SINCE the 1970s, there has been a visible decline in governance overall. Government machinery seems helpless while the law is flouted by various lashkars and private militias.

Back in the 1950s, was it the fear of the law, good policing, or both which compelled a cyclist or driver to follow traffic discipline? Of course, we all know that until then, an ordinary traffic constable was good enough to ensure discipline. And behind this basic implementation of rules in the immediate post-colonial days was an ever-vigilant team of bureaucrats, who despite their superior airs and snobbery were honest and efficient when it came to day-to-day performance.

With reference to the history of the bureaucratic chain in the subcontinent, once the basic spadework of the East India Company bore fruit, British policymakers with long-term plans of consolidating the empire started working at top speed. While the upper strata of the colonial hierarchy continued to send their children to British schools like Eton and Harrow, as a first step for mid-ranking and junior officers of their administrative rung, elite local schools such as Doon, Aitchison, etc and others were opened.

The British knew that in the long run they would require local input; therefore, purely on the basis of lineage, boys mostly from the landed aristocracy were given admission. Meanwhile, an administrative structure was put in place through which they were able to rule the subcontinent. No doubt as colonial masters they could afford to be ruthless in their decisions. But despite their high-handedness, by and large their public image in the dispensation of justice was fairer than what is being dished out in today’s independent Pakistan.

The colonial structure continues to function.

For their civil service, the British had a foolproof system for the selection of candidates and a rigorous training programme. But once posted, officers had complete freedom to exercise powers as laid down in the Constitution, without public or political pressure. There was a well-oiled and efficient system from the chief secretary down to the foot constable, all fully aware of their limits and authority. The reason for the bold, even-handed decision-making at different tiers was the constitutional protection available to them as a matter of right.

The civil servants who opted for Pakistan continued to have similar constitutional cover. But then, poor treatment was meted out to them during the two military governments of generals Ayub and Yahya Khan; this was the start of a deep sense of insecurity and demoralisation in the ranks.

The parting kick came from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who not only withdrew the constitutional cover hitherto enjoyed by civil servants but also introduced the system of lateral entry. This totally put them on the mat and made them virtual handmaidens of their political masters. It also opened the floodgates of mediocrity, political victimisation and corruption.

Once the initial inroads were made by public representatives, how could military rulers be left behind? Gen Zia approved a mandatory quota for induction in civil services from the armed forces, further de-motivating the professional cadres.

Before Mr Bhutto’s whimsical decision, notwithstanding the two military rulers, the selection process was by and large above board. This should be evident from the fact that despite fragile political governments till the early 1970s, overall governance was much better. This was so because until then, the originally introduced system was intact.

Starting from Gen Musharraf’s days, especially during the PPP government and in the last one year or so, our major failures — be it load-shedding, the CNG crisis, water supply issues or law and order — have mainly been due to insecure ad­mi­nistrative machinery.

No doubt in line with the prevalent system of local governments the world over, retired Gen Tanvir Naqvi’s brainchild — the devolution of powers — during the Musharraf days looked impressive on paper. But when faced with the ground realities of a rigid and decadent tribal mindset, it is understandable why its shelf life proved so short.

Unlike present times, most of the decisions of the British colonial masters were thoroughly researched and well-planned, in keeping with our socio-cultural values and temperament. After all, the British introduced an administrative structure that continues to function in the thriving democracies of both India and Bangladesh.

There is no doubt that this has been a lingering legacy of our colonial past, yet in the absence of a fully literate and socially aware public at large, it would be advisable not to disturb this time-tested bureaucratic applecart.

On the contrary, the sooner we accord the highly desired constitutional protection to a totally depressed and disenchanted lot and help free them from the yoke of their political masters, the better it would be. After all, for a long time they have been exploited like the slaves of yesteryear. For a change, let them breathe free to serve as true public servants.

The writer is former general manager of PTV.

Published in Dawn, November 30th , 2014