Principles for reform: Part - I

Talk of civil service reform is in the air since Prime Minister Imran Khan’s speech. I am afraid that these reforms will go the same way as in the past – some window dressing, a change in nomenclature with further centralisation and more power to a DMG-like service. Islamabad always grows in power!

This is an important reform initiative to take. All of society and our best brains should be engaged in making this happen. Most important of all, the prime minister and the cabinet must be fully engaged in making this happen.

To begin with, we must all clarify certain principles and develop a vision of what we want. We must begin by recognising that the civil service comprises the bulk of the executive, and affects all aspects of society. The configuration of the civil service for a new society in a new century should be of serious interest to all. Consequently, this reform should not be done in backrooms. And the bureaucracy – the patient that needs healing – should not be the major designer of this reform. Nor should donors, a large ineffective bureaucracy themselves, be allowed into the process. Finally, international consultants who thrive on copy-paste processes should also be left out. Let society and its representatives work hard and think this one through.

Reform should be designed by a process such as an independent commission comprising (or backed up by) serious technical skills, intellectual firepower and certainly some fresh faces. The commission must hold open consultations with the civil society and other parts of society. Donor input, if any, should be subjected to local public scrutiny and not just implemented.

The commission should begin with an enunciation of key principles of reform and debate them widely. These principles of reform must be clearly understood and debated in parliament and passed into law. Civil service reform is too important to be left to administrative change in rules alone.

What then are the principles that such a reform should seek? To start with, Unified Pay Scales (UPS) should be abolished. The civil service should not be viewed as a monolith comprising all government employees. Currently Unified Pay Scales (UPS) which are a hangover of the socialist planning days seek to place all services on an artificial relative scale so that doctors and professors are considered inferior to administrators. This seriously impedes professional development and should be discontinued. Government agencies should be allowed to establish their own pay scales within their budgets and according to the market for professionalism in the country.

Lifetime predetermined careers, where promotions are guaranteed at known intervals, have to be discontinued. The current entitlement mentality of the civil servants has to end. Merit rather than entitlement should be initiated so that performance is rewarded.

The independence of the civil service must be guaranteed by law. This can only be done if the law ensures that all key decisions about the running of the service (recruitment, promotions, transfers, pay and pensions) are protected from any interference. Of course, all these things happen under legal guidelines but that is all. Parliamentarians and ministers should not be able to control civil service appointments at any level.

The established practice of ‘public service should not be paid well’ needs serious review. Public service positions are too important to be shortchanged. Public servants should be paid well, in keeping with the heavy responsibilities they carry. All serious reforming countries have done that. Appointments and promotions should be on merit and external competition, after which market-based salaries should be given.

Civil servants should be paid well in (and only in) cash on competitive terms with the private sector. We should remember that the colonial empire paid them handsomely and got good returns. Lee Kuan Yew’s early reform was to pay the civil service well. In moving to higher salaries, let’s not forget the invisible forms of payment when we are talking of increasing their salaries. Right now, the bulk of payment to senior government officials is in perks (free housing, fleet of cars for personal use, large number of servants and hangers-on, paid utility bills, board memberships, subsidised clubs, arbitrary gifts of land). The way things stand, a bureaucrat is cash-poor but perks-rich.

Perks must be abolished it the incentives of civil servants are to be aligned with the needs of public service delivery and professionalism. Some well-known drawbacks need to be reviewed: they are invisible forms of payment that depend on discretion of the powers that be and hence can be sued to buy allegiance. This is one important way in which the civil service can be politicised. The faithful will get better houses more plots etc.

Moreover, perks cost the government a lot. Houses that are given to government officials are very expensive, built in city centers and blocking city development. Maintenance of cars and houses can be big expenses and offer large opportunities for corruption. As is well known from economic research, the expense of the perks is much larger than the benefit given to the employee. Cash payment of a much smaller amount could make the employee much better off and the government could also save money.

Perks have become a symbol of power and lead to a VIP mentality. Officials live in government-given luxury, segregated from the people, and get treated differently because of such perks. Hence, officials do not understand the lack of public services. In their government colonies, they experience less resource shortages than in other neighbourhoods. Their fleet of official cars protects them from public transport and the necessity of owning and servicing their own vehicle. They don’t have to buy home security in these secure gated estates. In other words, they have a very privileged lifestyle that is totally separated from local reality.

Finally, perks are not uniformly available and have to be rationed. In the rationing process, coalitions form and favours are exchanged. These grouping accumulate power and act as coalitions within official circles. Eventually, systems of governance are weakened as such coalitions exert pressure for their own benefits.

To be continued

The writer is former deputy chairman of the Planning Commission.

Email: nhaque_imf@yahoo.com

Twitter: @nadeemhaque

Website: http://development20.blogs pot.com