Is our civil service in limbo?

THE civil service in Bangladesh is now suffering from an identity crisis hanging between professional neutrality and political loyalty. The democratic governments in Bangladesh since 1991 have repeatedly tried to politicise the civil service in order to achieve their narrow political interests. A service, which once was considered the "steel frame" of the British Empire has eroded to such a state that it now more resembles a pack of cards to be dismantled and assembled at the wishes of the political masters of the day.
In the heydays of the civil service, i.e. during the British and even Pakistani periods, civil servants were chosen on the basis of merit through highly competitive and stringent selection procedure. Their numbers were not large and success to the civil service was held in high esteem in society. It earned them social trust and they were mostly neutral although loyal to the political masters but their professional neutrality and code of performance guided their performance.
Tadbir or lobbying which has now become a part and parcel of the civil service for promotion, good posting and transfer was unheard of in those days. The practice of tadbir is now widespread in the civil service and is an efficient mechanism for individual gain at the cost of professional norms and universal application of rules.
Now the question is why this identity crisis? What factors contribute to the downfall of civil service in terms of professional norms and moral standards?
The major cause of the downfall of professional norms in the bureaucracy is the politicisation of bureaucracy and making bureaucrats pawn at the hands of the political masters. To obtain higher positions or lucrative postings, they now have to side with either the Awami League or the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.
Nowadays it is quite common for top ranking civil servants to join a political party after retirement and become advisors. Given their experience, expertise, and access to information they are definitely attractive partners to political parties who take full advantage of this situation to reward or dump some bureaucrats according to their wishes.
One should not blame the bureaucrats for being partisans; rather it's the political parties who have made the bureaucrats' life uncertain and unpredictable. Even those bureaucrats who intend to remain neutral and climb the ladder of success through hard labour and performance are denied this opportunity. Therefore, to rise to top positions in bureaucracy is now hinged on political pendulum and one has to be vary careful to swing the pendulum, i.e. which side one chooses may either reward him profusely or cost him dearly.
A bureaucrat must be allowed to operate in the professional sphere with universal norms and code of behaviour rather than in the political arena with narrow political motives and gains. If he becomes a pawn of political manoeuvre to obtain gains then bureaucracy is surely going to lose neutrality and universality and in turn would become biased and clientelistic.
Politicisation also has led to serious erosion of merit in recruitment to the civil service. It is no more a profession, which is considered highly attractive among top achievers at universities. How can high performances are expected from a profession manned and run by mediocre who seldom have opportunities to upgrade and update their skills? Moreover, promotion is not based on individual performance and the recruitment procedure is not regular.
The civil service exams are not held in time and allegations of corruption are often reported in news media in times of recruitment. The Public Service Commission (PSC), which is a constitutional body and the centralised recruiting agency for all cadre civil servants is now usually manned by political appointees and allegations are sometimes lodged of their preferences for candidates with strong connections to the party in power.
Irregularities in recruitment have also led to tug of war, conflicts and distrust among different batches for promotions to higher posts and eventually fragmentation in the civil service, for example between the 1982 regular and the 1982 special batch (earlier between the 1973 batch -- the so called Muktijodha batch -- and the regular batches of 1978 and 1979). The source of conflict is the way they were recruited. This break of professional format for recruitment has now allowed fragmentation and disregard of a batch by others in the bureaucracy.
The integrity and cohesiveness that once were the backbones of the civil service have been gradually broken and it is no wonder that now we find many bureaucrats resorting to tadbir using political and regional connections to get preferred posting and promotion.
Given the above scenario, how can we expect present day's civil servants to be professionally neutral and citizen oriented? Certain institution building measures are necessary to restore the glory, integrity, social trust, professionalism and dedication of the civil service.
First, the recruitment procedures and selection criteria must be reviewed and updated to recruit the best and competent graduates. This is only possible when the civil service becomes lucrative for prospective graduates. The defence services in Bangladesh have maintained to remain a strict, competitive and lucrative to future cadets. Such reputation and image are necessary for recruiting the best and the competent.
Promotion and posting must be based on performance and relevance. Performance must be measured according to professional standards and fulfilling of responsibilities and assigned targets. Relevance denotes putting the right person in the right place in right time. This would make the life and career prospects of bureaucrats more certain and predictable, and make them aware of what are the criteria for promotion to higher positions as well as what are the "dos" and "don'ts."
Second, bureaucrats must be able to maintain professional neutrality. There is a need to make them professional experts in line with other professions such as the armed personnel. This doesn't mean to make the bureaucracy regimented but a service that maintains and upholds professional norms. There shouldn't be political intervention in the daily affairs of the civil service.
The major purpose of politics is to guide and frame major policies. The job of implementation of these must rest with the bureaucracy and it be held duly accountable if there is a breach to perform according to rules of conduct and norms. Bureaucrats should and must not be used in the political game for implementing certain policies that would favour the party in power or in winning elections. If this happens bureaucracy will lose professional neutrality and be fragmented, and the consequence may again be political biasness, unpredictability and uncertainty in bureaucratic behaviour.
And, finally, what is most required is a strong political commitment and will to restore social trust and professional norms in bureaucracy. This may again re-institutionalise and rebuild bureaucracy from further erosion and degradation. The party in power must not search for party loyalists to reward them and put them in important positions and on the other hand punish those belonging to the opposite camp.
A bureaucrat's life and career must not be disrupted because he is alleged to belong to a certain political camp. The practice of picking party loyalists for bestowing favour may further fragment the bureaucracy.
Dr. Ishtiaq Jamil is Associate Professor, Department of Administration and Organisation Theory, University of Bergen, Norway (e-mail: ishtiaq.jamil@aorg.uib.no).
Dr. Pranab Kumar Panday is Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh.