"You will never understand bureaucrats until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing" -- Thomas Sowell, an American writer and economist.

Bureaucracy is borrowed from the French bureaucratie, which itself was formed by combining bureau (desk) and cratie (a suffix denoting a kind of government). The English word refers to an entire body of unelected government officials or to the much disliked system (often associated with red tapism) that may result from administration by bureaucrats.

From its earliest appearances, bureaucracy has carried a distinctly negative connotation. An 1815 London Times article, for example, declares: "………it is in this bureaucracy, Gentlemen, that you will find the invisible and mischievous power which thwarts the most noble views, and prevents or weakens the effect of all the salutary reforms which France is incessantly calling for".

The affairs of a state are complex and cover a vast variety of subjects which require special expertise, competence and unique abilities to enable the implementation of government policies, laws and decisions made by elected public officials. In other words, the entire bureaucratic structure is designed to carry out the task of running the government and providing services. This is also called public administration, of which some members are assigned the duties of translating policies into written rules and regulations while some are responsible for publically administering these policies. Generally speaking, the three main objectives that are intended to be achieved through bureaucracy are:

Promoting public good

Establishing law and order and protecting the lives and property of the people

Managing a strong and sustainable economy

If these objectives are truly at the core of each bureaucrat’s heart and mind there is no reason why a country cannot prosper and why the people of that country cannot be but satisfied and content with the performance of its officials, both elected and unelected.

There are two popular models of bureaucracy: Weberian and Acquisitive. The former was envisioned by the famous German sociologist Max Weber who laid down the following characteristics:

Hierarchy: It envisages the concept of power flowing from the chief right down to the bottom level. Thus, there is a clear chain of command which ensures that everyone is controlled by a boss of course, overseen by the chief.

Specialisation: Important areas of government covering for example, international relations, fiscal laws, science and technology, infrastructure development etc. require special expertise, knowledge and wisdom. Unless these are present, no government can claim effective delivery of its policies.

Division of labour: The complex administrative machinery is broken down into smaller cogs that perform specific functions that enable the entire system to work efficiently. Even if one cog is not contributing properly, the whole apparatus is bound to suffer as a consequence.

Standard operating procedure: In order to create predictability and certainty for both officials and the public, rules are formalised to ensure that the same procedure is followed which produces the same kind of results in similar situations.

The latter, "acquisitive model" that originates from the works of Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli is quite distinguishable. In his 16th century work, The Prince, he wrote that authority and power are not contingent upon morality. According to Stanford University, Machiavelli believed that a law was only as effective as it was enforceable. In the treatise he writes, "Since there cannot be good laws without good arms, I will not consider laws but speak of arms." As a result, Machiavelli considered the use of power to be the main vehicle of political activity, which all rulers are supposed to understand. This emphasis on power reflects the self-perpetuation argument. This claims that bureaucratic institutions are difficult to terminate and end up exerting influence over other branches of the government.

Experts point to the existence of the American Interstate Commerce Commission 11 years after the duties it oversaw were deregulated in 1980. Similar models include the monopolistic, which states that bureaucracy reflects a monopoly in that it has no competition. Therefore, it has no incentive to be efficient with its resources.

However, according to the Encyclopedia of Britannica: "Bureaucracy is a body of professional, full time officials employed in the civil affairs of a state in non-political capacity." The requirements of the civil service are that it shall be impartially selected, administratively competent, politically neutral and imbibed with the service to the community.

As much as one would like to see a Weberian model of administration in Pakistan, the fact remains that our country is a classic example of the Machiavellian principles of governance in which the entire state apparatus is moulded to harp the tune of those in power even at the expense of inflicting long term damage on the nation.

When a comparison is made between the public and private sector one of the biggest difference is noted in the level of competence and cost effectiveness. This implies that where employees do not come up to the requisite standards, their services can be terminated or they are not considered eligible for promotion rather they could be demoted. On the contrary and with rare exception to the rule, civil servants easily get away for their incompetence, indiscipline, lack of prudence, harassment of the public, misuse of powers, loss of revenue, violation of law, misdemeanour and everything which is not tolerated in the private sector. All because, the system through which they are employed is outdated and not in line with the concept of the right man for the right job.

Thus, it would be observed that professionals like engineers, doctors, army personnel are recruited in services for which their academic qualifications are not compatible. As a result, they are unable to grapple with certain situations which call for expertise in fields for which they may not be fully proficient despite specialised training given to them by the government. Since they are confident about the permanency of their employment, the need to excel is not as pressing as it is in the private sector.

It has also been observed that civil servants are prone to pleasing their political masters to gain short term benefits even if it entails veering the right course. Gone are the days when civil servants would put their foot down for any measure which was detrimental to the interest of the public at large. Nowadays, rules are bent in favour of whimsical desires of the politicians.

An exemplary case is that of sasti roti scheme where billions were lost but no effort was made by the seasoned civil servants to deter the imposition of this brainless idea. These were followed by the Metro Bus Project, financial details of which were conveniently gutted by over-zealous bureaucrats so as not to be accountable to the public from whose tax money they get their salaries. The issue of Orange Train is still in the doldrums, thanks to the army of ‘able-bodied’ and ‘highly competent’ civil servants sitting as watch-dogs of public welfare.

Another latest example is that of laying lines for Safe Lahore Project. For more than eighteen months, Lahore was traumatised by many feet of road excavations, during which all underground lines could have easily been laid but no ‘competent’ official came up with the idea. But just when people were celebrating a good and clean network of roads, in came proponents of Safe Lahore and mercilessly dug up the well-tiled pavements to leave in their wake ugly and deplorable sites with red pipes jutting out like tongues as if mocking the people and exposing the government officials’ high standards of execution.

This endless trail of inefficiencies and plundering of public money can never end where civil servants have no fear of accountability and are in servitude to their political masters whose favour they seek. Undoubtedly, the benefits they derive by licking their boots can be capable of overturning the fortunes of their families but the curses they receive from the public can deprive them of their peace of mind, health and spiritual contentment.