“All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work”—Calvin Coolidge.
Normally, human beings prefer to be led. This implies that they like to just work on orders given by someone instead of doing things on their initiative. In either case, there are both advantages and disadvantages depending upon the nature of work, skills and personality of those involved. Working under guidance means the elements of stress and uncertainty are not present along with the responsibility of making critical decisions. This is mostly where people are employed and feel secure in carrying out their bosses’ commands.
No doubt, when duties and responsibilities are properly defined, there is a smoother flow in the performance of various functions allowing the less experienced to benefit from seniors and skillful mentors. Besides, working in teams allows collaborating with others who may contribute their valuable feedback or if nothing else, can become a source of motivation. Then there is always the concept of diversity that can lead to the accomplishment of different tasks more innovatively. These advantages are usually found in private organisations where one’s existence and growth are directly related to expressing the level of competence and hard work.
However, in the public sector, especially in cases where jobs are secure, the environment is quite different. The tendency to delay and sleep over tasks is more profound. Although the rules call for discipline, efficiency and ethical behavior, these do not appear to be the hallmarks of Pakistani public office holders belonging to various arms of government.
Interestingly the modern form of civil service dates back to 221 BC in Imperial China during the Qin rule and was designed to choose the best administrative officials through a merit-based examination, to handle the state’s bureaucracy. The system was directly responsible for creating a unique class of scholar bureaucrats regardless of their family origins.
The incentive of being paid could motivate the laid-back into action and help the people in getting their work done on time at the government level
Over the years, the examination methods underwent many changes, but in theory, the Chinese civil service proved one of the major outlets for social mobility in society. but practically, sons of the landed gentry benefited from it since the preparation of the exams was time-consuming. By the late nineteenth century, this system was abolished by the Qin government because it began to lose its credibility as it had taken the shape of style over actual content and originality of thought due to which it became difficult to ascertain if the candidates did have the capacity to perform their functions amicably.
Needless to say, the European commentators held the Chinese system in high esteem and perhaps the colonial way of recruiting civil servants was to some extent influenced by it. Whatever may be the form of appointing public office holders they need to have some fundamental qualities. These are excellent organisation and negotiating skills, creativity and flexible thinking, leadership, decision-making capability, teamwork sensibility, single-handed working ability, good oral and written communication skills, enthusiasm, and commitment to politics, policy issues, and current affairs. Canadian recruitment, evaluation, and promotion rules ensure that public service values or ‘people values’ play a key role.
The term ‘people values’ means showing respect, fairness, and courtesy while dealing with both citizens and fellow public servants. A cursory look at our public service sector will reveal the complete opposite. The most minor of things that can be handled within seconds may take many days, with files moving around aimlessly. This is more obvious in the judiciary, where a large number of cases are fixed for the day, forcing the public to make an appearance but remain either unheard or adjourned because of paucity of time.
The attitude of the Supreme Court located in Islamabad is highly painful, where complete disregard and insensitivity is shown to advocates who travel from different parts of the country to assist the court, only to be sent back without as much as an apology for not notifying them about unwillingness to hear their case. Even high salaries and innumerable perquisites fail to get these judges to focus on disposing of cases promptly.
Where is justice when a person receives a favourable verdict posthumously after a lapse of 24 years? Who is to compensate the aggrieved when the value of the money involved becomes worthless? How can decisions based on personal likes and dislikes be honoured? Under these circumstances, expecting the public to show respect to these self-acclaimed demi-gods is asking for a bit too much. A Gallup poll conducted to find out the public’s opinions would certainly reveal the level of disgust and frustration that people harbor about civil-judicial public service (sic!).
Perhaps a more independent approach would make things move when public servants, including judges, are paid in accordance with the amount of work they actually do. Subject to completion of assigned tasks, their remuneration ought to vary from person to person rather than a fixed hefty sum they receive monthly whether they work or choose not to work. The incentive of being paid could motivate the laid-back into action and help the people in getting their work done on time at the government level.
An autonomous approach allows for better control over workflow, self-inspiration, and accountability. Rather than squabbling with co-workers, one’s focus and attention toward a task might improve performance and efficiency. Recognising their purpose and setting proper goals may even render their lives more meaningful as they venture to serve the public with their expertise. Despite the fact that this may appear idealistic, there is no harm in suggesting an alternative having observed the dilapidated state of public service and the rapidly degenerating moral values of public servants.
“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole”—Malcolm X.