Governance and Civil Service Reform in Pakistan: Concept Note

Saeed Shafqat
Centre for Public Policy and Governance,
F.C. College (a Chartered University), Lahore

Governance and Civil Service Reform in Pakistan: Concept Note

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for initiating discussion on the concept of governance and issues of civil service reform in Pakistan. The paper attempts to offer context of why governance and civil service reform have become matters of crucial significance for Pakistani state. It recognizes that at the political and elite institutional level governance and reform issues are not getting the attention they deserve, therefore a bottom’s up approach may be pursued to induce behavioral and structural change. Thus, it argues that province and local government should be the pivot for improving governance and pushing civil service reform.

What is Governance?
Governance is a multifaceted venture generally defined as requiring an understanding of interrelationships among social, economic, political and cultural variables and all that within the institutional setting of the country. The meaning that these variables bring to the governance enterprise is profound. Governance work can most effectively occur when there is solid understanding and knowledge of local conditions. The principal components of governance are politico-cultural, institutional and to some degree technical (which increasingly involves imparting IT and others skills to bureaucracies) and revolve around distribution, exchange and regulation of authority and power sharing mechanisms between the state and citizens. The World Bank provides a more focused definition;

“Governance consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.”

Given this definitional context we may examine the dynamics of governance in Pakistan.

Governance in Pakistan, like most developing countries, is a complex issue. It is like a concentric circle, each circle is tangled with the other – touching one means, opening the other. It is not simply a three Es issue – Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness. It has cultural and political manifestations – that have social costs, reflected in the form of patronage, lack of consensus among the political leaders and various types of elites, ethnic/religious cleavages, polarized political parties and absence of continuity in policies. In short the paradox is how to steer through centralized state institutions and fragmented societal structures? It is pertinent to remember that in the past three decades the state-society relations have undergone enormous transformation, citizens do not trust the state, there is faithlessness about its institutions and ability to provide, security, justice and development. The fabric of societal value structure has undergone convulsions. Zia-ul- Haq (1977-1988) institutionalized hypocrisy. Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif rivalry (1989-1999) squandered an opportunity for party development, representative government and promoting norms of good governance and democracy. Parvez Musharraf (1999-2008) converted the very idea of national sovereignty into organized hypocrisy. We reached a point where Pakistani leaders could communicate with each other only through an ‘international broker’. The installation of representative government in February 2008, roused lot of expectation about electoral outcome and democratic process, however, political parties and their leadership have yet to demonstrate the kind of vision and commitment that can sustain representative government and build public’s faith in party system. Pakistan continues to dither and suffer from a directionless drift. Under these conditions restoring respect for rule of law and promoting habits of compliance among the people is a daunting task. It is equally important to recognize that given absence of consensus and competing visions about the role of the state, the citizens disenchantment with state’s capacity to produce good governance is likely to increase and not decrease.


Fixing the State
It appears to me that debate in Pakistan on governance and governance reform has taken a wrong turn, because it assumes that governance and reform of civil service is about implementing designs created by committees of technocrats. In Pakistani case the crisis is deepening, the state- society disconnect has reached a point where faithlessness about state is pervasive and this demands re-imagining the state.

Can the state mediate between competing interests that constantly put demands on it? Leadership at the national level seems incapable of performing this role of mediation as a result what happens that policy is held hostage by a small group, with little credibility-- the challenge for leadership is to negotiate between these groups fairly and credibly. This demands making bold and imaginative deals among the power contenders rather than focusing only on civil service reform, second major challenge is restoring the respect of constitutional offices-- the president, chief justice, chief election commissioner and chairman Federal Public Service Commission(FPSC), to name a few. If the constitutional offices are not seen as independent and impartial, institutional integrity is at stake, so (decentralize and federalize the state) the government should make appointments that restore the credibility of institutions. The constitutional offices must be seen as neutral arbiters of conflict resolution. Of course this is easier said than done, but must be said.

What are the sovereign functions of the state? Any governance reform effort should take account of that. For example our defense capability is built around conventional warfare, not designed for fighting the insurgency and counter insurgency and the kind of Taliban war that we are fighting? The US, UK and France have offered to re-orient and re-furbish training of Pakistan’s armed forces. The very nature of security threats has enormously changed and that is having a deep institutional crisis within our armed forces. The armed forces of Pakistan have not only institutional integrity but commanded a considerable respect in our society, however, both seem to be under strain and eroding.

Citizen security and law and order have become issues of primary concern. In this context police reform and police ordinance has been talked a lot, however, it needs to be underscored that police and law and order is provincial subject and if the political parties / leadership in the provinces demonstrate will to carry reform, that should not be difficult. Let provinces take charge and introduce police reform.

An equally important but somewhat difficult area to pursue reform is the hierarchical nature of the state itself. For example, the National Management College (NMC) and National Defence University (NDU) spend millions of rupees to expose the senior (civil servants and military officials) to foreign travels, training and exposure, while at the middle and lower levels it is watched enviously and there is little sense of ownership of this practice; it is also not clear if such an expensive exposure promotes proficiency in policy process and enhances professional pride. In fact, in the civil services, a class war like situation prevails, where Police, Accounts, DMG, and OMG- to name a few services appear to be contesting rather than acting in harmony.

Finally it must be put upfront that no governance reform is possible without serious effort towards political reform and the political parties are linchpin for any representative and democratic order. Pakistan suffers from not only a reputation crisis of political leadership but also their inability to democratize political parties. Increasingly political parties are becoming dynastic and less democratic in their decision making and selection of leadership. Given this trend political reform should be top priority but dispensation of current political leadership and elites does not consider it an issue of reform and crucial for improving governance. Decadence and decay of political parties and illegitimacy of military rule is encouraging extremist forces to capture power and provide an alternate model. Unless the political leadership recognizes that they need to build a party system which exudes rule of law; supports respect for dissent, shows willingness to fight terrorism, combat corruption and has the capacity to initiate institutional revival, governance would not improve. There are no signs that rouse confidence that the political parties in Pakistan are ready to play such a role. Political reform is a prerequisite for fixing the state.


Perceived and Real Governance Issues
A description of governance issues can be summarized from three perspectives. First, what are the public perceptions on governance? Second, what kind of issues is identified in the literature on Pakistan on the subject? Third, how do the public officials and policy makers look at the issues of governance? What should be the priority areas of reform to improve governance?

In public perception civil servants are corrupt, inefficient, arrogant and not pro-public. Government offices are unresponsive to public needs, procedures are tedious, because of lack of redressal of grievances, citizens have little or no control over policies and service deliveries, insufficient investment in development, (particularly, housing, health, sanitation, roads etc., people’s welfare needs) and rise in concern about personal insecurity.

The literature on Pakistan identifies governance issues as: Over centralization, lack of participation, weak political institutions, bloated bureaucracy, adhoc or isolated policy formulation, corruption. No clear vision of state’s role, weak capacity for regulation and growing gap between the state and civil society.

From the public officials and policy formulator’s perspective, as reflected in various institutional reform commission reports, the governance issues are. Non-adherence to procedures, absence of rule of law and accountability, departmental weaknesses, over staffing of the departments, inadequate incentives for the civil servants, inter-departmental frictions, lack of adequate, authentic and timely information, inaction on corrective reports.

Given these perceptions and realities the real test for Pakistan is to create/promote a civil service that has the expertise and sophistication to manage decentralized administrative and political centers of authority. Simultaneously it should have the capacity to comprehend the forces that influence the shaping up of an open economy. The civil service must have the ability to facilitate privatization and corporatization, and also be capable of mitigating the adverse environmental impacts of such processes. This requires a governance capability which can create and maintain stable, yet adaptive systems of law which can regulate a dynamic society where knowledge and its effective application become the primary tools of governance. In contemporary world of technology, policy formulation and delivery of services both require greater reliance and proficiency in technology, its application and retooling of government functionaries can no longer be further delayed. Pakistan has no choice except to improve its governance by redefining the mission and tasks of the civil services.

Redesigning the Framework of Civil Services Reform
To achieve this goal, there is a need to evolve an integrated and holistic approach that covers reform at all levels, the federal, provincial and local. At the federal level the challenge is to build capacity in policy formulation on major macro-economic and macro-political issues. Therefore, at this level the need is to build capacity of higher bureaucracy on macro-economic, social sector, infrastructure development (Engineering, Transport, Communications, Agriculture resource mobilization). A strategy could be devised to produce a critical mass of 250-350 officers who have professional expertise and competence in these areas. The focus ought to be officers between BPS 18-20. It is at this level that retaining competent officers in the federal civil service is emerging as a serious challenge. Second level of reform has to be at the provincial level, where policy formulation and implementation capacity needs to be redesigned and strengthened. For the provincial governments, the key issue is: how to provide security, justice, protection of life to the citizens, besides sound and judicious socioeconomic policies. It is at the provincial level that the functioning of bureaucracy has been most adversely affected, by recruitment through patronage, posting transfers and lack of accountability. At this level there is need to revamp, redesign and strengthen the Provincial Public Service Commission (PPSC), so that recruitment both at the officer and subordinate level is merit based, transparent and competitive. In the above mentioned ideas of a critical mass, there is a need to select and integrate officers from the provincial services, so that the benefits of professionalism and expertise are distributed among the provinces.

Third tier of administration is most crucial. At this level the need is to radically restructure the administrative set up. This is the level of government which affects the citizens most, here redressal system is in disarray, and enforcement of rule of law is ineffective. Police is an instrument of extortion and suppression rather than protection of the citizen; Civil/Criminal Magistrates lower courts are weak, corrupt and politicized. Thus justice is sacrificed and reform of the subordinate structures of administration remains illusionary.

The performance appraisal of subordinate government functionaries is rarely done. Based on the conduct of these public officials, people form an opinion. Revenue collection, speedy and fair justice, citizen security (policing), prevention of crime/detection and maintenance of law and order-the much emphasized operational areas of public concern and reform. If these public officials fail to exhibit good behaviour, the reputation of corruption, inefficiency ineffectiveness spreads like wild fire. The arrogant and coercive behavior of the Subordinate Public Officials is an equal contributor in bringing bad name to bureaucracy, as has been the ineffectiveness of senior bureaucracy to control and regulate the behavior and performance of those under them. Therefore, performance appraisal mechanism must be built for all levels of the bureaucracy.

Province: where governance and reform matters?
As noted above ideally reform effort must be holistic and start from the top but there is serious lack of will, vision and commitment at the political level. That goal should not be abandoned and efforts must continue to bring to the attention of political leadership that political reform is in their enlightened self interest, meanwhile provinces must become focal points for improving governance.

The chief minister and chief secretary do govern the province but it is ruled by the above mentioned third tier of government. To combat terrorism, promote development and empower citizens, the responsibility sharing mechanisms between provincial and local government must be re-designed—constitutionally, politically, administratively and fiscally. In the existing arrangements of governance, the citizen’s initial contact with government is through three functionaries of the state i.e. the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Police, the Patwari (Revenue Collector), the lower courts – session and civil (Judiciary). These three officials have enormous powers in public perception and in reality. They have also become the primary instruments of corruption, misrule and abuse of authority. The state operates through these functionaries, whose authority is ingrained in public mind. Over the years these offices have become oppressive, anti-people and provide little relief to citizens. The redressal of grievance against these offices has also become weak over the years. The democratically elected governments since 1985-1999 and 2002-2008 have made large scale patronage appointments in bureaucracy and lower judiciary ignoring rules, merit or imparting any training (not to mention the violent behavior and constitutional/political havoc that president Musharraf created in 2007 alone). Thus in the past 20 plus years some of these political appointees have attained mid management positions. A large number of these appointees have become Tehsildars, Police Inspectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Extra Assistant Commissioner and officers in other branches of government. The subordinate bureaucracy is not only politicized but also inadequately trained, ill mannered and corrupt. Therefore, the need is to adopt a bottom’s up approach to introduce reform at grass root level so that the ordinary citizen is able to see the benefits of reform. One option is that through community participation oversights are developed to monitor and regulate the functions of these subordinates. Second is to improve mechanism through which they can be monitored effectively. Third is to replace them that would mean first developing an alternate office. It would also mean rethinking district as a unit of administration. However, short of replacing them by effective, efficient, and adequately trained functionaries, good governance is unlikely to emerge. Devolution of power without radically transforming the character and power of these three subordinate offices is not likely to bring much relief to the people. Devolution process (LGO 2001 and subsequent amendments) has stumbled because the provinces never owned it; today they are resisting and want to reverse devolution with vengeance not reason. In any case the LGO runs out of life on December 31st 2009, unless renewed by the president and approved by the parliament. This also implies that the focus of reform has to shift to the province because that is where power resides and that is where the re-engineering and rearrangement of local and provincial relations is occurring. Re-designing and reform of power sharing mechanisms at the province –district level could open up window of opportunity to combat terrorism, improve governance and empower the citizens.

For your response on the article, please click here on the link "Comments"