Politicising bureaucracy is govt’s new policy

ISLAMABAD: While in the government service, one has to make a choice between taking a stand and building a career.

“If you take a stand, it marks an end to career. Never take a stand if you wish to build a career,” tweeted a bureaucrat recently. Another officer summed up civil service in the following line: “First, we are used, then misused and finally abused.”

The civil servants were attaching high hopes with PTI government. Their optimism was rooted in Imran Khan’s rhetoric. He vowed to depoliticise bureaucracy; not once but many a time. Even this pledge became part of the PTI manifesto. As the party was voted to power, Pakpattan DPO became the first target, then IGs of Punjab and Islamabad were removed. DMG officers were next in the firing line. All of them faced the ire for taking a stand.

The government distracted attention from these premature transfers by reiterating its commitment of protecting the tenure of civil servants. Dr Ishrat Hussain, Adviser to Prime Minister on Institutional Reforms, was tasked to draft a proposal for security of tenure for civil servants. If the premise of initial summary draft is taken a guide, de-politicisation of civil service figures high in the government’s priority and it is as much important for ensuring the security of posting tenure.

A couple of arguments framed in this premise suggest that the government knows the consequences of politicisation. “Arbitrary, punitive and whimsical transfers cultivate personal loyalties instead of a culture of performance and accountability. Important policy initiatives often remain unimplemented within the stipulated time or within the projected cost because of the lack of continuity in the tenure of key civil servants,” they read.

However, the recipe offered and subsequently approved as a policy is deeply flawed. Instead of depoliticising the bureaucracy, it has further been politicised. Instead of discouraging personal loyalties, it has rather been institutionalised. A federal secretary’s completion of tenure will depend on the nature of his relationship with the minister in charge is how this is being interpreted.

For the beginners, The News carried a detailed report late Wednesday on the salient features of this policy. A brief summary: a federal secretary will be appointed after thorough screening and detailed examination of his/her abilities to run a ministry. Among others, the minister concerned has also been made part of the selection committee. Once appointed, the secretary will remain on probation for first six months; his continuation will be subject to the performance review by PM and the minister in charge. Tenure has been reduced to two years from three years. It will, however, be extendable for a year but after yet another performance review.

In short, the secretary will remain a lame duck spending his energies more on pleasing the minister than on taking decisions what he considers right, according to Syed Anwar Mehmood, former federal secretary. This policy will not serve the interest of the government, civil service and the country, he added.

Legally speaking, a federal secretary can’t be put on probation. One can be at probation (1) after joining a service, (2) after getting a promotion and (3) when one changes a service cadre, commented Khawaja Zaheer Ahmed, another former federal secretary. Having been promoted to BS-22 means the government considers him/her an officer competent enough to attain the highest grade.

Giving a supervisory role to the minister is yet another first which has not only resented bureaucracy, it is against the rules of business. If Dr Ishrat Hussain is asked the rationale behind this measure, he finds no harm in it. Ministers complain, he argued, that they are held accountable for performance but are deprived of the power.

This argument is flawed on two grounds. First, a minister doesn’t have a specialised knowledge of his ministry; his appointment is done on the basis of political consideration. A secretary is appointed after taking into account his competency and the new policy had further reinforced this point that the selection committee would “examine the dossier of eligible candidates, scrutinise their suitability for the post.”

Second, the minister nevertheless has a right to give his input as mentioned in the Rule 5 (10) of the Rules of Business, 1973. It reads: “When the secretary submits a case to the minister, the latter may accept the proposal or views of the secretary may over-rule him…. In case, however, the secretary feels that the decision of the minister is manifestly wrong and will cause gross injustice or under hardship, he may state his reasons and re-submit the case to the minister. If the minister still adheres to his earlier decision and the matter is important enough, the secretary shall request the minister to refer the case to the prime minister….”

The above rule defeats the logic being offered to grant unqualified role granted to the minister in charge to tame a secretary. In this scenario, a secretary is likely to remain more concerned to save his job instead of training attention to his work and giving independent opinion for discharging the task diligently. In previous setting, he only needed the good will of the PM, now winning the loyalty of the minister and being at his beck and call is as much important. And meanwhile, the government has institutionalised its excuse to remove a secretary.

Eventually, the depoliticisation of bureaucracy and tenure security remains a pipe dream. As the world goes forward, Pakistan is heading backward. The civil service was enjoying considerable independence in first two decades after independence as the Constitutions of 1956 and 1962 contained chapters outlining the safeguards for the civil service. The downfall started when the framers of 1973 Constitution omitted a similar chapter from the constitution and shifted the onus to ordinary legislation.

The law minister at that time gave a laughable excuse for omitting the chapter saying the constitutional protection granted to civil servants in previous constitution was “because those who served came from outside and they needed these protections in respect of service.” The purpose of this change, he continued, is to “break away from the past colonial traditions.”

It is in this backdrop that the government of the day deals civil servants as personal servants. Had there been any constitutional protection, it would not have been an easy task to bring about amendment. As this new policy has been approved, it doesn’t even require any legal amendment to do the needful; only rules have to be changed. Since cabinet decisions are superior to the rules, as explained by Dr Ishrat Hussain, Estacode that governs bureaucracy will be amended accordingly. No debate in Parliament.