By Tariq Mehmood Awan – Colonial Culture of Bureaucracy and Citizens of Pakistan
We call them civil servants? The phrase is symbolic. Commonly, it attributes the bureaucrats cum civil servants shall serve the people as per law. Then, it has been a lofty aim to help people. Collective life is more critical than individual life.
Furthermore, collective public life is obligatory and mandatory. There is no superiority of work. It is simply a division of labour, and labour is superior. No labour is inferior nor superior. Hence, civil service is not a superior form of labour. It is inherently a public service. However, it has yet to be the case in Pakistan.
Pakistan inherited a colonial civil service. The British developed colonial civil service to meet their objectives of colonialism, such as keeping possession, exploiting resources and treating the people as subjects. Therefore, they moulded coded laws, organizational structures and service cadres to promote the objectives of colonialism. The Laws like those of the Revenue Act, CRPC and CPC etc., were imposed, treating the local Indians as subjects, not citizens, to say the least. However, the creation of Pakistan should have changed this culture of subjugation altogether. However, it could not be materialized owing to multiple reasons. Then, the biggest reason for colonial administrative culture is the acceptance of people who never resisted this inhumane culture of treatment.
Therefore, if one has a chance to visit the office of the deputy commissioner of Lahore, or the director general of the Lahore Development Authority, LDA, one will find one is still a subject, not a citizen. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s constitution guarantees fundamental rights of citizens. Then, article 199 of the constitution ensures that executive work is performed according to the fundamental rights of the citizens. Moreover, they are civil servants and also morally bound to serve the people. However, serving people apart, most of them are unwilling to meet ordinary citizens in public offices. Therefore, it is the direct negation of the people’s fundamental rights. How can civil servants weave extraordinary protocols around their offices?
Peons, guards and shields guard the offices of senior officers. This colonial practice humiliates the citizens and leaves them with no choice but to offer a bribe to the staff. It is the primary reason for the minor corruption in the offices. Most of the time, the chit system remains in place, and chits are provided to the officers sitting in the offices; now, it is their sweet discretion whether to meet one or not. Most of the time, the citizens need references to meet the officer concerned. It is unacceptable as a citizen that one is treated like a subject before a civil servant. It is also a negation of public service one is recruited for.
Then, most civil servants defend the protocols for multiple due reasons. They attribute that they remain busy in meetings, office work and other administrative tasks and need more time to meet people. It may be a genuine reason. However, it is only the case sometimes. Most of the time, the civil servants, out of their colonial hangover and cultural assimilation of colonial bureaucracy, either consciously or unconsciously, treat the citizens as subjects. Various governments have introduced the open door policy, but it has yet to work. Open courts are also in place, but these are more ostensible measures rather than evolving civil servants’ cultural and administrative behaviour.
There is a need to compare the performance of public civil servants to private civil servants. The private companies providing services to the people are far more friendly and humane than the governmental organizations. For example, there are mobile companies, which are providing services to people with utmost care and respect as compared to governmental organizations. Yes, it is their business, but the provision of services is the fundamental obligation of civil services. If private services behave humanely, why not public civil services? What is the superiority of public civil services? They behave inhumanely with the people because they have no fear of administrative accountability, and also, people have no care for their fundamental rights.
Commonly, the political executive treats citizens better than the bureaucratic executive. The political executive’s fundamental obligation is to ensure that people are respected in public offices. The public offices, possessed by civil servants, inherently belong to the people. These offices are established to serve people, not to humiliate them. The egoistic and self-centred behaviour is unacceptable. The citizens should not accept it and must come forward for their fundamental rights.
Furthermore, the performance evaluation report PER must reflect the people’s feedback. The people’s feedback must be incorporated into evaluating civil service performance. It will make sure that a civil servant remains accessible to the public and performs duties accordingly. It is also essential that if a civil servant closes the doors to the public, his immediate supervisory officer is held responsible for this denial of the open door policy. Lastly, the citizens must know their rights. The public offices are established to facilitate them rather than to rule them. If citizens are committed to their rights, the civil servants shall have no choice except to respect and serve them.
The writer is a civil servant serving in Punjab and leading a society for implementation of Administrative Federalism. He tweets at @PMScivilservant
