History of Pakistan

Role of Bureaucracy in
Pakistan

Assignment no 1

Submitted to: Sir Ahmad Jamal

Submitted by: Nouman Arshad
07-0247 M
 • Defining Bureaucracy:

A system of administration wherein there is a specialization of functions,

objective qualifications for office, action according to the adherence to fixed
rules, and a hierarchy of authority and delegated power.

According to Weber a German sociologist:

"Highly trained bureaucratic experts will prevail against the less expert ministers who
ostensibly run the administrative units, the cabinet which ostensibly guides over any
policy and the legislature which ostensibly make policy."

Bureaucracy and its flaws

First, a bureaucracy theoretically provides a service, but the profit motive is

removed from this process. This inevitably results in inefficiency within the
bureaucratic organization, at first chronic, then unsustainable, then ruinous. This
occurs partially because of the misallocation of resources, based on rationales that
are random, non-economic, often ideological, and often entirely unrelated to the
task at hand.
It can be argued that bureaucracies do fail on many fronts. They monopolize
discursive space (limiting public debate on their areas of 'expertise'); they waste
resources (tax revenue); they embrace revolutionary ideologies; they distrust the
democratic impulse; they often act as though they are above the law; they fail
even to provide their original service; they eventually subvert the society's values
in which they operate.
Other major disadvantages include:
o Multiplication of administrative functions

o Vertical structure

o Red-tapism

Roots of bureaucracy in Pakistan

The bureaucracy in Pakistan is not an exception to such predictions. It is this group of

bureaucracy who has been, along with the military generals, formulating the policies and
political as well as ideological framework of Pakistan. And being permanently in office,
unlike the politicians, who come and go at their behest, it is they who have the power to
actually govern the state as an administrative group.

In the formative years, from 1947 to 1951, it was a period of turmoil and turbulence, but
major decisions regarding foreign policy, economic development, fiscal arrangements,
internal security etc. were being taken by the bureaucrats. During the 1951-1958, the
democratic governments were in the name but the shots were called by the bureaucrats
while the military was supporting them as a junior partner.
From 1958 to 1971, during the regimes of General Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan,
while the military was a senior partner and bureaucracy as a junior partner. Feudal
politicians supporting the system from the outside. The populist autocracy of Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto (1971-77), witnessed the military and bureaucracy playing a second fiddle,
because of the debacle in East Pakistan.

General Zia's first eight years (1977-1985) rule may be described as a bureaucratic rule
once again in which the military was a senior partner while bureaucracy as usual a junior
partner. A crowd of religious leaders, discredited feudal politicians, opportunistic
professional groups, supported the system from the periphery. In the last three years of
Zia's rule when he lifted the martial law on 31st December 1995 after Junejo's
government approved his changes in the constitution, the democratic government was in
name only and the military and civilian bureaucracy continued their role as senior and
junior partners. Finally the autocratic democratic rule from 1988 to 1999 was marked by
a strong army and weak bureacuracy.

The stark reality is that most regimes in Pakistan, even martial law, have played into its
hands. Only in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's time was it eclipsed for a while, but it must be
admitted to its credit that it rebounded back into the driving seat in his last year. He
introduced administrative reforms in 1973 that, inter alia, modified the constitutional
safeguards of public servants against dismissal etc. Under Section 13 of the Civil Servant
Act of 1973, the competent authority could dismiss public servants of the rank of
additional secretary (grade 21) and above in public interest.

The administrative reforms of 1973 were a major setback to the well-entrenched Civil
Service of Pakistan, as the CSP was made the prime target of these changes. A large
number of officers were again sacked like the Ayub Khan era. Constitutional guarantees
of civil servants were withdrawn. A system of lateral entry was introduced. At the same
time, powers of arbitrary dismissal of senior officers were given to the chief executive.

The ground for the reform was prepared by the purge of 1303 officers under Martial Law
Order No. 14 in 1972, and the dismissal of 18 senior officer in 1973 to facilitate the
"speedy implementation of the government's socio-economic reforms. In the new
dispensation it was not merit, hard work or efficiency, but loyalty to the master which
was the basis for all recruitment, promotions and postings. Bhutto inducted 514 lateral
recruits into the bureaucracy in three years and diluted the authority of the Federal Public
Service Commission.

During Zia's period, the bureaucracy was finally politicized, which not only meant
pursuing the policies of the ruling party, but also serving their personal whims and
covering up their misdeeds. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so grandiose disorder,
loot and plunder were let loose. The feudal lord had reached his destination along with a
modern munshi, the bureaucrat.

The caretaker Prime Ministe Moeen Qureshi amended the Civil Servants Act of 1973 to
provide security of service for the bureaucracy and to help it function without political
pressure. Confirmation and seniority rules, subject to acceptance by the successor
government, were also promulgated. Under these rules, a seniority list was to be issued
on a regular basis. The discretionary powers of the President and the Prime Minister to
relax the upper age limit of public servants was proposed to be eliminated. The Civil
Servants Act was amended but did not include all the recommendations of Moeen
Qureshi's government. Under the amended Act, tenure and conditions of service could
not be changed to the disadvantage of the civil servants. If transferred, civil servants were
to be place in equivalent posts.

In our society, bureaucracy is not a set of individuals who act according to their whims
and fancies or merely to promote their selfish interest. Pakistan has inherited the
bureaucratic structure and procedures from the British colonial master. It has grown up,
with the needs of time, in a highly developed "power complex", like a machine or a
system of self-sustaining living organism. It exists on the basis of rules, regulations, laws
and constitutional provisions. It would be correct to say that bureaucratic "power
complex" was invented by British to rule their colonies. Britain itself did not have a
"power complex" to regulate its life as the one it created for India and other colonies. Its
rule was responsible to none but to the government in London through the governor-
general.

The bureaucracy -- the Indian Civil Service -- was essentially a mercenary force in which
the sons of the local collaborating elite were inducted to do the dirty work for the
colonizers, which they did with extreme "efficiency." Its interests and orientations were,
therefore, diametrically opposed to those of the people and those of the post-colonial
independent societies. The bureaucracy thus was the biggest hurdle in the way of
decolonization of our society and the creation of a truly democratic state in the post-
independence era.

In the late forties and early fifties the political parties played different roles in the two
wings of Pakistan. While in the eastern wing the parties had a mass appeal and they could
win elections on the basis of their popularity, in the western wing such popular appeal
was lacking and hence elections could be managed at the bureaucratic level. It is this
opportunity which pushed the position of bureaucracy to greater heights and they could
rise above the politicians in the western wing. With the passage of time the failure to
produce a constitution in time further lowered the position of the politicians. The rise of
three bureaucrats, Ghulam Mohammad Malik, Choudhuri Mohammad Ali and Iskandar
Mirza gave moral support to the strength of the bureaucrats and they could manipulate
the Central government in a manner that suited them.

This led to disenchantment between the two wings of Pakistan. The comparatively better
position of the bureaucracy and the politicians in the western wing of the country played
a decisive role in making the politicians weaker and weaker pushing up the bureaucrats to
higher position of not only executive control but also policy making. Governor General,
later President, Iskandar Mirza could also manipulate to form the Republican Party. Thus
for all practical purposes the politicians in the western wing came to play in the hands of
the bureaucrats. Such a dual role of a government can be played better by the army
personnel than the civil bureaucracy since army commanders are more disciplined and
hard working. Thus the door was opened for military rule, not because the politicians
failed but because the bureaucrats would not give any chance to the politicians to play a
genuine role by going to the people for support. Democracy, which started well in
Pakistan, was throttle by the civil as well as military bureaucrats.

The first public exposure that who was really in control of Pakistan political system,
behind the facade of nominal parliamentary institution, came with governor general's
dismissal of the Prime Minister in April 1953. Ghulam Mohammad, a bureaucrat by
profession had taken over power as governor-general after the assassination of Liaquat
Ali Khan. His dismissal of prime minister Khawaja Nazimuddin's cabinet impugned the
role of the legislature as the maker and sustainer of government. This showed how in-
effective was the link between the prime minister and the institutions of party and
parliament. Thus the establishment of a system of central executive rule, rather than of
cabinet government based on a representative legislature encouraged the concentration of
power in a group of officials divorced from mass politics.

Playing persistently over the wicket of "external security threat" from India, from the
very inception of Pakistan on the one hand and, negation to evolve strong, stable and
genuine political institutions and forces in the first decade of our independence on the
other, paved the way to the emergence of new political actors along with bureaucratic
lineal decedents of ICS. In 1958 the army did not only overtly jumped in our politics but
in fact it proved as a foundation stone for the subsequent martial laws of 1969 and 1977,
which in turn facilitated the emergence of military bureaucracy and a group of people
composed of both rural feudals and urban corporate interest, that could be rightly called
"capitalist and elite" force.

The bureaucracy and the police play an important role in the running of the system. The
standards and quality of life being apparently enjoyed by the majority of our bureaucrats
today leave no room for doubt that it has over the years become an extremely lucrative
and comfortable business to be a bureaucrat. The comforts and glamorous lifestyles
reserved for the bureaucracy in this country are with very few parallels in the
contemporary world. The sizes of the Deputy Commissioner houses, Superintendent of
Police houses, Commissioner houses and so on, alone are sufficient to support and
corroborate this allegation.

According to a retired bureaucrat, the present bureaucrats could be divided into three
categories: the obstinate uncompromising old type, the bewildered transient, and the
accomplished ones. The self-disciplined old type, still hanging on to his professional
ethics, is treated by our society as a fossil. He is today an insignificant residue, appearing
as a mole, cyst or pimple on the muscular mass. His normal abodes are the dark, dingy,
desolate and unfrequented corners of the administrative world. The rulers are happy to
keep him in cold storage because he can say "no" to them. The bewildered transient is in
the evolutionary process of forced conversion from the old to the new. He is unable to
withstand the social compulsions around and the career ambitions within. Internal
conflicts notwithstanding, he goes along with the rulers unwillingly. The show, however,
is stolen by the new bureaucrat who nods, but he nods only to those who matter. All the
antennae of his personality are attuned to the corridors of power. He has perfected the art
of extracting the full price for selling his soul. His creative genius pours lyrical praise in
royal ears. His Midas touch converts don'ts into do's, because his dexterous dynamism is
not deterred by rules, regulations, procedures or systems. To sum up, he has been
elevated from "government servant" to "government partner," eligible for a holy alliance
with the politicians. For his career prospects even the sky is not the limit.

It is unusual for top politicians like prime ministers to say what they truly feel about the
bureaucracy. In a speech in mid-1996 PM Benazir Bhutto did the unprecedented. She
called senior officers arrogant, mischievous and sycophantic and interested only in their
own progress and promotion. A very serious accusation was that they leaked out
confidential information to the secret agencies (and the World Bank) in order to curry
favour with them, not bothering if they let down the government they were supposed to
serve. In her charge-sheet Ms Bhutto also said something that had been left unsaid
before, that senior officers only wanted posts in which there was clout and money, and
that most of them were as corrupt as the politicians whom they blamed for the ills of the
country

• Role of Bureaucracy in Pakistan over the past years

Although, the function of bureaucracy is to implement the policies, in Pakistan, however,

the political class has abandoned its role of policy formulation and bureaucrats have
taken over this role by filling in the vacuum.

All types of governments; whether elected or self-appointed and whether benevolent or

autocratic, require bureaucracies to govern countries. It is not in the nature of
bureaucracies to offer corrections to governments on policies or even to inform priorities,
merely to try and implement them as ordered. For bureaucracies anywhere process, not
service, drives them. One cannot understand bureaucracies until understanding that for
bureaucrats, procedure is king and that performance is for governments
Bureaucracy has a major role in the history of Pakistan. At the top sat the president or the
prime minister with bureaucracy in one hand and the parliament in the other. The
bureaucracy has been subjected to unnatural demands of the rulers, military or civilian,
for decades now. As of today, the bureaucracy has almost completely lost its integrity,
discipline and dedication to its functions. Its loyalty rests with the politicians in power
who are out there to patronize their favorites in promotion, transfers and postings. Going
by the working of the bureaucratic set ups, it becomes clear to identify the fact that the
pattern of their functioning is often rigid and inflexible. Everything is to be done in an
unimaginative and imitative manner. This rigidity cripples initiatives. That is why
bureaucracy is a great hurdle in the way of reform and improvement. One of the many
characteristics of bureaucracy is at the cost of public interest. It has often been observed
that when the status quo is challenged, all moral and professional principles are set aside
aimed only at the protection of vested interests. Therefore such a group cannot be given a
role of a policy-maker, as their interests and those of their targeted class may come into
clash with each other.

The basic idea behind the formation of bureaucratic structures was to provide 'permanent'
government in the sense that the bureaucrats kept running the system of the government
for the larger benefit of people as they were and are civil servants. Political executive in
the form of politicians could come and go but the bureaucrats stayed on to look after the
working of the governments. So their job has never been formulation of policy. They do
help political leadership in policy making but never make policies themselves. It is the
within the sole domain of the politicians to formulate policies as their mandate stems
from their being elected representative of people. It is a pity that the political class has
abandoned its role of policy formulation and bureaucrats have taken over this role by
filling in the vacuum.

Going by the working of the bureaucratic set-ups, it becomes clear to identify the fact that
the pattern of their functioning is often rigid and inflexible. Every thing is to be done in
an unimaginative and imitative manner. This rigidity cripples initiatives. That is why
bureaucracies are a great hurdle in the way of reform and improvement.

Since bureaucrats are not elected representatives, therefore, they can not be expected to
know the public aspirations and sentiments. Thus if they happen to perform the policy-
making function, they are very likely to fail as they are not programmed and trained for
it.

One of many characteristics of bureaucracy as noted by famous German sociologist Max

Weber is the spirit de corps even at the cost of public interest. It has often been observed
that when the status quo is challenged, all moral and professional principles are set aside
aimed at protection of vested interests. Therefore such a group can not be given a role of
policy maker as their interests and those of their targeted class may come in to clash with
each other.

In third-world developing countries like Pakistan, bureaucracies are often politicized to

the detriment of the operationalisation of the institution. So such a biased and prejudiced
institution can not be expected to play an impartial role of policy-making.

In our view, the purpose of policy formulation in larger interests of people of Pakistan
will be served if we bring about reforms in our civil services to make them compete with
the demand of the changing times. The response of the state structures should be
proportional to the enormity of the tasks facing the state systems.

The institutions play the basic role in the policy formulations. They are assigned different
tasks. They collect data and information through various sources, analyse it scientifically
and professionally and then reach conclusions through this process in a rational manner.
After getting feedback, they then revise their results. Thus they come up with the best
formulated policy evolved through consensus.

It is a misfortune that our policy making on key issues of state and society has been
unstructured, whimsical and highly individualistic. This has cost our country very dearly
in almost all walks of national life. Therefore we need to move fast to more organized
and institutionalised policy-making.

There are three major pillars of a state mentioned in the constitution namely Parliament,
Judiciary and Executive. The function of parliament is law-making. Judiciary is tasked
with interpretation of laws and the role of Executive branch of government is to make
policies and implement them. Now executive is further divided into two distinct branches
with different mandates i.e. political executive and Implementing executive.

The job of political executive is to make policies and the job of government machinery as
bureaucracies are also referred to is to implement those polices. In perfect democracies,
this is the norm, whereas the case of the third-world countries is different where roles of
various branches are overlapping causing confusion and bad governance. Therefore if any
effort to reform governance and bring about change in how the country is to be run is to
succeed, submission to the constitutional requirements is a must. Our constitution amply
provides us the solutions to our national problems, what is required is the willingness and
commitment to respect the constitution.

Institutionalisation of policies can only be done if we clearly draw a clear-cut line

between arrangements for policy formulation and policy implementation. Failure in this
respect is sure to cripple our efforts at reform and improvements. We also need to
identify the relevant institutions for that purpose. It is by taking recourse to the ideas of
decentralization and delegation that we can succeed against heavy odds.

Here question arises as to why institutions are so important in achieving the above-
mentioned aims? The following reasons could be cited in this regard:

a. The process of institutionalisation is instrumental in achieving efficiency in

organizations and processes.

b. Since institutionalisation emphasizes on separation of powers, therefore every

organ or institution is geared to achieve results in time and will observation of
transparency.

c. In institutionalised decision-making, substance not form Is important. So people

may come and leave but the process continues. Thus continuity of policies is
ensured and it is helpful in delivery of services to the society.

d. The inclusion of diverse viewpoints into the whole of policy formulation in

institutionalised mechanisms gives it a bipartisan touch, which is necessary for
 fair play and meeting the ends of justice.

e. By virtue of decentralized activity and its responsibility in institutional policy-

making, it is easier to fix problems and conduct accountability.

The politicians in and out of government are often critical of the way the civil servants
work and their failure to meet the people's expectations, notwithstanding the fact that it is
the politicians who are solely responsible for corrupting the bureaucracy in every way
possible. During the last one year of the present government, major public issues have
remained unsolved or the progress has been too slow or too insignificant. The hyper-
inflation, unemployment and poverty affecting a great number of people remain far off
the mark. Other sectors such as education including the vocational and occupational
training, health-care, police, prisons, law and order and electricity, gas and water issues
are yet to be tackled effectively. In developing countries like Pakistan, bureaucracies are
often politicized to the detriment of the operationalisation of the institution. So such a
biased and prejudiced institution cannot be expected to play an impartial role of policy-
making. In my view, the purpose of policy formulation in larger interests of the people
will be served if we bring about reforms in our civil services to make them compete with
the demand of the changing times. The response of the state structures should be
proportional to the enormity of the tasks facing the state systems

Military rulers are usually less critical of the civil services for they depend heavily on the
advice, guidance and counseling of the civil bureaucracy to enact and enforce their show
of power, strength and survival. Today arguably it is the state, the elected civilian
government and 18th constitutional amendment notwithstanding. The military controls all
key state institutions through either direct control or through invisible influence; the civil
service, foreign policy, economic policy, home policy, intelligence agencies. The
judiciary and the legislature are still recovering from the encumbering if invisible
influence of the army. The worry is that due to the emaciated civilian bureaucracy, the
administration of state institutions is still transparently marked by the invisible hand of
the military and continues to depend on its capacity rather than civilian. The military has
become organizationally and institutionally stronger in the last decade. It has ensured it
gets much better governance and administrative training than the civilian bureaucracy
even as the latter suffers from institutional decay and heads into the other direction.
Now let’s compare the following principles of bureaucracy given by Max Weber to
govern an organization with the prevailing bureaucratic setup of Pakistan:A bureaucratic
organization is governed by the following seven principles:

1. Official business is conducted continuously

2. Official business is conducted with strict accordance to the following rules:
a. the duty of each official to do certain types of work is delimited in terms
of impersonal criteria
b. the official is given the authority necessary to carry out his assigned
functions
c. the means of coercion at his disposal are strictly limited and conditions of
their use strictly defined
3. Every official's responsibilities and authority are part of a vertical hierarchy of
authority, with respective rights of supervision and appeal
4. Officials do not own the resources necessary for the performance of their assigned
functions but are accountable for their use of these resources
5. Official and private business and income are strictly separated
6. Offices cannot be appropriated by their incumbents (inherited, sold, etc.)
7. Official business is conducted on the basis of written documents

In Pakistan, if we analyze the current bureaucratic setup, one can easily point out the lack
of professionalism that needs to carry out the bureaucratic job. With the officials in
Pakistan contradicting with the principle laid down by Weber that the resources given to
them must be used for the functions that are assigned to them and they should be held
accountable for its use. The bureaucrats in our part of the world use these resources like
cars, travelling allowances etc for their personal objectives also which is contradictory to
one of the principles laid down by Max Weber.

Similarly, bureaucrats in our country use the allotted funds for their personal use; a
common sin in the bureaucracy world when the officials are not held accountable for
their results and in a system where the appointments of the officials rests merely on the
references and friendships of renowned people and heads of the organizations.

In Pakistan we are also facing the hardships in this institution like, corruption, miss
management , political use of institutions inter Alia are the prominent problems; facing
our bureaucracy in our home land , Definitely some stern actions would needed for
grooming of this pillar .

Bureaucracy can be a very strong element of change in our country. The bureaucrats are
appointed in important ministries like (DMG, Police, Customs, audit etc).They are
responsible for the administrative affairs of the government. But they are used by the
politicians and the ministers in there own interest. These ministers take advantage of their
intellect and manipulate laws in their own benefits to make them selves clean. In my
point of view if the bureaucrats are not influenced by the politicians than yes the change
can come.

According to a high level bureaucrat “Bureaucrats owns much power that not a single
penny can be spend without the signature of the secretary” But the ministers use un-due
influence on them and threat them of transfer, so they have to do the wrong. Some time
they also threat the concern officers that if they would not do their work than the
consequences would be severe. There is no protection for the Bureaucrats.

Problems with bureaucracy of Pakistan:

The bureaucracy of Pakistan has been historically part of the pyramid of power in the
country. At the top sat the president or the prime minister with bureaucracy in one hand
and the parliament in the other. The bureaucracy has been subjected to unnatural
demands of the rulers, military or civilian, for decades now. As of today, the bureaucracy
has almost completely lost its integrity, discipline and dedication to its functions. Its
loyalty rests with the politicians in power who are out there to patronize their favorites in
promotion, transfers and postings.

The existence of bureaucracy is a necessary condition to run the affairs

of the state. Now it depends on the structure of the government as to
what type of role it wants to assign to bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is a structure with which the policies made by authorities

are to be implemented. The failure of a state becomes inevitable if
implementations are not done appropriately. In Pakistan the
implementation of policies has remained a critical issue due to lack of
good governance and exploited bureaucracy. Therefore if the
bureaucrats take steps to improve the implementation of policies, the
country can socially and economically stabilize.

Undoubtedly the bureaucracy of Pakistan can bring in a positive

changed if the following steps are taken.

o Enhance civil service performance and revive a spirit of

public service by revising the salaries and providing
incentives.
 o Enhance the functioning of federal and provincial
secretariats by reducing excessive centralization of
functions and devolving administrative and financial
authority to lower tiers, with effective oversight; revising
and simplifying existing rules and procedures to ensure
that civil servants are informed of their rights and
responsibilities;

o Institute effective accountability over the civil bureaucracy

o Promote fairness and eliminate opportunities for political

manipulation at all levels of the civil administration.

o Modernize civil service systems and processes and

enhance inter-agency coordination through e-governance
technology.

Conclusion:

Bureaucracy can be the agent of change; however it cannot solely

bring in the change. The policies need to be well defined before their
implementation, which is the task of law makers. Bureaucracy if less
politicized will undoubtedly bring in positive changes. The bureaucrats
need to concentrate more on the implementation of laws and less on
the politics within and outside the bureaucracy. On the other hand, the
governments should also reduce their intervention in issues that are to
be handled by bureaucratic officials. As bureaucracy talks about rules,
procedures or protocols laid down in the way of work of any system. One good thing
about Bureaucracy is that it allows order. But, if care is not taken, its makes the system
rigid and this causes unnecessary delay in implementation of policies, project, etc. As
everyone is require to follow the laid down laws and procedures. This somehow affects
decision making in organizations especially in the absence of one or more decision
makers in the system. Also, it does not allow for individual development as workers are
expected to follow the established routine. In summary it resists change and creativity.
Further, the above analysis highlights the fact that the prevailing bureaucratic is not an
agent of change rather it resists change. Serious measures need to be taken and the
authoritarians need to show by example that they follow the principles of bureaucracy
and are accountable in the eve of law and come up as motivating and influencing forces
for the downstream officials.
References:
http://ghazali.net/book3/ch5/body_ch5.html