Dignity of public servants

A senior politician belonging to the ruling political party has taken the public servants to task by warning that those employees who would not obey the orders of the government would be sent home (read sacked) for non-compliance. The media has taken issue with such intemperate utterance and has doubts if he realises the difference between lawful orders and illegal directives, and if he can really see the difference between party interests and imperatives of good governance.
Politicians belonging to the opposition have also taken an adverse view of such warning. They have termed this as manifest evidence of the ruling establishment's deliberate effort to politicise the administrative framework with a view to obtaining unfair advantage during the upcoming national election. They have urged the public servants to remain upright, neutral and impartial and act strictly according to the law. Cynical observers have commented that the opposition politicians expect the servants of the Republic to remain strictly impartial until they assume the mantle of power.
Concerned citizens might like to know if servants of the Republic could be intimidated in such blatant manner. What is the Constitutional position of such public servants? A relevant question would be whether the public servants could look upon their position as appointed representatives of the Republic.
In western democracies, generally, the constitutional and practical role of the civil service is to act with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity to assist the duly constituted government, of whatever political complexion, in formulating policies of government, carrying out decisions of the government and in administering public services for which the government is responsible.
Civil servants are duty-bound to give honest and impartial advice to ministers and to "endeavour to deal with the affairs of the public sympathetically, effectively, promptly and without bias or maladministration of public money.'' They are also required to conduct themselves in such a manner as to ''deserve and retain the confidence of ministers and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future administration.'' Civil servants must not misuse their official position to further their own or another's personal interest.
About conduct of civil servants it is imperative that the civil service avoids creating the impression of political bias. The anonymity and political neutrality of civil servants are reinforced by the rules restricting political activity. This is obvious because civil servants have to serve governments of all political persuasions. Therefore, it is imperative that civil servants, whatever their private political views, should not be seen to be politically active in a manner which would inevitably compromise their neutrality under one political party or another.
One has to agree that there are some elements in the principles of governance in a democratic country which are more or less immutable over time and space. Random use of the term colonial in a pejorative sense does not in reality promote the interests of good governance. The concept of independent institutions free from political influence, to the extent possible, got firmly rooted in the constitution and the laws made from time to time not only in India but also in other British colonies. India and Pakistan, in 1947, did not have a problem in adopting the concept.
In Bangladesh, the issue of morale of the civil service with a view to maintaining a positive work environment and the imperative of a politically neutral civil service has not received due attention of the politicians. The marked indifference to civil service reform measures may have been caused by the political government's deliberately keeping grey areas that enable them to manipulate the career prospects of senior civil servants. In addition, the lurking distrust on the part of the political leadership may have prompted them not to have a merit-based administrative system.
Citizens of a democratic polity could justifiably ask if there was a dignity of difference. In other words, whether dissent or difference of opinion, as opposed to those of the establishment, is a healthy attribute of a pluralist dispensation. One has to admit that cultivation of prejudice damages the tolerance, liberality and compassion that are the hallmarks of a democratic culture.
The question is, can we in Bangladesh defend a liberal principle by retaining a medieval prejudice? Don't we witness a temper which presses a partisan advantage to the bitter end and does not understand and respect the other side and does not feel a unity between all citizens?
It is time perhaps to appreciate and recognise that democracy depends upon habits of consent and compromise which are attributes only of mature political societies. Lawful government by a majority, under the rule of abiding law, and with freedom of opposition and dissent is an exceptional human achievement. Therefore, we have to be pragmatic to understand that if the spirit of moderation does not prevail, Bangladeshi society will slide into divisions and hatred will replace goodwill.
Discerning observers wonder if a good number of our public leaders personify the arrogance of power, the exact opposite of the unfeigned humility of caring guardians. Some have pretensions to infallibility while others appear to be under a solemn promise never to become wiser.
The dignity of difference has to be ensured in our context because that would guarantee the harbouring of a certain extravagance of objectives whereupon men and women would wander beyond the safe provision of personal gratifications.
If difference is not accorded dignity, then the individual would be precariously subordinated to the State and our nation will be made up of one-dimensional human beings. When we dwarf our folks to turn them into docile instruments we will find that no great thing can really be accomplished with small men.
Holding a different view on national issues should be a respectable stance because that will ensure that arbitrary power does not wear the garb of constitutionalism. The dominant impulse must be the freedom from fear; pervasive, oppressing, strangling fear; fear of the official class.
The dignity of difference will be catalytic in establishing true leadership by unleashing the full power of the organisation and releasing the potential and energy of all concerned. When groups function harmoniously the synergistic effect of such harmony will be felt at the earliest. The sustained harmony will ultimately ensure the good of the country in the years ahead.
The unfortunate reality is that the dignity of our public servants is unfavourably impacted both at the entry level and during subsequent progression. The vision and wisdom of the political bosses can reverse the adverse scenario. We have to appreciate that a partisan and pliant bureaucracy marked by cringing behaviour is not conducive for a strong and mature political government.

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.