Always politics
The current government has promoted 153 Deputy Secretaries to the post of Joint Secretary as late as July 13, depriving around 100 eligible officers along with 5 Additional Secretaries promoted to the post of Secretary. In fact, politicisation in promotion has a long history during the current regime. According to media reports, massive promotions took place on a good number of occasions with a good number of civil servants being deprived despite having qualifications. On June 13, 2002, 170 were promoted to the post of Joint Secretary, depriving 200.
In 2003, on February 10 and 16, 493 were promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, depriving 322, on August 27, 97 were promoted to the post of Additional Secretary, depriving 104, and 49 were promoted to the post of Joint Secretary, depriving 277. On June 15, 2004, 84 were promoted to the post of Joint Secretary, depriving 78. Last year, on February 15, 18 were promoted to the post of Secretary, depriving 5, and on April 21, 327 were promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, depriving 50.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. On January 26, 378 Senior Assistant Secretaries were promoted to the post of Deputy Secretary, depriving around 200 others. Interestingly enough, 39 Additional Secretaries were reported to have been promoted to the highest rank of Secretary. Seniority was alleged to have been violated in the cases of 14 civil servants, and 30 civil servants were alleged to have been promoted to the highest rank of Secretary in only 3 years.
Over and above, BPSC is a constitutional body. It is an institution which is supposed to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the countrymen in terms of filling up of the vacant posts in the state civil service in the most impartial manner. Unfortunately, however, arrays of controversies have engulfed it and sent its credibility to the precipice time and again. Alleged leakage of question papers of the BPSC exams, on a good number of occasions, must have raised many eyebrows.
The role of Bangladesh Police cannot be overemphasised in maintaining law and order in the country. Attempted politicisation of the police force has been alleged on many occasions and has been criticised even by the former police high officials who pointed out its severe fallouts such as destruction of the morale and morality of the police force. The rise in crimes committed by police personnel, perhaps, corroborates the allegation.
In fact, sort of politicisation is there in many developed countries. For example, 10% of the posts in higher administration are still reserved for spoils system recruitment and thus a sort of politicisation is still maintained by the US constitution. Once the cronies of the president-elect would have been recruited, but the criteria for recruitment are sheer quality, efficiency and commitment these days, with special emphasis upon honesty.
In UK, the presence of special, or political, advisers to strengthen the hands of the ministers, in both policy-making and routine affairs, is well-known since 1964. This sort of politicisation was based upon lack of commitment, and passive detachment, of the permanent bureaucrats, which applies to almost every cultural setting. Though it may have smacked of partisan bureaucracy, it is still in place facilitating the political government's stance and strength.
Meanwhile, in France where bureaucracy has consistently been a stabilising factor in the country's volatile history, the members of ministerial cabinets represent the politicised bureaucracy for long. The ministerial cabinets, comprising political and administrative officials, help ministers gain the upper hand in the state of affairs and try to direct things the way the ministers want for the betterment of the ministry and the state. Sophisticated and committed people have been manning the ministerial cabinets for ages.
In the backdrop of stated phenomena of the three developed nations, however, it is difficult to find their counterparts in Bangladesh. What I am attempting to convey is that permanent bureaucracy is not politicised in the stated countries.
Anyway, the bottom line is that partial politicisation -- superimposing committed and dedicated people following the models of developed nations -- is not that bad but is rather useful as it provides leeway to the political governments in implementing their policies.
However, politicisation of permanent bureaucracy creates a rot in all spheres, hurting both morale and morality of the incumbents of concerned sectors. Unfortunately, however, our leadership has failed to grasp the severe consequences of blanket politicisation because it not only takes away quality but also demoralises the efficient and committed ones to the core.