Bureaucracy-a facilitator or an impediment? – The Financial Daily

A complex structure with multiple layers and procedures is bureaucracy. In Latin, bureau means a writing table or desk; in French La bure means a cloth used on tables of public functionaries. The suffix of ‘cracy’ in Greek means ‘rule’. This refers to rule of officials. Now readers would know if the help of three different languages had to be taken to coin, the term “BUREAUCRACY”. It obviously has to be complex and confusing.

Prof. Harold Joseph Laski (ZAB was his disciple) wrote thus: “we shall rapidly end the system which prohibits the civil servant from writing upon politics and public administration save by the permission of the department”. Bureaucrats are expected not to publicly voice anything in relation to their work.

The problem with most bureaucracies of the developing countries is that there is a growing role of political intervention by the government in power, which not only dictates the policymaking but also seeks entrenchment towards handling of the administrative measures, so required.

Without joining a political party many bureaucrats get aligned with one or the other and consequently end up being classified as ‘compromised ‘. Pakistan has an army of them.

Bureaucracy must display a certain dignity in their assignment. This can be achieved and be made visible by renunciation of materialism and related corruptive practices. The Japanese-Korean economic miracle is a consequence of an extremely conscientious bureaucracy. The discipline is remarkable and exemplary.

Public interest has to be the raison d’tre for the existence and presence of bureaucracy. In Japan towards 1920 onwards they developed a Japanese-typed administrative ethic where public interest reigned supreme.

The “principle of resistance” was an essential part of the ethics and practice. This principle stated: “in the conduct of administration it is possible for pressure to be applied from every sector, pressure, based on special interest will arise from groups, from business world, and from political world. Especially under party politics, pressure is apt to be applied by political parties. However, insofar as administration is concerned, the official needs to resist to the last, to follow what he himself believes to be right…”.

In our part of the world the principle of resistance has been caged long time back and has been replaced by the ‘principle of compromise’, which means acquiescing to every illegal and unjustifiable demand of either the political parties or pressure groups like, say, the various associations and chambers of commerce and industry.

Japan, an Asian country, is a remarkable example of how their local bureaucracy has facilitated their economy to be counted amongst industrialised countries.

Because of the central role of its bureaucracy it is recognised for its self-consciousness in limiting the size of the bureaucracy. Despite the ever prevalent antagonistic roles played by politicians and bureaucrats, Japan is an excellent example of how politics is tamed by bureaucracy.

South Korea is a country that I have visited several times and once on Korean government scholarship, alongside was a co-participant, Prof Ahsan Iqbal, currently the minister of planning. We learnt how the Korean economy was taken out of the woods following the 1953 Korean war and in a few decades a country that was behind Pakistan in rank and status catapulted into the prestigious economic group of OECD, which was largely due to the active role of Korean bureaucracy.

The South Korean bureaucracy is characterised by the Confucian influences, where values relating to retention of meritocracy, in the framing of market and economic policies, for the promotion of efficiency and productivity are held in esteemed focus.

The Joseon dynasty that lasted from 1392 AD to 1910 AD instilled into public servants two essential principles of morality: selfless loyalty to the king and value of knowledge. These principles are as much valid today, except the king has been replaced by the ‘state’. Since the 1960s till until a few years ago there never was scandal of bureaucratic corruption, albeit, corruption by politicians has become a norm. Korean bureaucracy has remained committed to public service by rejecting all temptations and lure of anything to do with materialism. The Korean tenet, which is almost a social doctrine, is, “Pretend that you have eaten a hearty meal even though you have only had a drink of water”.

Sumrin Kalia, an M.Phil student of Karachi University in a paper on “Bureaucratic Policy Making in Pakistan” says, “In case of Pakistan the British system of government was more authoritarian, elitist and aloof, with huge gaps between the ruler and the ruled. Result is the rise of bureaucracy which has existed as social elite despite continual manipulation. They have far greater staying power than we are willing to concede and they manage to keep it for decades despite scandals and proven incompetence “.

In most developing economies corruption goes hand in glove with economic growth; in some, it is blatant and unbridled, while in others, it is tempered with discretion and caution. Some countries have actually made paid bribes as a tax deductible expense. Legalised corruption.

The inherent structural corruption paves the way for deliberate and intentional coupled with non-deliberate and unintentional destruction of the many facets of society and economy, ranging from education to health, from scarcity of water to malnutrition and from an underdeveloped infrastructure.

Bureaucracy/bureaucrats at one time, say until the late sixties, were considered to be a highly respectable career/person. Being a “public-civil servant” was a matter of pride. Those who made it to various cadres of bureaucracy normally came from middle-class backgrounds on the sheer dint of merit and hard work. They did not land into positions of authority based on “quotas”. Promotions in bureaucracy were done on performance and merit. No allegiances or alliances were any help to climb up the ladder of hierarchy.

The self-promoting bureaucrats were weeded actually out of the system by the large segment of conscientious civil servants.

Bureaucracy here has been stifling. It has killed creativity. The attitude of bureaucracy is one of being prisoners to systems that are outdated and are of antiquity value. Being new to the method of governance in government I was perplexed about the reasoning to have three quotations for buying a table calculator from three different vendors, and the job of the civil servant is to choose the one with the lowest cost. What? Low cost gives low quality too, sometimes.

A conscientious civil servant, if he exercises the option to take the best that will last “longer” and of course will be more costly than the cheapest must ready himself/herself for being witch-hunted by the “accountability wizards”. How much more pathetic state can we slump to? If the system doesn’t ‘trust’ the official, he / she shouldn’t be appointed to positions of authority and discretion. Simple.

In Pakistan the young are disillusioned with making careers in bureaucracy. Most prefer to join the private sector, where merit and competence carry value. I wonder why any individual after investing 5-6 years to obtain an MBBS degree prefers to take civil services examination and based on quotas make it to become part of the civil servants. What’s the attraction? The lure of entry into the most powerful club of elites of Pakistan; may be. Not sure.

Yayha Khan manipulated bureaucracy to cling onto power. Those who didn’t fall into line were fired; intriguingly, the number of those dismissed was 303, a rifle is so named too. Bhutto cut them into pieces, he fired 1300 of them. These removals were mostly out of politicking and not necessarily corruption.

Governance, not by codes, but by preference became the order. Civil services haven’t been the same since then. The transition of “naukarshahi” to “Afsarshahi” has been smooth and steady. The civil servants have turned into ‘masters’ of the destiny of this hapless nation that has enough number of political forces that are always willing to assist ‘operations’ outside the framework of rules, regulations and policies.

From service class to ruling class. The deadly alliance since the 1950s between civil-military bureaucracies has been responsible for the many misadventures, both in politics and economy.

To conclude, I would draw from the concluding paragraphs of Kalia’s paper, “Pakistan’s bureaucracy in the initial two and half decades had competency and capability to take decisions in the interest of the masses. This was because we inherited an iron steel bureaucracy from our colonial masters which also led them to have a mindset of ruler. This led them to be largely alienated from public and unresponsive to the needs of the population. In the years to follow this machinery turned extremely rusty and incompetent because of regular interference of prevailing regimes politics of interests has left the administrative machinery in an ailing condition.”

All organisations have some sort of bureaucracy. The effects are confined. But when government servants start to be sycophants either to individuals or outdated processes, they become impediments more than facilitators for growth and development. -Courtesy: BR