FOR the last several years, we have been blaming prime ministers, chief ministers and their respective cabinet members for poor governance and lack of consistent and predictable policies in various domains of the federal and provincial governments.

In my opinion, it is the bureaucracy which is responsible for the poor governance owing to various reasons. Over the last 40 or so years, the capacity of the bureaucracy has been gradually eroding and these days the bureaucracy seems to be just watching from the sidelines and not getting involved in any key areas of governance.

The reasons for the capacity erosion are well-known. One of the major reasons is that Pakistani students going abroad to study do not return to the country to join the civil services anymore. Till the early 1970s, a sizable number of these foreign university graduates and postgraduates would come back, pass the civil services examinations and join the government departments.

The other reason is the widening gap in cash remunerations for government servants and what the corporate world and other avenues have on offer. Also, the civil servants fear backlash in the shape of transfers, postings, legal cases and even arrests if they dare to take the right decisions during the course of their work.

As a result, the various ministries and regulatory bodies do not have the personnel who are capable of taking vital decisions, and, more importantly, daring to challenge decisions by wayward politicians that are not in the best interest of the country. This was a common feature in the past when the bureaucrats would point out to the ministers or even the provincial or federal chief executive that the decision being contemplated was not correct, and they would effectively ensure that such decisions were not implemented.

I have heard many stories of the strong character of the civil servants, judges and ministers of the past, and would share one such story to illustrate my point here.

When the file of president Ayub Khan recommending himself for the promotion to the rank of field marshal was sent to finance minister Muhammad Shoaib in 1965, he reportedly sent it back with a comment that the young country like Pakistan could not afford a field marshal. The next day he received a call from the presidency that the president would like to see him.

He asked when he should come. He was told that in fact the president would come to his office. Despite polite protest by the finance minister, Ayub Khan went to the latter’s office with the file in his hand and told Mr Shoaib that after the proposed promotion to the rank of field marshal, he would continue to work on his existing salary as a general.

The finance minister then requested the president to write this on the file below the finance minister’s remarks of the preceding day. When Ayub Khan wrote what was requested, the finance minister came up with another shock, and promptly wrote “Since there is no financial involvement, the proposed promotion does not concern the finance ministry and may be handled by the ministries of defence and establishment”.

Note the strong character of the finance minister taking up an issue in writing with a military ruler in uniform, and also note the dignity of ‘dictator’ Ayub Khan, who accepted all this in his stride. Many bureaucrats of that time also had similar steely nerves and could stand up to the ministers concerned.

Do we have such personalities today? So, back to the core point here, blaming the prime minister or chief ministers for poor governance is not too fair because the real malaise is at the bureaucratic level. We need to put back the bureaucratic house in order.

Moin Mohajir
Karachi

Published in Dawn, March 22nd, 2022