Are service reforms enough?

The failure of the state to adequately provide constitutionally mandated basic rights and services to the people is undeniable. Low human development indices, expanding poverty and poor governance are outcomes that reflect negatively on the country and its rulers.

In the present setup, a committee under Dr Ishrat Hussain, advisor to the prime minister, a former bureaucrat and World Bank executive, has been constituted to reform the civil services. However, due to some quirk in our thinking reform presupposes that the devil lies in the bureaucracy and they alone are responsible for the improper management of state business. This is a prejudiced but convenient approach that has shielded the dark deeds of ruling politicians. Without a change in political culture towards impartiality and adherence to rules, services reforms will not deliver.

There is little doubt that civil services in Pakistan, and the world over, need to keep abreast of rapid political and technological changes through innovative response and upgraded processes. Rather than adapting gradually Pakistan has twice introduced calamitous changes in the name of reforms. Small wonder then that the demolition jobs Mr Bhutto and General Musharraf undertook did not survive them for long though much damage was done. Reforms must be balanced in the context of the requirements of a society and not be based on vengeance or fanciful ideas.

No doubt improvements are needed in the structure, selection, promotion, discipline and operating processes of different services. Objectively determined criteria for decision-making cannot be ignored in a federation. Once they conform to such criteria, the ruling politicians should be in a better position to show results rather than trumpet empty rhetoric only.

The way forward lies in reducing exclusivity and vanity in services and promoting improvement through innovation under credible supervision. In return the services require a fairer deal in upholding personal esteem, tenure security and adequate compensation; none of these is reliably available today.

The bureaucracy is accused of supposedly living in ivory towers without empathy, limited professional expertise, absence of performance management, reluctance in taking decisions and sidestepping rules for personal benefit or under political pressure. It is widely known that officials delay or avoid decisions for fear of humiliation years later, on charges of corruption or losses caused to the state. One can hardly fault them for their default.

However, there is an element of truth in each of these charges. What is also true is that over the past half a century those in political power have exercised untrammeled authority with supreme arrogance to the neglect of propriety and rules. It is no longer possible to disagree with, let alone oppose, the opinion of the politicians in power. Dissent leads to removal, posting to hardship stations or ‘stay at home’ orders. Just see the recent rapid turnovers in departments and districts all over the country. A six-month tenure has now become the norm unless one is well connected. The bureaucracy generally conforms to the rules, but the rulers too must abide by these.

Sadly, our politicians are seldom held to account for improper decision-making or sleight of hand rule infringement. This must be rectified and the ombudsman should be responsible to undo vindictive or contrived transfers of officials.

In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, ruling politicians in the past were friendlier and more tolerant of dissenting views than was seen elsewhere and I found the same to be true of the military in power. (As an aside, may I mention that in my career I often disagreed with generals Ziaul Haq, Fazle Haq, and Musharraf but no harm ever came my way. Apolitical prime ministers Shaukat Aziz and Moeen Qureshi also appreciated differences in opinions and they were among the best). Disagreeing on policy matters with more recent rulers fractures friendships because increasingly our politicians demand a master-serf relationship only. They expect bureaucrats to be doormats.

As for the desired improvements in the services structure and its functioning I would stress the following four items. First, as an emerging, though brittle, federation, the role of all-Pakistan and federal services is indispensable. Importantly, every province, region and ethnic group must be provided employment quotas and more for Balochistan, parts of southern Punjab, merged areas, women and especially minorities. The quotas should not be restricted at the entrance level only but extend to promotion to the highest grades and positions. Homogeneity among people is the true definition of all-Pakistan merit.

Second, every service group, including the provincial services, professionals and the ex-cadre personnel, should be entitled to promotion to the highest tiers in rough proportion to their numbers or service strength apart from a merit quota of say a quarter of the total. It is not fair to find a disproportionate number from a couple of service groups at the highest level. In the army, not all who are commissioned among the top twenty get three stars.

The service structure must be pyramid-shaped and after the present grade 20 positions only the very best be promoted and then allowed to work at these positions for a decade or more. Most of the rest may retire on full pension. Reliance on annual confidential reports in assessing quality should be reduced and strategically-placed individuals denied the privilege to influence promotion decisions. For the highest positions only officers with spine, ‘courage and conviction’, are required so that they stand up to the arbitrariness of any ruler.

Third, private sector entry needs to be considered for long-term or limited durations positions even though the example of the earlier lateral entry system be hermetically avoided.

Finally, two improvements in the Public Service Commission selection system are due. When over 90 percent of all candidates fail the English essay paper there is something seriously amiss; why disenfranchise the majority? Moreover, in the interviews the average marks of all members of the Board be calculated. I hear of cases from the distant past where some obliging chairmen generously gifted excessive marks to choice candidates who accordingly jumped over fifty positions higher in the final grading.

The author is former chairman Wapda and has served as chief secretary KP, Sindh, AJK and GB.

Email: markhornine@gmail.com