Futile reforms
THERE is talk of administrative reforms by the government these days. Reforming the bureaucracy has been on the minds of most governments. There have been numerous commissions and committees and reports since Partition that can be grouped in eight major attempts.
First was the Rowland Eggar report soon after Partition. At this time, politicians were weak and it was the civil bureaucracy that gave the country stability and a good start. In 1973 came Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s reforms. Bhutto abolished the constitutional protection for civil servants’ jobs, introduced the All Pakistan Unified Grades and tried to bring all services like DMG, police, foreign service, etc, to the same level. In the Zia era, while there were no formal reforms, the general introduced the military in governance and empowered the district administration.
In Gen Musharraf’s era, through local government ordinances in 2001, the deputy commissioner was replaced with an elected district nazim and police were empowered. The DC’s functions were distributed among all and sundry and the concept of singularity of command was abolished at the district level. The federal-level bureaucracy was left more or less intact. Then from 2008 to 2013, Dr Ishrat Husain’s reform committee focused on specialised streams, instead of generalist dominance, performance-based promotions etc, but there was little implementation of its recommendations.
For the next five years, Dr Ahsan Iqbal, the current champion of reforms, debated various options, with no result. From 2018 to 2022, the PTI brought back Dr Husain who proposed a ‘National Executive Service’ ensuring the tenures of civil servants, special pay scales for better talent, e-governance, etc. Except for some impact vis-à-vis e-governance (Citizens Portal), most other recommendations weren’t implemented. We are back to reform mode, with Dr Iqbal leading the team once more. A ‘National Executive Service’ is again being discussed, as well as cluster-based CSS recruitment, an ‘Intelligent Project Automation System’, fixing tenures and performance-based promotions, changing the training content and having Urdu as an option in CSS.
Which reform actually improved the bureaucracy?
Having been a part of the bureaucracy from 1968 to 2005, I’m trying to think of a reform which improved matters; everyone can see how the bureaucracy’s performance has deteriorated despite numerous committees and commissions. Here I will examine the ‘National Executive Service’ proposal. It attempts to recruit bureaucrats mid-career and make existing ones take the FPSC exam again. A similar lateral entry scheme was tried under Bhutto with dismal results. Let’s assume a specialist from academia or industry takes over as secretary of a ministry. He’ll still have to work with the ministry staff, which comprises various cadres. How long will it take him to merge and be accepted as leader by the ministry’s bureaucracy? Can he persevere that long?
Take the petroleum ministry, which is responsible for exploration, production policy, pricing and regulation of petroleum products, gas allocation and distribution, the import of LNG and LNG policies, refining petroleum, mineral policy, energy security, etc. What kind of expert would we look for? A geologist who can understand exploration and drilling? Someone who knows the intricacies of the refining industry? A mining engineer who can handle mineral exploration and production? A petroleum financial expert who comprehends the workings of petroleum pricing?
Out of a few thousand officers of elite groups (CSS), a large number has qualified from the best universities of the world including Ivy League universities. Alongside, the Establishment Division has a career planning wing, which is currently redundant. Why can’t that wing be empowered to plan the careers of officers with the relevant education and talent and groom them for policymaking positions in specialised ministries?
While we chase the mirage of improvement through intricate administrative reforms, we tend to ignore a few basic ‘reforms’ which are four in my view. First, ensure that civil servants get a tenure of three years. Secondly, promotions should be based on the recommendations of their superiors and not politicians or agencies. Thirdly, postings and transfers must be on merit and not because of pressure from a politician or out of loyalty to the agencies. Fourthly, it is necessary to build an environment where a civil servant who sticks to the rules and merit is rewarded rather than made an example of. Doing these four basic things should have been the starting point of any effort to improve the bureaucracy. But since the rulers see this as whittling away their discretion, the other option is to talk about administrative reforms — to be seen to be doing something.
The writer is a former civil servant.
Published in Dawn, September 29th, 2025