Published in The Independent, Dhaka, 17th August, 2009
One of the issues that the AL had placed before the people for support to win the December, 2009 elections was blaming the BNP for politicising the civil bureaucracy. By implication this meant that if elected, they would not do what the BNP did. It is true that the BNP had politicised the civil bureaucracy during its 2001-2006 tenure. The BNP also overlooked the fact that under its watch, there was a change of guards taking place; that the civil bureaucrats recruited in the Pakistan days were finally leaving and those recruited after liberation, much weaker in ability, were taking charge at the top.
The BNP's playing politics with the civil bureaucracy was however nothing new. The BNP had just tried to fine tune what the AL did during its 1996-2001 tenure. In fact, the AL was brought to office in 1996 riding on the wave of a revolt by the AL leaning civil bureaucrats who had created the "Janatar Mancha." The BNP did during its tenure just followed on what the AL had established as a part of the politics of the country; that the civil bureaucracy, particularly those at the top, must be loyal to the party in power.
Looking back in hindsight, one of the reasons why the BNP became unpopular during its last tenure after going to power with a two thirds majority was because it followed the AL way of dealing with the bureaucracy. The BNP had just one legitimate issue with the civil bureaucracy, namely taking action against those members who had openly "revolted" against an elected government. The BNP, however, used the excuse of the Mancha's revolt by moving against those it presumed to be AL leaning. As a result, it divided the civil bureaucracy and weakened it. The BNP also introduced a selective system of "extension" to keep in service those that it deemed loyal to the party. That did not work either. The BNP ended by messing up governance because of this mindless politicisation of the civil bureaucracy. Those involved in politicising the bureaucracy also made money out of it. The country that could have made significant strides in over-all development, suffered as a consequence leading to conflicts and violence in politics that brought the emergency that pushed back our development efforts further.
Thus when the people, particularly the 20 million new voters who have voted this time, found that the AL was willing to de-politicise the bureaucracy, they were encouraged to vote for it. Of course, they voted for the AL for "digital Bangladesh" and "vision 2021" as well. It is still too early to judge the AL's on the last two named issues. Unfortunately, on the de-politicisation of the civil bureaucracy, the writing became clear on the wall almost as soon as the Awami League took office.
Immediately on assuming office, the Awami League made it clear that those presumed to be supporters of the BNP/Jamat alliance would have no place in the government. This time around, being an AL supporter would also not be enough; it would be necessary for civil bureaucrats to prove that they have no connections to those now referred in the party as "reformists" that is now a hated word in the Awami League's inner circles. It did not take long for the government to make these intentions clear. It made OSDs in numbers that have been the largest under any government since independence as the first step towards weeding out of civil bureaucracy those the AL government considered leaning towards the BNP/Jamat or "reformists" in the party.
In politicising the civil bureaucracy this time around, the AL government has thus introduced new elements. The part of isolating the presumed BNP/Jamat supporters has been easy because except for the first BNP government after Ershad's fall, the three successive elected governments have used politics as basic criteria in dealing with the civil bureaucracy. Hence when the AL took office this time, there was a handy list of presumed BNP/Jamat supporters available that was evident in the ease with which a record number of officers were made OSDs. In promoting to and filling important positions, the AL government could not however depend on that list. To ensure that civil servants leaning towards AL but also towards the "reformers" are not promoted, the government has introduced contractual appointments in key positions that are being given from people who have gone into retirement quite some time ago or from those in service whose loyalty to the party under the changed circumstances is absolute. In fact, the word going around in the bureaucracy is the government now has a "DNA test" for determining loyalty.
The Awami League government is thus entering into unchartered territories in dealing with the civil bureaucracy. Over the years, the civil bureaucracy has served useful purposes and must given a lot of credit for the development that has taken place in the country. Up to the first BNP government, the civil bureaucracy was allowed to follow the basic principles upon which it was established in the British and Pakistani days, namely keeping it apolitical and encouraging merit and efficiency as the basic criteria for promotions and other privileges.
These time-tested foundations are being eroded without any serious thinking about its importance and role as one of the most important institutions in governance. By making politics the primary consideration, the political parties are trying to introduce a system that has no place in any democracy today. If our political parties had themselves matured so that the nation would be safe in their hands, then a weak and politically compliant bureaucracy would not have been a major worry. But then we have heard our Prime Minister speak out many times about her cabinet colleagues in a critical manner. The Ministers have said publicly that they are unable to satisfy the Prime Minister because the bureaucrats are BNP/Jamat supporters despite the opposite being the truth! Something is seriously amiss here.
In 2005, a Director-General of a Japanese government financial institution had met me in my office when I was Ambassador to Japan just a few days before that country's national elections. He was extremely critical of Prime Minister Koizumi and the ruling LDP. I asked him with a great deal of curiosity why he was so openly critical of LDP and Koizumi being a civil servant. The gentleman answered that being critical of a politician and a party is his fundamental right but as a civil bureaucrat, he would be serving Koizumi and the LDP loyally without any question asked if he returned in the elections.
Our civil bureaucracy has served well because it too historically has been based on same principles. What the AL Government is doing is creating its anti-thesis. The question is: does it have a plan? The issue here is even if it has a plan, Bangladesh is just not the country to establish such a politicised bureaucracy because when our civil servants enter service, a large number of them are divided half and half into the AL and the anti-AL camps because of the politics they are allowed to do in their educational institutions. If such a policy is officially introduced, the government that introduces it would be paying for a large number of the civil servants without their support because in such a large bureaucracy, it would neither be feasible nor possible to weed out civil servants completely based on which party they support.
Then in our bureaucracy there has always been and still are a large number of civil servants who have no strong political affiliation who would be caught in the middle and left in a limbo. Such politicisation towards which the AL government is moving would eventually stifle life out of the bureaucracy while benefiting just a small part of it. Such a policy is not common sense either because a pall of gloom prevails over the majority of civil servants today except for those few who have passed (or hope to pass) the stringent test of party loyalty. The AL government's perception of a civil bureaucracy is in fact the communist/authoritarian model; only our system is neither communist nor authoritarian.
(The writer a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies and former Ambassador to Japan.)
No comments:
Post a Comment