Tasneem Noorani Questions NCGR 26 Apr 2007

AFTER undertaking administrative reforms through devolution, which in effect was the demolition of a system, the government of late has embarked upon the task of reinventing itself through the setting up of the National Commission on Government Reforms (NCGR). The first exercise was undertaken through a general whose only likely contact with the system that he was supposed to reform was from the secure environment of the cantonments. The second exercise has been entrusted to a former civil servant who is brilliant and has given a good account of himself as an economic manager. The proposals drafted by the NCGR are reported to be detailed and systematic, but so were the recommendations of the National Reconstruction Bureau on local government reforms. The main point missed was a reality check and past experience in administrative reforms. In a recent newspaper report, we were informed that six existing service groups (information, trade and commerce, postal etc) have been recommended to be abolished. It is assumed that the rationale is that some of them have become redundant while the others can be merged. It is not clear what the advantage of doing away with these occupational groups would be, except that it would make the organogram look neat, and the governments step would smack of modernisation.

We have had similar reforms by the government in the past, one of them being the de facto abolition of the office management group (OMG), with the resultant stoppage of the recruitment of section officers. The result has been that while numerous OMG officers have become secretaries/additional secretaries, the prevention of which was the apparent objective of abolishing the service, there are no section officers left to do the main foundation work in the ministries. So while we may have very competent secretaries, the quality of officers down below leaves a lot to be desired. The government has had to take emergency remedial steps like recalling retired section officers to work on contract and in some cases, recalling even retired deputy secretaries to work as section officers. The purpose of recounting the effects of one “reform” undertaken in the past was to highlight what actually happens to our reforms on the ground. Another example that comes to mind was the recommendation by another high-powered commission in the past, which after months, perhaps years, of deliberation, came up with the idea of abolishing the tier of additional secretary in the federal government. It was implemented in some lawaris ministries, while those like finance continued to have a number of additional secretaries.

Over the years, this tier has again been added in most ministries, perhaps in larger numbers than before. Coming back to the issue of the latest recommendation of abolishing certain occupational groups, while the upside is doubtful and will depend on focused implementation, the downside will be that it will ensure years of uncertainty for the incumbents, while issues like dying cadre, combined seniority lists, challenged seniorities etc are being sorted out. It would mean diversion in the commitment of officers towards their work. A likely scenario is that while the so-called reforms are being implemented, there may be a change in the political dispensation, with the result that the adversely affected parties will have an opportunity to get the initiative reversed. This will make matters worse. On the other hand, it can be argued that the existing system was devised by equally intelligent and experienced people, and ensures that each year every specialist segment of government gets a new lot of young officers, who are selected on the basis of merit, and while merging with the culture of the department, bring a fresh and more educated look to the business.

This writers experience, for example, with the officers of the commerce and trade group, in his capacity as secretary com merce, was very pleasant. Because of their posting in the Export Promotion Bureau (now Trade Development Authority of Pakistan, another needless reform), their frequent visits abroad with trade delegations, close interaction with exporters in various assignments and specialised training abroad gave the officers great depth of knowledge of local and international trade issues. It is also understood that the NCGR has recommended the reorganisation of various divisions of the federal government and have recommended an almost identical set-up at the provincial level. We can examine these issues another time. With reference to the recommendations of the NCGR, the main question that is being asked is why it is considered necessary to knock down the edifice of the civil bureaucracy institutions and rebuild them according to the understanding of our current manager.

Why is it that in the army, which is the only functioning and intact institution of the country, no need has been felt to demolish and rebuild? We see photographs of senior serving officers placing pips on the shoulders of new colonel commandants, who are sometimes retired. Civilians do not understand the philosophy or the administrative need of these well-publicised ceremonies, but this writer for one, respects it as a continuation of a time-honoured tradition, which by all accounts could not have been started by the Mughals and can only be discerned as colonial. Then why are we so gung-ho about demolishing our civil institutions in the name of modernisation and getting rid of this colonial vestige? While talking of government reforms, there is mention of all new bodies like the NCGR etc. But there is no mention of the establishment division, which used to be exclusively and on a wholetime basis responsible for keeping the government running efficiently and effectively. It is with regret that one uses the term used to because one does not hear the mention of the this division in any of these reform initiatives. In fact, the NCGR has also been placed with the prime ministers secretariat as if to say that one does not have confidence in the abilities of the establishment division. This means that the managers have no confidence in restoring and reactivating the existing civil institutions which, in effect, have been disempowered — but to build new ones? It is akin to believing that building a new house is better than renovating an old one because of limitations on account of the design layout, structural restrictions, inconvenience caused to the inmates during renovation, etc.

Building on existing institutions requires a close look at the inefficiencies of our staff working in the institutions that we have set out to reform and replace. It requires a SWOT analysis and consequential remedies, which would revolve around staff recruitment, training, morale and perhaps in some cases internal reorganisation — all mundane and non-glamorous steps. Government managers may, therefore, like to consider applying themselves to the mundane task of identifying deficiencies in the existing organisation and trying to sort them out, rather than following the more glamorous path of reinventing the government. The writer is a former interior secretary. [Daily Dawn, April 26]

DCOs post becomes unattractive for senior bureaucrats

"By Babar Dogar

LAHORE: The post of District Coordination Officer (DCO) has become vestigial tail due to indifference of federal and provincial governments towards this important office.

The post of DCO, considered the linchpin of the district government, has virtually been reduced to the last option for any officer. In districts, especially in rural districts, the DCO ranks fourth after the District & Sessions Judge, Zila Nazim, and the DPO. Due to this, senior DMG officers, who once enjoyed number one position as Deputy Commissioner, are not willing to serve in the district at this lowly position, and prefer to be OSDs. Many senior officers told The News that they didnt want to serve under district Nazims who had the authority to write their ACRs.

The subsequent vacuum created by the unwilling but efficient and honest officers is being filled by ambitious officers with dubious record, who have colluded with the Zila Nazims and are exploiting the situation for personal gains.

Sources said the indifference of the provincial government was the key factor that made the senior officers refuse to serve in district governments. The Chief Minister and the Chief Secretary have never held any meeting with the DCOs. They are left at the mercy of Secretary Finance and Secretary Local Government.

In post devolution scenario majority of young DMG officers felt disappointment with the prevailing system and accepted lucrative offers from the donor agencies. While many others, considered inefficient, were sent to the district governments.

Majority of officers posted as DCO, particularly at divisional headquarters, are grade-19 officers and have very little experience of serving as Deputy Commissioners or even Assistant Commissioners. There are DCOs who were denied field postings by the previous governments under the charge of inefficiency and corruption. However, the present government has posted them as DCO.

The district Nazims are also happy and satisfied with weak and inefficient officers who are more cooperative and obliging. The prevailing collusion between district Nazims and DCOs is quite contrary to the ideals of NRB as the basic objective of DCO office was to post a grade-20 officer at the district to assist the district Nazim in decision-making and problem-solving.

But the situation is entirely different, as the serving DCOs are least bothered about service and solution of public problems. The absence of any proper and effective vigilance system is aggravating the situation. The Local Government Commission, which is supposed to control misuse of power, is not capable of controlling corruption as there is only one Commission in the entire province. The quantum of corruption requires an accountability forum even at every level.

There are reports that majority of DCOs do not attend office, and are mostly found in Lahore living with their families. Their continuous absence has resulted in further corruption among lower officials. The Chief Secretary, who is their immediate boss, seems to have turned a blind eye to the matter. Serious concern is growing among many senior DMG officers who are of the opinion that by its indifference, the government is destroying the already fractured system of governance at district level.

The officers are of the view that the government will have to adopt stick-and- carrot policy to improve the district government system. First of all the government will have to immediately withdraw the authority of district Nazims to write the ACR of DCO to maintain equilibrium at district level. Secondly, it should be mandatory for every DMG officer to serve at least for three years in the districts as DCO for promotion in grade-21. Meanwhile, the government should announce at least three raises in DCOs salaries as compared to administrative secretaries.



regards
mohyuddin ahmad wani

__________________
SIGNATURE LOADING.....