Window on Asia
Bureaucracy: Why it Worked, Why it Didn't
IN 1947, when Pakistan came into being, the leaders of the colonial bureaucracy, officers belonging to the Indian Civil Service (ICS) who opted for Pakistan, constituted the mainstay of the civil administration that emerged to replace the colonial administration. It was the same in India. The so called steel frame or the ICS cadre dominated the departments and ministries of the Governments of post-colonial sub-continent.
The colonial ICS which later became the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP), should have brought about similar developments in both the countries. However, while India succeeded in developing a democratic form of Government with the strong support of the civil administration under the leadership of the IAS, Pakistan abandoned parliamentary democracy after 1958, military dictatorship became the order of the day and ultimately, the country itself broke down in 1971.
It is true that CSP alone cannot be blamed for the disaster. There were other parties involved. However, being leaders of the administration as well as chief advisers to the Presidents and Ministers, CSP's share of the blame cannot be inconsiderable.
The IAS did deliver the goods in India. It played its due role in building a strong united India. The Civil Service of Pakistan failed in its task in a very thorough going manner. Basically, the two service cadres with very similar systems of competitive recruitment, vigorous training and an elitist mentality performed so differently. Why the system worked so well in India and why it didn't in Pakistan?
In August 1947, the senior most ICS officer in Pakistan was of the rank of Deputy Secretary - a fairly junior officer within the administrative hierarchy of the Government. The first Chief Secretary of the Government of the province of East Bengal, the highest level bureaucrat of the Provincial Government had hardly completed 14 years of service. The promotional jump, almost overnight, was a quantum leap and the important issue of whether such junior officers had the capacity to man such senior positions were totally ignored. That Chief Secretary might have been a brilliant officer, but he definitely did not enjoy the requisite seniority. There cannot ever be any substitute of experience - a critical element which was lacking as an essential attribute of the Head of the Provincial Administration.
In Pakistan, fairly inexperienced, junior officers of former ICS occupied vitally important senior positions of the administration. Secondly, number of such inexperienced ICS officers were too few and administration suffered from lack of critical manpower. Thirdly, no attempt was made to bring in experienced people from other sectors or occupations, since lateral entry to the civil service was practically ruled out. Above all, many of these elite officers were nominated to the ICS. They did not pass through the stiff competition and therefore the basic quality of many of these ICS officers were definitely below the desired level.
In India, the situation was entirely different. There were several senior ICS officers of the rank of permanent Secretary to the Government and there were many more of the levels of Joint Secretary and below. The officers mostly came through competition.
Many of them were erudite scholars. They had the experience (to me the most critical factor) to bring about the transition from a colonial administration to the responsive civil administration of an independent country - maintaining parliamentary cabinet type of Government, both at the federal and state levels.
In Pakistan, particularly the then East Pakistan, we had to suffer from an inexperienced and immature leadership of the civil administration. At the same time, there were several Engineers, Doctors, Police Officers - holding responsible positions in their respective technical Departments as well as senior BCS officers who had come through competition. They were experienced and in length of service, many years senior to the Chief Secretary of East Pakistan. Throughout the first 20 years of Pakistan, there were many BCS officers who after putting in 30 years of service retired without ever hoping to occupy any position beyond the Deputy Secretary of the Central Government. All senior positions of the Government became the vested interest of the Civil Service. This was most unfortunate.
The creation of a mature cadre of senior bureaucrats was never in the Agenda of the Government, since those agenda used to be prepared by members of the CSP. It was not the case in India. Very early, provisions were made in the IAS for lateral entry and talented persons from other services were absorbed into the cadre in order to create a responsive and not exclusive administration which effectively made the transition from the law and order orientation to a development minded, democratic administration. Unfortunately, it remained a colonial bureaucracy in Pakistan. Officers belonging to the Civil Service of Pakistan concocted the infamous Basic Democracy system to perpetuate authoritarian rule in the country. There used to be intense competition among the CSP Deputy Commissioners to organise extremely colourful receptions for the all powerful President. In the 1960s, masses of people would throng the streets to welcome the President and the skilful Deputy Commissioners spared no efforts to hire truck-loads of people from villages and city slums - entirely to the satisfaction of the Supreme ruler.
And, those who served the authoritarian Ruler well, received their rewards as well through good postings and an eminent status as the best officers of the cadre. All the symptoms of an immature bureaucracy were manifest in the behaviour of the senior officers - mostly belonging to the Civil Service of Pakistan. They were no longer working in the interest of public service. They did not remain neutral to the interest of the party in power which should be the essential attribute of a civil service in any democratic country. The senior public servants, in particular, used to render services in the interest of the ruler. The Civil Service therefore remained bogged down to their old colonial heritage. They could never get out of it.
It must however be admitted that the Civil Service had certain qualities which helped them to perpetuate their supremacy over the entire civil administration. The recruitment process ensured that each year a brilliant group of fresh university graduates entered the service. Later on, the training programme used to be a confidence-building process which also enabled the officers to acquire a rare decision-making capacity. Promotions were assured and the entire cadre of officers backed each other to the hilt in case of any difficulty. Unfortunately, these great qualities were not utilized in the interest of true public service. A powerful administrative cadre kept on serving its own vested interests - keeping other well deserving candidates away from playing any decisive role in the decision making process of the Government.
In particular, senior technical experts were denied access to the making of vital development decisions which indeed proved to be fatal. For example, a senior Director of Agriculture never became the Secretary of the Provincial Department of Agriculture while a CSP officer of hardly 7 or 8 years of service after his tenure as a Deputy Commissioner would easily occupy that position. Same used to be the case in all other technical departments whose efficient functioning were vital to the development of the country. It used to be argued that such technical officers never acquired the required management or decision-making capacity. In fact, the denial of senior appointments never enabled those technical people to secure the desired management capacity. The prospects of serving under officers of the Civil Service who were of the age of their sons could never be a happy outcome after 25 years of work as a senior Engineer in a technical department. There were no incentives left any more.
After 1971, the remnant of the civil service continued their grand innings with a renewed fervour. The new Government of Bangladesh faced shortage of senior officers and overnight, Secretaries of Provincial Departments became Secretaries of the Ministries of National Government, involving double and triple promotions. Officers with only 15 years of service can at best be a Joint Secretary, but they all headed important Ministries and inexperience again became a distinctive feature of the decision making process. However, the new Government brought in university professors to constitute a powerful Planning Commission who bypassed the Ministries and took major decisions affecting the national economy and its future development. The preeminent role of the CSPs revived again after 1975 and rule of the general administrative cadre became the order of the day. The significant drawback, overlooked all throughout, had been the utter lack of realization that we needed a new breed of managers, not administrators; a new class of technocrats, not bureaucrats.
The major task of the Government today is to promote economic growth. The role of bureaucrats must diminish as a consequence. In the recent past, the development role of the Government itself have diminished. Government has no business to be in business - it is the ideal which should be pursued relentlessly. Above all, the National Government should cut down its functions and hand over many of its responsibilities along with corresponding authority to Local Government institutions.
The residual will constitute a lean and efficient National Government where merit will be the criteria for selection, where knowledge and experience rule and technocracy, not bureaucracy, prevail.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments