Politicisation of administration: How much is enough?

It would not be just to put all the blames on the government. This desperate situation did not occur in a day. Weakening of administration started right from the beginning. Mujib government, by accepting the principle of 2-year ante-dated seniority to Mujibnagar employees as a reward to their patriotism rather dealt a blow to the morale of the employees who passed their days in great strain during the war of independence in Bangladesh. Some civil servants obtained unprecedented promotions or appreciations. Apart from Mujibnagar employees some close relation got unimaginable promotion (from a mere gazetted class II officer to that of the highly covetous additional secretary). Also we do not see any other reason for appointment of some known corrupt civil servants. If corrupt officials are placed at very critical positions, other civil servants naturally enough will feel encouraged to be less honest.

Even during Sheikh Hasina regime of 1996-2001 we saw enough politicisation. Regrettably, the said regime could not be benefited from such practice. The present regime of Khaleda, obviously, trust less on the older civil servants because of the sad experience of Janatar Mancha, a bureaucrat led rebellion of a group of government servants. Yet the present regime can hardly justify whimsical appointments of 150 officers for Election Commission from JCD cadres, or large scale promotion to the posts of additional/joint/deputy secretary ignoring seniority or appointments in certain high positions ignoring the recommendations of establishment division/cabinet sub-committee or unending extensions of contracts. These are certainly harmful for maintaining discipline in service.

A democratic government must express the will of the governed, that popularly elected representatives should have a major share of government, that the rule of law must regulate governmental procedure, that the governed should be informed of the decisions taken on their behalf. The very fact of the huge growth of public officials raises problems to which those principles give no direct answer.

Criteria such as accountability, responsibility, responsiveness or representativeness are held to be the appropriate standards implied by the values of democracy, to which public services must be kept offering a redefinition of public administration to include policy formulation. Those who believe that the policy-making functions of officials are insufficiently appreciated are more intent on developing the ideas of government expressing a basic popular will and a free flow of information between governors and the governed.

The public officials can exercise influence on decisions before they are made by giving advice of sifting information. The decision which is made may formally confer wide discretionary powers on those who have to implement it, or such powers may de fecto come to exist because the decision is open to various interpretations.

The key condition for democratic administration is the existence of authoritative ways of instructing officials. The authoritative bodies in the United States are Congress and the President assisted by the central staff agencies and the courts. Limits are set in prescribing the tasks of administration which are made more real by specifying the nature of the organisation required and the finance available. Control over appointments, review and investigating procedures provide additional tolls for ensuring democratic administration.

There is considerable strength in the argument that there cannot be 'neutral administration'. Even if those who control officials are elected representatives. The results of persistent examination of the extent to which officials adhere to rules may very well be self-defeating, generating evasion, defensiveness and only minimally satisfactory performance. It is generally accepted that a responsible administrator is responsible both to public sentiment and to technical knowledge. Neither of these factors can be assured by decree. The commitment of the officials to democratic values is a more important safeguard for democracy than any formal system of control. Methods of achieving this result includes a strong emphasis on professional competence and a recruitment policy which both selects persons of the right calibre and ensures that they have a ready sympathy for all sections of the community. In fact, professionalism and representativeness are expected to enhance public trust.

The modern public official is revealed as a paternalistic aristocrat. The public speaks, yet their formal system of control methods of achieving this result includes a strong emphasis on professional competence and a recruitment policy which both selects persons of the right calibre and ensures that their social background is such that they have a ready sympathy for all sections of the community. Professionalism and responsiveness are expected to enhance public trust and the result of this will be a decline in the demand for formal controls.

Max Weber suggested for 'partial self-government' in the service to inhibit public interference. To him the responsible administrator is one who is responsible both to public sentiment and to technical knowledge.' Machiavelli urged the 'prince' to choose competent ministers, and to reward their fidelity so that they should not have to seek rewards from other services. Chinese administration was familiar with notions of seniority, merit ratings, official statistics and written reports.

It is generally assumed that though all men are members of interest groups a small number can see the interest of all. Democracy is held to be about this common interest. It has little to do with the locus of political action. It is clear that the area of state action will continue to grow, that public officials will increase in numbers, that their calibre must always be improved because their decisions are becoming more complex. It is not the power of officials which presents a problem, but the way in which that power is used.

Like other democratic governments the Government of Bangladesh must express the will of the governed, that rule of law must regulate governmental procedure, that the governed should be informed of the decisions taken on their behalf. So far we have been seriously deprived of a good administration (not to speak of good governance). Politicisation of administration to a certain extent may be tolerable. The government must realise that despite swelling in the number of graduates every year it is difficult to find out good number of really good quality graduates in a highly politicised environment. It is always wise to trust only few. Trusting too many may invite danger, the danger of inefficiency, corruption and betrayal. What is urgently needed is reform in administration and not politicisation so that the future bureaucracy can tackle successfully more and more complexities of administration.

ABMS Zahur is a retired Joint Secretary.