate confirmation.
Till nineteenth century, various US political parties (after winning an election) used to give government jobs to their supporters, friends and relatives as a reward for working toward victory, but the patronage system thrived in the American federal government until 1883 only. The United States has the most political appointees in government than any other industrialised democracy in the world. Even though the United States has one of the largest populations of political appointees in the system, the efficiency of political appointees is constantly shifting.
Before getting office, the US president-elect must appoint more than 6,000 new federal positions.
The appointments range from top officials at US government agencies, to the White House staff and the members of the United States diplomatic corps. Many, but not all, of these positions are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The president also has the power to nominate federal judges, including members of the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. However, these nominations do require Senate confirmation. As head of the executive branch, there are 700,000 bureaucratic positions that the president has the right to fill.
The president also appoints members to the boards of directors for government-owned corporations such as Amtrak. The president can also make a recess appointment if a position needs to be filled while Congress is not in session.
In the past, US presidents have had the power to appoint all members of the United States civil service. This had allowed presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the assassination of president James Garfield, the Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis. The office of personnel management now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million plus federal jobs in the federal bureaucracy.
It has been judicially determined that the civil-service rules promulgated by the president of the United States do not have the force of general law and confer upon members of the civil service no right to invoke the aid of the courts to protect them against violation thereof.
It goes without saying that in May 2014, the Modi government in its very first order, which was issued on the day he was sworn in as prime minister, had barred ministers from handpicking their “personal staff.”
No Indian premier or president had gone to this extent to keep a check on ministers from overstepping their briefs.
The move had also brought to an end the “appointment” of family members as personal staff, which used to be a practice with many a minister over the years.
Issued by the ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions department of personnel & training, this order had outlined rules and had laid down instructions for the appointment of personal staff attached to ministers.
Foremost of them was that ministers would henceforth appoint secretaries and other personal staff only from the “general pool.”
With this prime ministerial order, all appointments in India are being made by the national appointments committee of the cabinet of the department of personnel & training, which is part of the prime minister’s Office.
Remember, Indian media had literally “screamed” when a Union Railways Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal had appointed his son-in-law Vitul Kumar as his personal staff member and his sister’s son-in-law, Rahul Bhandari, as his personal secretary.
Not satisfied with that, he had given his nephew, Vijay Singla, the run of the railways ministry. He had paid the price for that when Vijay Singla was held for allegedly seeking cash-for-postings in the railways.
In another case, that came to light in recent years, two sons of then Goa home minister Ravi Naik were found taking salaries from the state government.
While one of them was “employed” as his “personal assistant,” the other was picked his “private secretary.”
In the United Kingdom, relatively flawless merit-based criteria over the years, has allowed the best talent to come forth and contribute towards national development.
In fact, appointments today have been de-politicised to a great extent through the efforts of both house of commons and house of lords—the lower and upper legislative houses respectively.
But despite all these checks and balances, former Foreign Minister David Miliband’s family had faced charges of nepotism in issues related to appointments.
Despite stern checks in place, along with parliamentary oversight, criticism has been growing over the creation of political dynasties in Belgium too.
Prominent party members of all political entities here control the ranking of candidates on party lists for elections and a candidate’s place on a list determines whether or not he or she is elected.
To cite a few examples, Tom Dehaene, the son of former prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, became a member of the provincial council for the Christian Democrats at age of 26.
Similarly, Jean-Jacques De Gucht, the son of former minister and former European Commissioner for Trade Policy Karel De Gucht, was placed at the top of the electoral list for the Flemish Liberals in the 2007 federal elections for the region of East Flanders.
He was subsequently appointed to the Belgian Senate at the age of 27.
Freya Van den Bossche, the daughter of former minister Luc Van den Bossche (a member of the Flemish socialists) was appointed the youngest minister in Belgian history at age the age of 28.
Melchior Wathelet Junior, the son of Melchior Wathelet (a Judge at the European Court of Justice from 1995 to 2003 and working as advocate-general at the Court of Justice since October 2012), is currently serving as Secretary of State of Environment, Energy, Mobility and Institutional Reforms.
He became the leader of the French-speaking Christian Democrat fraction in the Belgian parliament at the age of 26, and was given portfolios the junior minister of the Budget, Asylum and Immigration because of his influential father Melchior Wathelet.
In India, where governance issues are nearly as worse as Pakistan, the Nehru-Gandhi Family had shown a strong tendency for nepotism, as manifested through dynastic politics. A recent example of this is the rise of Rahul Gandhi.
Much before that, Nehru had brought his daughter Indira Gandhi into politics. Both of Indira’s sons—Sanjay and Rajiv had remained active in politics till their deaths.
And after their unnatural deaths, their wives had gone on to hold the reins of their political dynasties.
On the corruption front, a host of leading Indian politicians including the likes of late Premier Rajiv Gandhi, former Defence Minister George Fernandes, former chief ministers Laloo Prasad Yadav, Rabri Devi, Jayalalitha and Mayawati, politicians Babubhai Katara, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan, Mamata Banerjee, Raj Thackeray, Bangaru Lakshman and Janardan Reddy etc have all been accused of financial bungling in the past.
A glance through the system of checks and balances in France shows that there is a government-run Appointment Commission in place which ensures that merit reigns supreme while short-listing and selecting candidates for all jobs.
Although most government agencies are at the disposal of the government or cabinet, there still are various agencies which are independent in their working and have been statutorily excluded from the Executive’s authority.
These independent agencies have some specialised regulatory power, some executive power and some quasi-judicial power. They are also often consulted by the government or the French Parliament before regulating any law.
These agencies can impose called “administrative sanctions,” though their decisions can still be contested in a judicial or an administrative court. This keeps checks and balances intact as every action or deed of any department is subject to accountability.
The Banque de France, the Central Bank, the Electronic Communications and Posts Regulation Authority, the Energy Regulation Commission, the Financial Markets Authority, the Higher Council of the Audiovisual, the National Commission on Campaign Accounts and Political Financing and public-sector media organisations like the Agence France-Presse (AFP) are all financially independent public corporations but a vigilant parliamentary oversight prevents the eruption of scams on recurring basis.
The French government also provides for watchdogs over its own activities as these independent administrative authorities are headed by a commission typically composed of senior lawyers or members of the parliament. Each of the two chambers of the parliament often has its own commission, but sometimes they collaborate to create a single commission, for example the National Commission for Computing.
All public sector bodies must request authorisation from this Commission of Computing, before establishing a file with personal information and they are required by law to pay heed to its recommendations.
In case of the National Commission for the Control of Security Interceptions, the government’s executive branch may request an authorisation from this commission for wiretaps etc in limited number of cases pertaining to national security.
In addition, the duties of public service limit the power that the Executive has over the French Civil Service. For instance, appointments, except for the highest positions (the national directors of agencies and administrations), must be made solely on merit or time in office, typically though competitive exams. Certain civil servants have statuses that prohibit Executive interference. For instance, judges and prosecutors may be named or moved only according to specific procedures. Public researchers and university professors enjoy academic and speech freedom by law.
But despite all these checks and balances, France has been the home to a few scandals of late.
The glamorous former French First Lady Carla Bruni had often been accused of meddling in the state’s affairs.
Few years ago, she had landed into a “nepotism” controversy, after her son’s godfather was given a top government job.
An interior designer Francois Baudot, a friend of Bruni for 15 years, was appointed as France’s Inspector General of Cultural Affairs.
Although the government’s Appointment Commission had initially decided that Bruni’s friend was not suitable for the job, it had to change its mind after its members were informed that ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy, his Prime Minister Francois Fillon and Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand had all backed Baudot for a lucrative slot.