Tariq Mahmood Awan
The Chief Secretary’s office is Pakistan’s most potent bureaucratic office. However, the office contains legal and constitutional anomalies. The post of chief Secretary is a provincial post directly related to the affairs of a province. A province’s provincial Services and General Administration department notifies it. The provincial assembly legislate it in the annual finance bill. Hence, it is a provincial post with provincial legislative, administrative and financial authority.
Then, how can the federal government appoint it? No, the federal government can not appoint a chief secretary. The following article explains it.
However, this is not the subject matter of the article. Is there a need to hold the post of chief Secretary when the chief executive of the province is chief minister? It is the subject matter of the article.
The post of chief Secretary is not a constitutional office. Hence, according to Article 240 (b) of the Constitution and the Provincial Civil Servants Act, it is an administrative post of a province ordinarily created like so many others. The province has an exclusive legislative, executive and financial competency on the post of chief Secretary. The post and allied functions can be organized according to Article 240(b) and Article 139, respectively, by the legislative and executive competency of the provincial government. Competently, the provincial government can abolish, modify, and amend not only the service rules of the post but also the functions of the post. Then, the office of a Chief Minister is a constitutional office according to Article 130 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Please, subscribe to the website of the republicpolicy.com
Historically, the East India Company formalized a patronage system for nominating civil servants within the elite club, barring a competitive process. The Government of India Act 1853 substituted the nomination system with an open competitive examination to recruit civil servants. Progressively, the Government of India Act 1858 afforded that India shall be governed by and in the name of Her Majesty. Consequently, this authorized the Secretary of State for India to make regulations for the admission of candidates to the civil service of India. Accordingly, the civil service became competitive and accountable to the British Parliament.
Similarly, the office of chief Secretary was established under the direct control of the Secretary of state for India to head the administration of a province. The role of Indian politicians was merely advisory. On the way to Independence, section 10 of the Indian Independence Act expunged all the provisions relating to the reservation of posts, obliterating the colonial scheme of civil service.
However, the centralists, then at the helm of affairs, adopted the same colonial scheme of reserving provincial posts for central services without law to control the provinces. The same practice is still in place in 2023 despite the promulgation of the 18th Amendment. Hence, there is no constitutional or legal provision available to appoint a federal civil servant on the provincial post of chief Secretary by the federal government. Instead, the appointment is anti-federal and against the spirit of federalism and provincial autonomy protected in the constitution of Pakistan.
The only argument the centralists contend is that the mode of appointment and subsequent functions are vital to the connectivity between federation and provinces. This argument is absurd and carries no constitutional or legal substance. Constitutionally, the Council of Common Interests (CCI) formed under Articles 153 & 154 of the constitution of Pakistan provides connectivity between the federation and provinces according to the Federal Legislative List Part II. Besides, the governor’s office established under the Constitution is a linchpin between federal and provincial governments.
Now, this fundamental question needs a thorough investigation. Is it essential to preserve the post of chief Secretary where the Chief Minister is the province’s chief executive? Article 130 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Cabinet of Ministers, with the Chief Minister as its head, thus constituting a provincial government. It categorically authenticates the Chief Minister as the sole chief executive of the province. Against this constitutional backdrop, the post of chief Secretary should not exist as the chief minister is a chosen representative by the people to hold the constitutional office, that of chief executive.
Please, subscribe to the monthly magazines of republicpolicy.com
Let the argument be crossed! Article 139 of the Constitution empowers provincial governments to make rules of business. For example, the Punjab Government formulated the Rules of Business in 2011. Section 5 of those rules illustrates the functions of the Chief Minister, whereas section 9 provides the functions of the Chief Secretary. Yet, Ironically, the functions of the Chief Minister are less executive than those of the Chief Secretary. None other but the provincial government has to take the blame for making a mockery of the office of the Chief Minister. The provincial government should realize the constitutional and democratic responsibility to reorganize the functions of the chief Secretary to make the office facilitator, not a commander of the provincial government. The only substantive function the Chief secretary performs is that he is the Secretary of cabinet. Therefore, amendments are required first to appoint the Cabinet Secretary and then appoint an exclusive minister for the Department of Services and General Administration Department. Even doing this little Amendment, there will be no need for the office of chief Secretary. The provincial governments can easily do it even through an executive order. It is a cabinet government, and there is no need for the chief Secretary to be a substitute for the chief minister. Then, there is no post like chief Secretary in the federal government, where the chief executive is the prime minister. Why is this happening? It is happening because the federal government wants to control the provinces against the spirit of federalism and autonomy.
The provincial government should at least reorganize the functions of the chief Secretary if it is willing to continue the post of chief Secretary.
Who is preventing the provincial governments from abolishing the post or reorganizing the functions of the Chief Secretary? Paradoxically, there has always been a marriage of inconvenience between Pakistan’s de jure and de facto power corridors. Despite the de jure proposition, there is a de facto colonial hangover around the office of the Chief Secretary. Furthermore, the provincial governments are not allowed to implement administrative federalism by centralist politicians, bureaucracy, judiciary and other institutions.
In Pakistan, there are severe challenges to administrative federalism and devolution. Centralists prefer the chief Secretary post over the chief minister’s representative office for multiple administrative, executive and political factors. Political leaders love to concentrate all the powers in themselves, barring the devolution of political powers to junior leadership. It is in their interest to keep the power of appointing a chief Secretary to control the provincial governments. This scripted confusion often leads to confrontation among involved parties owing to the inherent flaw of keeping two offices of CS and CM alive. Then, provincial political leaders must impose their constitutional authority to upkeep the only valid chief executive office.
Likewise, the position of chief Secretary is against the canons of cabinet governance and halts the processes of cabinet governance. It brings in bureaucratic slowdowns and layoffs in the cabinet governance. The worst procedure is routing the official business through the office of the chief Secretary. It creates delays, pendency, obstructions and hiccups. The operations of the chief Secretary create unnecessary financial and structural costs for the cabinet governance.
Nonetheless, the chief Secretary is also the cabinet secretary and controls the processes of legislation, administration and policy decisions. Comparatively, the federal government does not maintain an office similar to that of the chief Secretary in order to warrant the smooth delivery of official business.
Lastly, why is it mandatory for the provincial governments to keep an office directly in conflict with the powers of the chief minister? Hence, the office of the chief Secretary should either be abolished or reorganized to facilitate the Chief Minister in attaining governance and service delivery. Supposedly, if there is no chief minister for a whole year, will the province function? Yes, it will function because the defacto chief executive is the chief secretary. It is the model the British implemented in India, where politicians were not partners. The office is directly in conflict with the provincial political mandate and structurally against the empowerment of politicians. It is a substitute model of governance, and if it is not abolished, the politicians will remain unempowered.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
