Pakistan must be the world's top ranked country in setting up commissions. Some time bound (Hamoodur Rehman, Abbottabad), whose reports are never released, just leaked; some in perpetuity (flood, relief, land), whose 'achievements' are never shared with either the parliament or the public. Some statutory, some just statuesque. Status of women, human rights, media and information are some examples of the latter, while the likes of Competition Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Election Commission belong to the former. We have also had several judicial commissions, 'who sit on it, there is some noise, and then the matter is dropped'. There are the diversionary ones too - commissions set up to assuage public anger. They just get lost in this miasma of government by commissions and all party conferences.
We are not against commissions per se. Exceptional circumstances may indeed warrant them. It is their 'wholesaling', and using them to deflect attention from the 'real issues', that is of concern to us. If there is a performing FBR what do we need a Tax Reforms Commission for? Surely, those who are dealing with tax matters day in and day out will know much more about the flaws in the system, and how to fix them, than a motley crowd of accountants, tax advisers, businessmen - unless the idea is to set a thief to catch a thief. If there is a functioning Establishment Division what do we need the several Civil Service Reform Commissions for-unless a moribund Establishment Division has to depend on a Commission to say things that it itself wants to but can't. If there is a working Law Division what do we need a Law Reforms Commission for - unless the Law Division finds itself too tethered, or too burdened, to attend to what laws need to be brushed up, discarded or replaced.
Because the government agencies don't have the expertise? Because commissions lend neutrality which the government departments lack? Because commissions enable greater stakeholder participation? Because departments are not properly equipped or structured?
But that is exactly the point about functioning governments. They will have a Civil Service that has the expertise, and enough sense to hire help in areas where it is wanting; that is neutral in the sense of serving the government of the day without compromising its ability to serve succeeding government of a different political hue; that does not propose policy options in a vacuum, without adequate participation of those who will be affected as well as those who could influence successful policy implementation; and that is sufficiently well acquainted with organisational development to know how to constantly reconfigurate, reinvent and retool itself.
A lot of work has been done on how Institutions impact development. Between Gunnar Myrdal, the first institutionalist, and Douglass North, the principal architect of Institution building, it is now accepted that you cannot aspire to good governance unless you have properly working Institutions.
While dysfunctional systems affect all, they take their heaviest toll on businesses. Policy uncertainty, unresponsive bureaucracy, rudderless ministers, all symptomatic of institutional decay, add to the cost of doing business. They render us uncompetitive, not just in the world markets but at home too. We spend more time pleading our case with the Government than we do on productivity enhancement or greater quality assurance. Weak institutions nurture an environment of rent seeking, and rentiers we have become, rather than entrepreneurs who catalyse job creation and better resource allocation.
Civil servants are the blood and sinews of Institutions. You can't have properly functioning Institutions without a bureaucracy that is responsible, responsive, and accountable. It is also axiomatic that you can't have a competent bureaucracy if the premium is on loyalty and subservience, rather than merit and independence of thought. If you do not give them the freedom of thought you will get advice that you want to hear, not the best advice.
Why the civil service is not delivering has been exhaustively covered elsewhere. Yes, we need to invest in their capacity building - which is different from the World Bank-funded junkets and conferences. Yes, we need to hold them accountable in terms of efficiency and effectiveness through a robust performance management system - who you know should give way to what you know and how you deliver. Yes, we need to give them both respect and competitive compensation - not discriminatory perquisites and plots in housing schemes. Yes, we need to give them 'security of tenure' -the only way to hold them accountable, to meet defined goals and tasks.
Much more importantly, we need to give the Civil Service a reasonable role in running its own affairs. It is counter-intuitive to have the recruitment (Public Service Commission), training (Staff College etc) and appellate matters (Services Tribunal) of civil servants in the hands of non-civil servants, as has often been the case. It is disastrous to make postings and transfers the exclusive province of political leadership. The reason that the Army works and the civil service doesn't is that there is no interference in Army's service matters. The world over, including our neighbours, the civil service has a say in the career development and assignments of its officers. Of course it is subject to political oversight, but not political 'over lordship' as is the case in Pakistan.
Half the business community's woes can be attributed to a bloated, inefficient, and insensitive bureaucracy. We keep scurrying for sifarish, to have access to the decision maker; we even have to press Quaid - e- Azam into service to speed things up. The quality and speed of decisions by the bureaucracy has a major impact on our operations. The 'institutional framework' has a direct bearing on our competitiveness.
Will a reformed bureaucracy solve all our problems? No, but it is the first essential step. It is the foundation on which our policy edifice is built. Made-by-IMF policies will not deliver and economic turnaround will not happen without a well functioning civil service. There is sufficient empirical evidence to support this conclusion.
Give us a world class civil service and you will see the kind of export growth envisioned by Professor Ahsan Iqbal, whose portfolio includes civil service reform.