Attempting to define a public policy imperative without any substantial institutional arrangements is counterproductive. Whether it is a country, an organisation, a community, or a family, the collective discourse always warrants disciplined and rational action.

This is not happening in our decision-making towards bureaucratic reforms. The main formal institutions relevant to public service delivery include government departments at the federal, provincial, and district levels. Much has been said about the failure of our institutions. The malady is admittedly a result of poorly reached decisions at all levels of our political and administrative landscape.

In the end, its victims are none other than the already oppressed citizens of this country. Sadly, there is no hope for a change in the near future unless meaningful institution-building measures becomes a priority of our decision-makers.

Institutions are the backbone of a country. They implement the writ of the government and safeguard the interests of the masses. The state machinery in the developed economies, such as the USA, Australia and Japan is horizontally expanding. The concepts of good governance, like new public management (NPM) and e-governance are now delivering their promises. This invariably means that reforms are working and institutions are functioning well.

So, why do most of the reform interventions in our country? The root cause is poor decision-making in six major institutional dimensions: purpose, function, structure, processes, people, and accountability.

The purpose sets a direction and provides clarity for action. It also defines the functions of the state and its execution instruments. The champions of civil service reforms should realise that institutions without a clearly defined purpose are bound to diminish. So the first and foremost priority should be to set the purpose right and move forward.

Do our institutions exactly know what functions they are required to perform? Are the functions precisely articulated, disseminated, and understood at every level in the institutional domain? If not, then the next priority for the reformists should be to design and develop the detailed functions of the government sector organisations and then make this evidence available to the employees as well as to the public to set a clear path and a worthwhile direction.

Structures are the hierarchical arrangements that define relationships and the chain of command. Unfortunately, in our country the concept of restructuring of our political and administrative compositions is taken with indifference. Why don’t the authorities just eliminate the unnecessary tiers and positions in our bureaucracies? Do we really need Grades 17–22 in our civil service?

With too rigid and mechanical a structure in place, can our government departments ensure speedy and effective services? The next task for the reform team is to embed organisational restructuring.

With too rigid and mechanical a structure in place, can our government departments ensure speedy and effective services? Certainly not; so the next task for the reform team is to embed organisational restructuring in the routines of our public bureaus with a focus on creating lean and organic structures responsive to the ever-changing needs of the masses.

The process is made up of many linked tasks, which end in the delivery of a service or product to public. The long and cumbersome procedures of obtaining a land clearance certificate from a development authority or getting a cheque payment for arrears of pay and allowances from an accounts office are glaring illustrations of how outdated our business processes are in terms of achieving customer satisfaction.

The best practices around the globe are to make the processes user-friendly and to offer most of the facilities on line to assure enhanced public care and welfare, for example in paying taxes and fees, claiming refunds and benefits, applying for a permit or admission to a school. There is a need to revamp and transform the work processes in our public institutions in line with the already available process improvement models in similar environments.

It is the people who perform complex assignments to create valuable propositions. In people’s perspective also, the human resource management regime in our government sector is full of incongruities and dysfunctions. So far, this is only one area where Prime Minister’s Reform Team is said to be introducing some reforms. The recently notified Directory Retirement Rules and much talked about pension reforms are an example.

The incompetence and a visible gulf between words and actions have shaken the confidence of the entire officialdom.

The accountability system in a public sector milieu is responsible for rewarding high performers and punishing the inefficient and the corrupt. Unfortunately, design and implementation of a robust accountability framework has never been promoted by groups with vested interests. Our institutions, state functionaries and even the general public have become culturally immune to norms like social justice and rule of law.

In World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) project 2018 aggregate data source, Pakistan ranks one of the lowest in South Asian countries and within the bottom fifth of democracies surveyed in the governance indicator of Voice and Accountability. Perfection should not be the enemy of good. Even a bare minimum level of accountability would provide welcome relief to our ailing state establishments.

Be it a political system, a social construct or an economic setup, substandard decisions have virtually ruined the entire intellectual and material assets of the nation. The state should start taking goal-oriented decisions. Arbitrary choices can lead to further institutional decay.