Governance and bureaucracy

Khwaja Asif's revelation about the bureaucrats swindling billions, Ahsan Iqbal's thesis that the existing governance model is unworkable, and Mohsin Naqvi's assertion about the collapse of the system remind me of a poem. The sky is falling down Just take a good look around you (Around you) You can't hold it up You can't hide underground It's happening now (Now) The sky is falling down. With that mentioned, the obvious question here is: why? I agree with the three government representatives to the extent that the system has failed to deliver. However, one of the major causes remains unexplained: the inertia, insulation, and the indifferent and unresponsive attitude of civil servants toward public problems. With independence, hopes for a better future were shattered when the administrative culture continued to function on the colonial pattern of control (afsar-shahi) rather than service (naukar-shahi). Senior officials generally prefer to maintain distance from ordinary citizens, and access to them is restricted by layers of protocol and staff. Consequently, we have a bureaucracy that often looks upwards rather than outwards. During my 32 years in public service, and more importantly, during my experience as an ordinary citizen since my retirement in 2018, I have observed more or less the same behaviour among civil servants regardless of whether they are a cousin, a relative, a friend, or otherwise. Exceptions, however, do exist. There are many competent and conscientious officers, but the institutional culture remains deeply problematic. In this typical hierarchical culture, the boss is always right, and officers are highly attentive to superior authorities. Colleagues at an equivalent level may occasionally get attention, and those possessing influence - or 'nuisance value' - are also difficult to ignore. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens usually suffer from their silence, delay or lack of commitment. "Ignoring" appears to be their most convenient administrative technique. At the same time, our bureaucracy is quite adept at colorful presentations, attractive clichés and jargon. Yet, the gap between PowerPoint presentations and the ground realities in the streets is vast. This results in the Sab Achha Hai syndrome, which is counterproductive to good governance. The gravity of problems is watered down, further compounding the situation. Realities are smoke-screened while rosy pictures are painted that do not match the facts on the ground. This distinction becomes all the more important when analysing why officers belonging to the Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS) or provincial management cadres are appointed to head development authorities, public-sector bodies and autonomous institutions. It is easy to understand the rationale behind this move. These officers are expected to be efficient, effective and responsive. Transfusing them into institutions such as the Capital Development Authority (CDA) or Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) is presumably done with this objective in mind. But if the system still reels at a slow speed and remains status-quo-oriented, then the very purpose of such appointments is defeated. The PDA can be cited as an instructive case study. Over a relatively short span of time, the Authority has undergone frequent changes at the level of the Director General. However, a resident is not interested in the change of leadership, but in the outcome. A citizen's interest lies in whether the parks are maintained, waste is removed, public land is protected, green areas remain green, encroachments are checked, and the approved Master Plan is adhered to. A new officer is therefore of no value if the old institutional behavior and status quo continue. From my own experience, repeated efforts to draw the attention of those at the helm of affairs regarding Hayatabad town have frequently fallen on deaf ears. Matters involving littering, the accumulation of waste, the deterioration of parks and open spaces, deviations from the Master Plan and proposals for developing designated green areas have all been brought to the attention of the authorities. The intention was not to embarrass them, but to provide a citizen's feedback. When such feedback is ignored, the problem becomes much larger than just an unattended park or an uncollected heap of waste; it amplifies the deeper malaise from which the system suffers. If a resident takes it upon himself to photograph a deteriorating public facility, identify the location, explain the problem and communicate it directly to the highest levels of an organisation, yet the machinery still remains indifferent, a logical question arises: where exactly has the chain of governance broken down? Under the Rules of Business, ministers and cabinets frame policy. Secretaries, as administrative heads of departments and Principal Accounting Officers, are obligated to implement these policies. They are expected to ensure follow-up and outcomes. Because these same administrative cadres occupy influential positions in field formations, districts, development authorities and autonomous bodies, they cannot be treated merely as innocent bystanders when these institutions fail to deliver. There remains a vast domain of routine governance - cleanliness, inspections, maintenance, enforcement of approved plans, responsiveness to complaints, monitoring of subordinate staff and the protection of public assets - that requires no revolutionary policy decision. This disconnect with the main stakeholder, the citizen, is the root problem. Grievances ultimately leading to agitation and violent extremism stem from this very attitude. In this context, we do not need another vision document. Instead, we need a governance architecture in which authority is matched by accountability, districts and local institutions are genuinely empowered, performance is measured against outcomes, and citizens are treated as participants rather than petitioners. Unless the permanent administrative machinery is made responsive, accountable and outcome-oriented, even the finest policies will continue to falter during implementation. Had these cadres implemented government policies efficiently, enforced existing laws honestly and remained genuinely responsive to citizens, the situation would not have come to such a pass. Therefore, they must bear a proportionate share of responsibility for the deterioration and potential collapse of the system. Only then can meaningful corrective measures take place.