Executive arm: between the brass and the bench

The Executive arm of the government, represented by ministers and senior civil servants, is our favourite punching bag. Rare is the day when we are not served the delicious fare of executive-bashing. And it is a moveable feast: one day in Quetta, another day in Karachi; one day a parliamentary committee, next day the boots. The delectable tasting menu offers choices to suit any palate.
Cornered by the media, the boys ('these bloody civilian types'), and now the legacy of the Chaudhry court, the Executive is running out of holes to scurry into. Much of the bashing is well deserved. But does it say something for our national psyche that the condemners themselves either wish to join the ranks, or assume the Executive mantle?
Is it a case of sour grapes? That will be too crass an inference. A more benevolent suggestion could be our 'culture of authority' perpetuated by centuries of authoritarian rule: you are no one if you can't brandish the danda - and what better way to assert your authority than snatching away the Executive danda!
It is in the nature of the political beast to aspire to Executive office; danda, jhanda and the works. The media considers it its bounden duty to go for the Executive's jugular and other body parts. But what explains the ingress of the brass and the bench into executive domain? Sheer frustration? The Armed Forces have institutionalised their incursion into the Civil Services. Since the sixties, when the uniform first earned the stripes of political power, it has been quite systematic, culminating in Musharraf's 'spoil system'.
Why would the Forces want to infiltrate the civil services, and now the political parties and the media, when they already have unquestioned, to some unquestionable, ultimate authority? There is nothing wrong with khakis aspiring to civil office, and some do credit to it, but then why denigrate the institutions that you wish to be a part of? It sounds contra-indicative - unless it is either a 'cleansing' tactics or a manoeuvre to cover all bases.
Of course, the 'getting-sucked-in' phenomenon has a lot to do with it. If they are called upon to do any number of non-military duties, from ghost schools to cricket to census to law and order, where they rub shoulders with the civilian officialdom, mostly in command positions, they develop a kind of contempt for the civvies and their way of doing things. At the same time, it is difficult to not get tempted by the allure of the civil services - and all that comes with it!
The Brits were mindful of this. The Army was kept in a cocoon; the Cantonments beyond the 'contamination zone' of the hoi polloi. At the first sign of undue intimacy the garrison commander would declare the civilian areas 'out of bounds'. The superior judiciary is trying hard to rebrand itself. Its legacy - Tamizuddin, anointing usurpers, PCOs and fresh oaths etc. - is indelible, but its evolving ethos, typified by several recent pronouncements, promises a brave new world. It is also widely perceived to be beyond 'influence' - from any quarter.
In the process, the Executive has become the grist to the Judiciary's reimagination mill. The more the judiciary rebukes and berates the Executive the greater our vicarious pleasure. Well bowled, we say. But by removing an incompetent functionary, or restraining the transfer of a less incompetent one, or banning heavy vehicles during peak hours, or forming judicial commissions on water quality, are the Courts addressing the disease or just the symptoms - or, perish the thought, playing the Executive? The point is not the merit of Executive's comeuppance. The point here is of outcome - and process.
The apex court has observed that an insecure civil service cannot deliver; hence the security of tenure ruling. How does it affect the civil service sense of security when trembling officers appear before the Court to be publicly chastised, especially when systemic failure and not their inaction is the cause?
In the old days, courts would pass strictures against a defaulting officer and the government was responsive to such strictures. Public humiliation was eschewed - considered neither decorous nor helpful. Judges spoke through their judgements, and largely refrained from expressing 'opinions'. Guess the rules of engagement have since changed. Little surprise, then, if officers are fast learning to 'cover' themselves by saying what the Court wants to hear, not necessarily the 'whole truth'!
Will the continued chastisement of the Executive rid us of our governance woes? There seems to be little evidence of that happening. All these suo motu actions and public interest cases may serve to occasionally scrub the Executive but they won't sweep our Aegean stables clean. The problem is more structural. Admonishment, even sackings, may help to vent but won't bag the problem.
To us, who are at the receiving end of a dysfunctional and predatory Executive it doesn't matter if it is the Army or the Judiciary who relieve us of our misery. It may not even matter at what cost (clogging up of the judicial system or decline in professional standards of the military, for instance). What matters is can they do it? Invasive interventions rarely move the needle.
We can reset our Executive machinery better through a more robust accountability framework. For starters, we would need to establish a better 'connect' between input (annual budget) and the outcome (delivery). The budget should clearly state the 'units of service' that each allocation would 'buy'. In essence, the budget should define the parameters of a sound Performance Management System. This will also serve to give the bureaucracy specific annual goals to work with and be answerable for. At the end of the year, the Auditor General can report to the respective parliament the extent to which expenditure matched outcome.
And yes, strike down the Rules of Business. Under a parliamentary form of government, it is the ministers - not civil servants - who are accountable to the people (through the parliament). Our Rules of Business, a relic of the Raj, arrogate all the powers to the Secretaries, except they can't exercise them without political blessing! Let's do away with the pretense. Like it or not, the brass nor the bench can replace the Executive. What will help is a constructive dialogue, not bad-mouthing.
[email protected]