Tariq Mahmood Awan
I have had the opportunity to work with civil servants and parliamentarians for a long time as a civil servant and as a writer and researcher. In both groups, I have personal relationships and friendships. We often bring together civil servants, politicians, and other relevant groups on different forums so that issues of governance can be discussed and meaningful dialogue can be promoted. Lawyers, judges, military officers, and ordinary citizens also participate in these discussions.
However, the most difficult situation in my personal experience occurs when politicians and bureaucrats are seated at the same table. I have often felt that all the blame for Pakistan’s failures and administrative problems is placed on politicians. The awareness and unconsciousness of politicians about bureaucracy shows a deep negative impression. It is surprising that this same bureaucracy continues to benefit politicians with concessions and benefits for its institutional and administrative interests, yet despite this, its attitude and general perspective about politicians do not change.
On the contrary, my observation is that politicians generally show more tolerance, decency, and restraint when talking about bureaucracy. I have attended as many meetings and discussions regarding civil service reforms, and the basic stance of bureaucracy is generally centered around two points: first, politicians should not interfere in administrative affairs; second, politicians should not let government officials do their job. It seems that the fundamental reason for the failures of governance in Pakistan is the interference of politicians and political instability.
But here is a fundamental question: if politicians have not been given the opportunity to hold power and make decisions freely and independently for eight and a half centuries in Pakistan’s history, then how have they been an obstacle in the way of work in Pakistan’s administrative affairs? And if bureaucracy has had extraordinary authority and influence in administrative affairs for a long time, then what exemplary governance has it established during this period that can be considered a model of Pakistan’s success?
To this day, I have not been able to understand why such a strong negative trend is found among politicians within bureaucracy. The presence of politicians in a democratic system, political oversight, and administrative accountability is not an extraordinary interference but a necessary requirement of constitutional governance.
In this context, another interesting situation is emerging. When the National Parliament and Provincial Assemblies start calling bureaucrats to answer about their governmental performance and administrative affairs, it is observed that civil servants are not facing any ruling class, political party or their own institutional interests, but are facing the state and the people. The basic and constitutional way of public accountability is the constitution, while the judiciary ensures accountability through the supremacy of the constitution and legal scrutiny of administrative actions.
Therefore, the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies calling civil servants is not an insult to them or an attack on administrative freedom, but is an inevitable part of the democratic and constitutional system. Instead of being afraid of politicians’ supervision, bureaucracy should accept it as a natural demand of public mandate and constitutional supremacy. Ultimately, civil service is a servant of the state, not its ruler.
I have elaborated on this topic in detail in my book “Fixing the Legalizer”.
The best-selling books of Republic Policy Think Tank, including the landmark book The Bureaucratic Coup, are available at Vanguard Books, Liberty Books, Readings, Kitab Sarai, Sang-e-Meel, Saeed Book Bank Islamabad, National Book Foundation, and other leading bookstores across Pakistan. For home delivery, contact
+92 341 4222501 (WhatsApp).
