Pakistani bureaucracy: crisis of governance and prospects of reform

Pakistan Development Review, Winter, 1999 by Saeed Shafqat

This paper is divided into three parts. The first part provides an overview of literature on how the role and assessment of bureaucracy in the Third World in general and Pakistan in particular has undergone change. The second part examines the changing socioeconomic profile and corresponding attitudinal changes if any, in Pakistan's bureaucracy. The third part provides guidelines for possible reform in Pakistan's federal bureaucracy.

ASSESSING BUREAUCRACY: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

For almost two decades (i.e. 1950-1970) the academic community presented bureaucracy in the developing countries as engine of growth, development and an agent of change [Lapalambora (1963) and Apter (1967)]. Bureaucracy in Pakistan provided a lead and received laudatory comments for its role in initiating economic development and promoting political stability [Huntington (1968); Von Vorys (1965) and Braibanti (1966)]. Bureaucratic elites and public institutions were expected to provide leadership, order and stability. Again Pakistani bureaucracy stood the test and fulfilled these expectations [Huntington (1968)]. By the late 1960s that witnessed movements of popular protest and, agitation against the authoritarian and repressive role of the government, the opposition political parties, and a segment of the print media started portraying the bureaucracy as an instrument of oppression. This portrayal had an impact on public consciousness. Bureaucrats were seen as being inimical to their interests. By the mid-1970s the academic community and the World Bank (both in their own wisdom and direction) began to reassess and reevaluate the role of bureaucracy [Donell (1973) and Laporte (1975)]. In the early 1980s the World Bank studies began casting aspersions on bureaucracy's ability to promote order and development in the Third World. Corruption, inefficiency, bloated size, absence of accountability, and resistance to change were portrayed as the manifestations of bureaucracy [World Bank Report (1983-1993)]. The academic community raised concerns about authoritarian values and corrupt practices that bureaucracies promoted in the developing countries--i.e, violation of human rights and suppression of liberties. The academic community recognised and conceded some positive contribution of bureaucracy in the direction of growth and development [Burki and Laporte (1986)]. In short negative images of bureaucracy and a cry for reform dominated the policy and academic research environment.

In 1991, three papers presented by Boeninger, Mills and Serageldin at the World Bank Conference on Development Economics brought the issue of governance to the core of the debate on institutional reform [Boeninger, Landell-Mills and Serageldin (1991)]. The World Bank economists conceded and recognised that governance was no longer a matter of economic development alone. There were cultural, political and institutional factors that influenced the process of governance. These studies drew attention towards the fact that good governance was a function of political will and commitment of the leadership, which in turn was affected by cultural, historical/institutional settings of a country. That external environment i.e. conditions of aid, pressures of donor agencies and international institutions also influenced styles and modes of governance. In short, public policy debate underwent a paradigm shift in which institutional reform i.e. reform of the bureaucracy, judiciary, legislatures became the cry of this decade. Thus, the World Bank, IMF and UNDP, provided the lead in initiating a dialogue on reform strategy for the bureaucracies in the Third World. Given this context, how should one assess the role of bureaucracy? What kind of leadership can it provide in managing public institutions? What type of strategies can be adopted to build an efficient bureaucracy that may promote good governance?

Bureaucracy is pivotal to modern government. This is recognised both by the proponents and the opponents of bureaucracy. In a developing country what is the primary function of bureaucracy? The answer could vary depending on the culture of a society, its level of socioeconomic development and the nature of its political system. In a traditional sense, in most political systems, bureaucracy has been expected to ensure continuity of policies, political order/stability, uphold rule of law, promote economic development and cultural cohesion. These traditional functions have been forcefully defended by the proponents of bureaucracy.

If one were to look at the performance of bureaucracy in the Third World the results are mixed. In most countries of South Asia, the authority and social elite status of bureaucracy is still recognised; despite erosion of power and politicisation. Its major failure is in its inability to promote welfare, development, equity and provide justice to the citizens.

Peter Drucker in a recent article "In defense of Japans Bureaucracy" makes a strong case for elitism and continuity as hallmarks of a strong bureaucracy [Drucker (1998)]. Elites of merit and function if respected in a society, as the Japanese case demonstrates, do promote continuity and cohesion. Drucker argues that the Japanese bureaucracy has performed these two tasks ably, despite other serious problems.