One of the main issues in Pakistan’s quest for good governance is the much touted reforms in civil service. For as long as one can remember, these proposed reforms have been doing the rounds without any luck. Now, the PTI government has once again embarked upon ‘reform’ of the civil service of Pakistan. I am afraid that the end result will be the same: much ado about nothing.
The first thing to notice in this quest for reforms is the composition of the committee. It is filled with ex-secretaries, especially from the PAS (formerly DMG) group of civil service. If there is one group in Pakistan that has an interest in maintaining the status quo, it is this group. Good luck trying to design a reform package under their stewardship.
Even if a reforms package does come up and is implemented, you can bet that it will be designed in a manner that their interests are protected one way or the other. Bureaucracy, for those uninitiated with its workings, is a past master of bending rules in their favour and finding ways around them. This time won’t be any different. Similar to PAS, other groups will not be far behind in protecting their interests.
An example of how good they are at finding ways around rules and regulations, consider the ‘double age relaxation’ rule and the worrying trend of retired officers getting hired in droves. The double age relaxation rule, which allows civil servants up to age 55 to contest against advertised vacancies, was made part of civil service just to ensure that the those who don’t get promotions in the usual manner may have a shot at higher grades through this method.
Similarly, to keep serving after retirement, clauses for re-hiring of civil servants were inserted into the ESTA Code, opening the floodgates to a plague of public offices being occupied by retired civil servants.
Both of these are completely counterintuitive and illogical, yet the reforms committee has not deliberated upon such loopholes and neither is there any consideration to shelve them. Consider, for example, what good will a 55-year-old hire bring to civil service? He/she will retire after only five years of service at that post, again starting the cycle of approving, advertising and hiring, which will take another five years. So where is the logic in hiring them at that age? Similarly, a person retiring at 60 has normally had a career of about 30 years or so. What wonders will he do after 60 that he could not before 60?
Now to the other important aspect that is missing in these ‘reforms’. It has to do with the institution responsible for testing, interviewing and recommending individuals to the civil service, the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The commission is in grip of a mafia that is involved in corrupt practices of various types. For example, in 2017, a parliamentary panel came up with the startling conclusion that Rs142 million were missing from FPSCs accounts, a matter that has yet to be resolved. Similarly, there is evidence that candidates have been nominated that do not fulfil the criteria as per advertisements. Interested readers can query two particular posts that were advertised in 2016, for example. In one case, a 53-year-old managed to appear for exams and interview when the maximum advertised age limit was 45 (but he was already working on the advertised post since four years. Get the drift?). On the other post, the requirement was that of a practicing lawyer. But the selected candidate, who now works in the department, had no experience as a lawyer.
Suffice to say that when the body tasked with selecting the right people is itself in the grip of corrupt practices, reforms will bring little respite. Sadly, there is no suggestion in the reforms committee for this institution and for ousting the people involved in these activities.
Another important aspect of this debate, which seems to evade the discussions surrounding the intended reforms, is the matter of so-called ‘autonomous bodies,’ institutions that run on taxpayer money but have been given a blank cheque in running their affairs. These institutions, too, have become an alternative avenue for negating rules and regulations, and a favoured for placing political workers and affiliates on public dole.
More often than not, we will find that unwarranted practices are in vogue at these institutions. We all know about overstaffed organisations like the PIA and Pakistan Steel, with majority working on unverified credentials. In a recently surfaced case, two consultants were found working on regular BPS-19 seats in one such autonomous body even though their contracts had ended in 2010. On their seats, they are enjoying every perk and privilege accorded to regular government employees, the ones who work on project posts that pay double the salaries and additional perks. There is nothing in the reforms proposals to address this issue.
Then there is the very important part that the judiciary has to play in ensuring a level playing field and implementation of rules and regulations, be it the present one or any proposed ones. But even here one finds less than satisfactory performance. The above described case of two consultants working illegally in BPS-19 seats has been court for more than a year, but the judge keeps refusing to take decision, thus incentivising an illegality.
What I mean to say is that the bureaucracy will always find a way around the rules and regulations, and the courts are supposed to act as a bulwark against such intentions. But the available evidence regarding the efficacy of the justice system suggests otherwise. Therefore, civil service reforms without reform of the judiciary will only achieve half of the result.
In essence, don’t expect any miracles from the intended reforms in civil service because it does not take into account many facts and on-ground realities. More importantly, it is stuffed with people who are either themselves large benefactors of the status quo, or are well past their usefulness. Dividing the civil service into three or four major groups would not cure the mindset that comes with enjoying the status quo, and who have historically proven to excellent at getting around rules and regulations. Good luck with changing the mindset, when there is no intention to do so.
The writer is an economist
The first thing to notice in this quest for reforms is the composition of the committee. It is filled with ex-secretaries, especially from the PAS (formerly DMG) group of civil service. If there is one group in Pakistan that has an interest in maintaining the status quo, it is this group. Good luck trying to design a reform package under their stewardship.
Even if a reforms package does come up and is implemented, you can bet that it will be designed in a manner that their interests are protected one way or the other. Bureaucracy, for those uninitiated with its workings, is a past master of bending rules in their favour and finding ways around them. This time won’t be any different. Similar to PAS, other groups will not be far behind in protecting their interests.
When the body tasked with selecting the right people is itself in the grip of corrupt practices, reforms will bring little respite
An example of how good they are at finding ways around rules and regulations, consider the ‘double age relaxation’ rule and the worrying trend of retired officers getting hired in droves. The double age relaxation rule, which allows civil servants up to age 55 to contest against advertised vacancies, was made part of civil service just to ensure that the those who don’t get promotions in the usual manner may have a shot at higher grades through this method.
Similarly, to keep serving after retirement, clauses for re-hiring of civil servants were inserted into the ESTA Code, opening the floodgates to a plague of public offices being occupied by retired civil servants.
Both of these are completely counterintuitive and illogical, yet the reforms committee has not deliberated upon such loopholes and neither is there any consideration to shelve them. Consider, for example, what good will a 55-year-old hire bring to civil service? He/she will retire after only five years of service at that post, again starting the cycle of approving, advertising and hiring, which will take another five years. So where is the logic in hiring them at that age? Similarly, a person retiring at 60 has normally had a career of about 30 years or so. What wonders will he do after 60 that he could not before 60?
Now to the other important aspect that is missing in these ‘reforms’. It has to do with the institution responsible for testing, interviewing and recommending individuals to the civil service, the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). The commission is in grip of a mafia that is involved in corrupt practices of various types. For example, in 2017, a parliamentary panel came up with the startling conclusion that Rs142 million were missing from FPSCs accounts, a matter that has yet to be resolved. Similarly, there is evidence that candidates have been nominated that do not fulfil the criteria as per advertisements. Interested readers can query two particular posts that were advertised in 2016, for example. In one case, a 53-year-old managed to appear for exams and interview when the maximum advertised age limit was 45 (but he was already working on the advertised post since four years. Get the drift?). On the other post, the requirement was that of a practicing lawyer. But the selected candidate, who now works in the department, had no experience as a lawyer.
Suffice to say that when the body tasked with selecting the right people is itself in the grip of corrupt practices, reforms will bring little respite. Sadly, there is no suggestion in the reforms committee for this institution and for ousting the people involved in these activities.
Another important aspect of this debate, which seems to evade the discussions surrounding the intended reforms, is the matter of so-called ‘autonomous bodies,’ institutions that run on taxpayer money but have been given a blank cheque in running their affairs. These institutions, too, have become an alternative avenue for negating rules and regulations, and a favoured for placing political workers and affiliates on public dole.
More often than not, we will find that unwarranted practices are in vogue at these institutions. We all know about overstaffed organisations like the PIA and Pakistan Steel, with majority working on unverified credentials. In a recently surfaced case, two consultants were found working on regular BPS-19 seats in one such autonomous body even though their contracts had ended in 2010. On their seats, they are enjoying every perk and privilege accorded to regular government employees, the ones who work on project posts that pay double the salaries and additional perks. There is nothing in the reforms proposals to address this issue.
Then there is the very important part that the judiciary has to play in ensuring a level playing field and implementation of rules and regulations, be it the present one or any proposed ones. But even here one finds less than satisfactory performance. The above described case of two consultants working illegally in BPS-19 seats has been court for more than a year, but the judge keeps refusing to take decision, thus incentivising an illegality.
What I mean to say is that the bureaucracy will always find a way around the rules and regulations, and the courts are supposed to act as a bulwark against such intentions. But the available evidence regarding the efficacy of the justice system suggests otherwise. Therefore, civil service reforms without reform of the judiciary will only achieve half of the result.
In essence, don’t expect any miracles from the intended reforms in civil service because it does not take into account many facts and on-ground realities. More importantly, it is stuffed with people who are either themselves large benefactors of the status quo, or are well past their usefulness. Dividing the civil service into three or four major groups would not cure the mindset that comes with enjoying the status quo, and who have historically proven to excellent at getting around rules and regulations. Good luck with changing the mindset, when there is no intention to do so.
The writer is an economist