Barrister Nazir Ahmed :
In a democracy, the government has two arms: political arm and administrative arm. Political arm consists of elected politicians who lead the government and sit in the Cabinet. The administrative arm is staffed by permanent and expert civil servants. The conventional relationship between ministers and civil servants is that ministers decide policies and civil servants, whilst they play an advisory role, are mainly concerned with carrying them out. The main functions of the civil servants, among others, include giving information and policy advice to ministers, preparing policy papers and speeches, keeping the ministers’ diaries and dealing with correspondences, organising and preparing answers for ministers, consulting with outside interest groups and running the departments.
Civil servants are usually professional, experienced, full time and permanent. By comparison, ministers are temporary, often inexperienced, of necessity part time and not always able. Ministers can remain in their position for maximum 5 years term, practically for 2/3 years. Statistically in a developed country like the UK, ministers remain in their department for an average of two years. In most cases, a number of ministers are likely to be new to their office and look to permanent officials (civil servants) for advice and guidance. Civil servants, who are experts and permanent, give them advice. They are experts because they have been holding office for a long period of time – nearly 25 to 35 years!
Civil servants are supposed to be neutral. They must provide impartial advice to ministers, presenting them with the various possible solutions to a policy issue and the likely consequences of each leaving minister to make the choice in the light of their political programme and election manifesto. This is the principle of professional neutrality – the bureaucrat as non-political experts. Although civil servants are supposed to be neutral, they are expected to enter emphatically into the political aims of the government of the day to use a common mind with their ministers in giving policy advice. In other words, it is their duty to assist ministers in presenting facts in a manner which assists the reputation and interests of the government of the day. This is not neutrality as we normally use the word. They can be compared with the neutrality of a barrister who pleads in court for a criminal one day and the police another.
Civil servants are the servants of the State and they hold office during the pleasure of the President (Article 134). Thus, they are responsible for a higher purpose than that is concerned by the government of the day. The government is elected for a specific short term period (usually for five year) and thus their policy would be in line with their political ideology and their priority would perhaps be the winning in next election. By sharp contrast, the civil servants are appointed for a long term period. They usually hold their office until they reach to their retirement age. They will execute the decisions taken by their political masters. Their priority would be effective and smooth running of the administration.
Another characteristic of the civil servants is their anonymity. They are expected to remain publicly silent on political and controversial matters. They must associate and engage with particular matters or issues but they cannot come to the TV screen to express their views. Civil servants are supposed neither to come to the public openly nor to Parliament. It is the minister, in line with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, who answers to the questions in Parliament. The ground reality in Bangladesh is totally different. The entire civil service has been politicised. The decision of their promotion, placement and posting to key positions are made or taken based on political consideration, nepotism, and loyalty and belongingness of the governing party as opposed to merit, experience, skills and competence. The more important or key positions or forefront the senior civil servants were in the last government, the more likely that they will be marginalised or sidelined or even punished by the current government in the name of Officer on Special Duty (OSD) or vice versa. The current government has made many officers on OSD upon their recruitment, at the very outset of their career, which is unprecedented in the 43 years history of Bangladesh.
In the Secretariat (the nerve centre of civil service in Bangladesh like the Whitehall in the UK), the civil servants almost publicly show their support and loyalty to the governing political party. There are few known trade unions, which have direct link with major political parties. The names of those trade unions (such as Sramik League, Shadinata Forum etc.) clearly show its belongingness and support to the respective parties. Those trade unions work almost like wings of the political parties. Most of the civil servants belong to those trade unions and by doing so they automatically become politicised. Political exposures have taken many civil servants to a stage that it is often difficult to differentiate between the political cadres (die heart political activists) and civil service cadres (supposed neutral public officials). This is very unfortunate for the civil service in Bangladesh.
Historically, Indian Civil Service (ICS) cadres and Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP) cadres had unique prestige, reputation and status. Unfortunately, their inheritors Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) cadres have not been able to carry on those unique status, reputation and prestige due to politicisation and political maneuvouring by the successive governments since the independence of Bangladesh.
Under the Service Rules in Bangladesh, the government of the day can, at any time, take any civil servant off duty and make him or her an Officer on Special Duty (OSD). It may look or sound usual or normal. But in the Secretariat of the country, it is very scary thing for the civil servants. It is widely seen and considered as punishment. The civil servants on OSD have no duties or tasks to do. Most of them do not have a chair or table to sit! They take their salary without doing virtually anything. Each and every government in the past has made many civil servants OSD. But the number of officers made OSD by the current government during the current and the last term has been unprecedented. During the last six years thousands of officers – right from the Assistant Secretary level to the Full Secretary level – have been made OSD.
Making civil servants OSD widely at flat/wholesale rare causes three severe problems. Firstly: public money in the amount of hundreds, if not thousands, of crore taka is wasted in giving salaries and other facilities to those civil servants on OSD. Secondly: the country would be deprived of the service of the talented and meritorious officers who have been recruited through fierce competitive examinations/ tests. Thirdly: the civil servants on OSD become demoralised and gradually lose their aptitude and motivation. They see their colleagues or juniors or less competent officers are being posted in important positions on political consideration but they are victimised despite having relevant skills, experience and seniority.
When the government is changed, OSD officers, being perceived to be anti-incumbent government, are put into important positions by the new government and those who were in important positions, being perceived to be in favour of the previous government, are made OSD. In this way, the entire civil service is polarised/politicised and civil servants are compelled to lose their impartiality and neutrality. They are compelled to think of belongingness to the governing party. In the long run, the country will be deprived from the service of the supposed neutral, impartial and efficient civil servants. The sooner the government realises this, the better for them, the better for the country.
Initially civil servants are appointed in the civil service by the Public Service Commission (PSC) through a vigorous and fierce competitive public exam called BCS Exams.” The PSC is a constitutional body entrusted to recruit in the civil service. The main function of the PSC is “to conduct tests and examinations for the selection of suitable persons for appointment to the service of the Republic,” Article 140(1)(a). Those who can successfully pass all stages of the BCS are, no doubt, talented and meritorious. When it comes to their promotion, posting and transfer, the government plays a greater and major role. Here comes political consideration, calculation and maneubours. The government routinely appears to block promotion of competent civil servants on different tricks and make arrangements to transfer competent civil servants to remote areas of the country if those officers’ independent and impartial roles go against the interests of the governing party.
Although the vigorous and competitive system of appointing the civil servants appear to be satisfactory, the different types of existing quota system put apparent barriers for the talented and competent candidates to get through. It should be noted that around 45% of the posts are appointed based on the merit whereas around 55% of the posts are filled in with different types of quota.
There may be a quota system for the disabled and other deprived people but that should be of 1%, 2% or the maximum 5% in the light of Article 29(3) of the constitution. The quota for districts, relatives of freedom fighters and other groups are not plausible or defensible. Furthermore, appointment in more than 50% posts of the civil service based on so called quota system are illogical, unreasonable and unconstitutional [Article 27 – equality before law, Article 28 – prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, and 29(1)&(2) – equality of opportunity in public employment]. It demoralises the talented candidates.
There have been no complaints in relation to the preliminary test and substantive examination of the BCS. However, there are rooms of political manoeuvres and consideration in relation to the viva voice (oral test) and subsequent checks. This concern has come to light recently from a speech of the influential Advisor of the government, Mr H T Imam. Mr Imam urged, in his speech in a public meeting, the Bangladesh Chhatra League (student wing of the governing party) workers and leaders “you just pass the written test of the BCS, we will see the rest.”
Good governance and transparency are keys to democracy and the progress of a country. These two important components could be ensured by the competent, able, efficient, impartial and honest civil servants. Incompetent, politicised and party loyal/blind civil servants may bring temporary benefits for the party for a short term. However, they will do irreparable damages to them and to the nation in the long term. When the government changes, the politicised civil servants themselves will become first victim. No government is the final or last government. When the government would leave office, the politicised civil servants would change their face overnight and be flatters to the new government to convince them to be considered as their own people. Soon the incumbent government will be the victims in the hands of their own politicised bureaucracy. This is as if “As you sow, so you reap.” The sooner the government realises this, the better for them, the better for the nation.
In order to promote good governance in the country and maximise transparency in the civil administration, and to ensure recruitment, posting, promotion and transfer based on merit, the following recommendations are made:
Civil servants must, by all means, be made and kept politically neutral and anonymous. Government is made of political party or parties and thus it is understandable that the government’s maneuvours will reflect their party politics. However, the government should give priority on the national interests over their narrow political interests when dealing with civil servants.
Quite satisfactory processes are employed by the PSC to recruit skilled and competent people in the civil service. Steps should be taken so that same or the similar methods could be employed so that postings, transfer and promotion are done in such a satisfactory way without political intervention with ill political motives.
Although the preliminary and written tests are satisfactorily conducted, there are rooms for political intervention in relation to the viva voce. If a candidate successfully passed the stages of fierce competitive preliminary and written tests, it would be unfair to stop him or her at viva voce. In a poor and developing country like Bangladesh where corruption and nepotism are at endemic level, dirty tricks could easily be employed by the powerful in the government to take or leave a candidate at viva voce. Therefore, steps should be taken either to eliminate the so called viva voce stage or to make it as a routine check or to take at least strict safety measures to remove any possibility of political maneuvours or tricks.
Unjust, unfair and unreasonable quota system which blocks the talents and merits should be abolished. Even if it has to be kept for whatever reasons, it should not be for more than 5% of the posts. Deprived or disadvantaged or relatives of the freedom fighters should be appreciated, acknowledged or compensated by other means, without compromising the talents and merits that are immensely required in the most vital service of the Republic.
Talents and meritorious candidates are recruited in the civil service. Yet corruptions in the Secretariat and in other places where civil servants work are at endemic level. Why this should be so? Thus, a well thought out intensive moral training should be given at the beginning of the career. With this, attractive incentives for honest performance in the career and tougher criminal sanctions for corruption should be introduced and widely publicised.
(Barrister Nazir Ahmed: Legal expert, analyst, writer and columnist. He can be contacted via e-mail: [email protected])
