- Giving bureaucrats another reason to run scared
The decision of the present government to retire prematurely civil servants for corruption is problematic for a number of reasons. While there is no doubt that corruption among the bureaucracy is rife, and while there is no smoke without fire, premature retirement is obviously a penalty, and as there is no opportunity given to the officer concerned to defend himself or even hear the charges against him, there is no indication of the criteria on which such retirements are to be carried out. Another is the failure to indicate who the persons are whose recommendations are to be carried out, and thus there is no information on how they are to be vetted.
While the rooting out of corruption means that political leaders are hounded, their bureaucratic accomplices must be rooted out too. However, using the existence of NAB cases is not such a good idea. Bureaucratic resentment against this was so strong that the NAB Ordinance had to be amended to keep NAB away from civil servants. The Ordinance has now lapsed, meaning NAB can go after civil servants again. At that time, it had led to a reinforcing of a do-nothing culture: after all, if a civil servant has not initialed a file, NAB may note he has an untidy desk, but can’t prosecute him for that.
Now, for NAB cases involving a civil servant to exist, is a strong incentive to do nothing even harder. With bureaucrats notorious for their slow pace of work, the government may be approaching paralysis. The most problematic thing is that this is not meant merely to burnish the image of a government elected on an accountability platform, but to enable a cabal of bureaucratic insiders to gain a tool against their opponents. While both the Cabinet Secretary and the Establishment Secretary have a hand in dealing with the civil service, the role of the Secretary to Prime Minister, while minimal formally, is informally crucial. An attempt to make space for party favourites will merely strengthen the role of certain insiders.
