Politicians vs bureaucracy
Safdar Javaid Syed DMG
A leading analyst who regularly contributes to this newspaper recently commented that "the bureaucracy has its own share of grievances. It thinks that MPAs interfere in everything and insist on their wish being acted upon without consideration of merit or rules. Sadly, a culture of personal favours has not allowed the accountability role of the political process to emerge. The political class has no deep-rooted desire to change the system. It is comfortable with its advocacy role and has little yearning to assume extra responsibility of becoming a decision-maker."
These observations need a deeper and objective analysis, for two reasons. Firstly, because the described tension between the two segments of our nation leads to many governance problems and, secondly, because these assertions come from a person who is a distinguished former bureaucrat as well as a former politician and it can be safely stipulated that he is aware of grassroots realities.
In the bureaucratic culture, if a colleague or a friend asks for a favour or wants a task performed, isn't such a request usually granted? A safe presumption would be that the requested favour was not above the rules and did not involve bending or twisting of any law. But what happens if an identical request comes from an MPA or MNA? What is a fair request in the case of a friend becomes a highly improper demand when it comes from a politician.
And talking of corruption, do we have a reliable repository of data on this subject? What would be the approximate percentage of corrupt or dishonest politicians? What approximately is the financial and physical extent of their corruption? How many of them seek personal favours and of what nature? Conversely, what are the corresponding percentages amongst the bureaucracy?
In the article published on July 17, 2009, it has been lamented that "in most statutory laws, and rules of business that determine how the government functions, the decision-making powers have been specifically vested in various bureaucratic positions and the politicians or the parliament do not figure anywhere."
This is not a factual assertion because the Constitution and the law even today recognise the prime minister as chief executive of the country. Similarly, a chief minister of a province is the chief executive.
In the parliamentary form of government, the statutory laws do not have to specifically vest the politicians with executive functions. It is the prime minister (or a chief minister) who exercises all executive authority and the federal or provincial cabinet share this legal responsibility jointly. That is why the Rules of Business (Federal or Provincial) do not mention the ministers as the executive head of their ministries or departments. And that is why the laws enacted by the legislatures or statutes passed by the Assemblies do not mention the politicians or ministers as decision-makers.
As we all know, an extremely important and crucial role has always been played by the ECC in Pakistan. Similar is the case of Cabinet Committee on Privatization (CCOP). The Cabinet Committees as well as the Parliamentary Committees are political fora but are assigned important administrative decision-making.
So far as the Rules of Business are concerned, a minister has been assigned the responsibility of formulating the policy as well as for the conduct of the business of his department. A minister can definitely play an important role if he is allowed the freedom to do so (and if the rival institutions limit themselves to their described and legal role). It goes to the credit of a politician from Sahiwal who in the mid-1980s was minister for education in Punjab and who introduced the merit-based system for admissions to educational institutions. His initiative was fully backed and supported by the-then chief minister of Punjab who surrendered his own discretionary admission quotas for all educational institutions. The governor did the same. And even today a major policy initiative of the late Chaudhry Mumtaz of Sahiwal holds, and rather become a country-wide phenomenon.
The basic issue of governance in Pakistan is that of perceptions and attitudes. In our existence as a nation-state so far, various institutions and organs of governance have been acting to interfere in matters falling in the jurisdiction of others. This decidedly is the moment when the interface between the politicians and the bureaucracy should be redefined. However, this exercise should start with a basic but essential premise: that governance and policymaking belong to the people and their elected representatives. And the politicians have to be afforded a chance to function! If a toddler is made to slip every time he tries to stand up and walk, he will never learn to walk with natural ease. That toddler, to borrow Mr Shafqat Mahmood's phraseology, will not have any deep-rooted desire to stand up and walk. He will be comfortable with his crawling and toddling, with little desire to assume the extra responsibility of walking. In our beloved country the politician deserves a break. Constantly pointing an accusing finger at this toddler will be of little help. To quote Khalil Gibran; "Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation."
These observations need a deeper and objective analysis, for two reasons. Firstly, because the described tension between the two segments of our nation leads to many governance problems and, secondly, because these assertions come from a person who is a distinguished former bureaucrat as well as a former politician and it can be safely stipulated that he is aware of grassroots realities.
In the bureaucratic culture, if a colleague or a friend asks for a favour or wants a task performed, isn't such a request usually granted? A safe presumption would be that the requested favour was not above the rules and did not involve bending or twisting of any law. But what happens if an identical request comes from an MPA or MNA? What is a fair request in the case of a friend becomes a highly improper demand when it comes from a politician.
And talking of corruption, do we have a reliable repository of data on this subject? What would be the approximate percentage of corrupt or dishonest politicians? What approximately is the financial and physical extent of their corruption? How many of them seek personal favours and of what nature? Conversely, what are the corresponding percentages amongst the bureaucracy?
In the article published on July 17, 2009, it has been lamented that "in most statutory laws, and rules of business that determine how the government functions, the decision-making powers have been specifically vested in various bureaucratic positions and the politicians or the parliament do not figure anywhere."
This is not a factual assertion because the Constitution and the law even today recognise the prime minister as chief executive of the country. Similarly, a chief minister of a province is the chief executive.
In the parliamentary form of government, the statutory laws do not have to specifically vest the politicians with executive functions. It is the prime minister (or a chief minister) who exercises all executive authority and the federal or provincial cabinet share this legal responsibility jointly. That is why the Rules of Business (Federal or Provincial) do not mention the ministers as the executive head of their ministries or departments. And that is why the laws enacted by the legislatures or statutes passed by the Assemblies do not mention the politicians or ministers as decision-makers.
As we all know, an extremely important and crucial role has always been played by the ECC in Pakistan. Similar is the case of Cabinet Committee on Privatization (CCOP). The Cabinet Committees as well as the Parliamentary Committees are political fora but are assigned important administrative decision-making.
So far as the Rules of Business are concerned, a minister has been assigned the responsibility of formulating the policy as well as for the conduct of the business of his department. A minister can definitely play an important role if he is allowed the freedom to do so (and if the rival institutions limit themselves to their described and legal role). It goes to the credit of a politician from Sahiwal who in the mid-1980s was minister for education in Punjab and who introduced the merit-based system for admissions to educational institutions. His initiative was fully backed and supported by the-then chief minister of Punjab who surrendered his own discretionary admission quotas for all educational institutions. The governor did the same. And even today a major policy initiative of the late Chaudhry Mumtaz of Sahiwal holds, and rather become a country-wide phenomenon.
The basic issue of governance in Pakistan is that of perceptions and attitudes. In our existence as a nation-state so far, various institutions and organs of governance have been acting to interfere in matters falling in the jurisdiction of others. This decidedly is the moment when the interface between the politicians and the bureaucracy should be redefined. However, this exercise should start with a basic but essential premise: that governance and policymaking belong to the people and their elected representatives. And the politicians have to be afforded a chance to function! If a toddler is made to slip every time he tries to stand up and walk, he will never learn to walk with natural ease. That toddler, to borrow Mr Shafqat Mahmood's phraseology, will not have any deep-rooted desire to stand up and walk. He will be comfortable with his crawling and toddling, with little desire to assume the extra responsibility of walking. In our beloved country the politician deserves a break. Constantly pointing an accusing finger at this toddler will be of little help. To quote Khalil Gibran; "Pity the nation divided into fragments, each fragment deeming itself a nation."
No comments:
Post a Comment